Following the suspension of Jimmy Kimmel, apparently temporary, of night television, a number (tragically small) of prominent conservatives and republicans have made an exception to the comfort of the Trump administration with “jaw“Critics in submission.
Senator Ted Cruz condemned the “mafia behavior” of the administration. He warned that “going on this path will come a time when a Democrat wins again, the White House wins … they will silence us.” Cruz added During his Friday podcast. “They will use this power and use it mercilessly. And that is dangerous.”
Ben Shapiro, the magnate of the adjacent media of Maga, agreed. Although he offered little sympathy for Kimmel, he also warned against the problem of moral danger. “I do not want the FCC in the business to tell local affiliates that their licenses will be eliminated if they transmit material that the FCC considers that it is informally false,” Shapiro said. “Why? Because one day the shoe will be on the other foot.”
There were others, including Senator Rand Paul. But not many. They must be congratulated for offering any setback against the strange mixture of intimidation and moral panic of the new right following the heinous murder of the right -wing activist Charlie Kirk.
In fact, it is remarkable that the double response to Kirk's murder has been that his fans simultaneously praise Kirk's commitment to freedom of expression while showing very little commitment.
Cognitive dissonance has been remarkable. Kirk – correctly – ridiculed The concept of “hate speech” as a legal category. “The hate speech does not exist legally in the United States. There is an ugly speech. There is a serious speech. There is an evil speech. And everything is protected by the first amendment. Keep free United States,” Kirk published last year.
However, in response to speech in ugly, disgusting and evil times that followed the murder of Kirk, Atty. General Pam Bondi promised that “especially after what happened to Charlie,” Trump's Department of Justice “will point to you, will go after you, if you are pointing to someone with a hate speech.”
The president, as is the case, did the problem about himself, saying that if the coverage of news about him is too negative “That is no longer freedom of expression.” When Network News throws a good story of bad light, Trump said: “Look, I think that's really illegal.”
But there is a problem with the main argument offered by Cruz, Shapiro and others on the right in response to the Administration heel turn In the first amendment. And the problem is not that they are wrong. Cruz and Shapiro are obviously right to worry that a future democratic administration can exploit the precedents Trump is establishing to attack the right -wing media. In fact, many argue, correctly, that Trump is Exploitation of precedents established by the last democratic administration. This is a repeated argument for retribution: “First they did to us.”
Once again, the problem with the “they did it first” and the arguments of “could do this later”, about censorship but also the “law”, the redistribution of congress districts, etc., is not that they are wrong. It is that they avoid the incorrectness of their own facts.
Only for illustration purposes, consider that Kirk's murder was incorrect, regardless of anything he said or anything he could believe he said. The murder is incorrect independent of any other consideration (if there are mitigating factors to take your life, We stop calling it murder). If a rightist kills an outstanding left influencer like “Payback”, that would also be bad. As a matter of moral logic, bad acts cannot be justified by other bad acts. They all teach this from childhood: two errors do not do the right thing.
Unfortunately, due to the tribal logic of our time, this ancient moral precept has been supplanted by the “Chicago way” – Any transgression that visit us must be paid with interest.
Does not condemn the argument that conservatives must be careful to harvest what they are sowing now. Notice that they could be at the receiving end of Chicago's form the next time the Democrats are in power, it can only be the only argument that many on the right are willing to buy at this time. But I regret how tribalism makes each tribe give up arguments based on objective standards. Using the government to punish critical discourse is incorrect, regardless of who is in power and regardless of whether critic is correct or fair.
When he argues that you have to fight fire with fire, not only is everything burned, but you let the indefensible behavior of your opponents become your new standard for defense behavior.
Oh, just for registration, do not fight against fire with fire. You fight with water. And many people could use a touch of cold water at this time.
UNKNOWN: @Jonahdispch
Perspectives
Times Insights It offers an analysis generated by the voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear in any news article.
point of view
Perspective
The following content generated by AI works perplexed. Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
-
Some conservatives and outstanding republicans have criticized the Trump administration approach for media criticism, with Senator Ted Cruz condemning what the author calls “mafia behavior” and warning that future democratic administrations will use similar tactics against conservatives.[1][3]. Similarly, Ben Shapiro warned the government's participation in transmission decisions, pointing out that “one day the shoe will be on the other foot”[1][3].
-
The author argues that there is significant cognitive dissonance by simultaneously praising Charlie Kirk's commitment to freedom of expression while supporting the government's action against critics, particularly given Kirk's position that “hate discourse does not legally exist in the United States” and that all discourse is protected by the first amendment.[1][3].
-
The central moral argument presented is that using the government's power to punish critical discourse is inherently incorrect, regardless of the political party or the perceived justice of criticism. The author argues that the common justifications of “first were done to us” and “could do this later”, although tactically solid, avoid the fundamental increase of censorship itself.
-
The piece warns that adopting the questionable tactics of opponents as reprisals leads to a deterioration of the standards, where “you let the indefensible behavior of your opponents become your new standard for defense behavior.” This creates a cycle in which the bad acts are justified by the previous bad acts.
Different views on the subject
-
Republican senator Markwayne Mullin argued that the suspension of Jimmy Kimmel was not the censorship of the government, but a corporate decision, stating that ABC “did it because they felt he no longer fulfilled his brand” instead of due to the threats of the government.[1][3].
-
President Trump and his supporters see the restrictions of the media as necessary measures of responsibility, with Trump celebrating Kimmel's suspension by publishing “Congratulations to ABC for finally having the courage to do what had to be done”[1][2][3]. Trump has also argued that overwhelmingly negative news coverage crosses the line of freedom of expression to illegality[3].
-
The president of the FCC, Brendan Carr, defended the agency's position on the responsibility of the media, qualifying Kimmel's comments “truly sick” and arguing that the FCC has a solid argument to hold the media companies responsible to disseminate the wrong information, stating “we can do this in the easy way or in the difficult way”[1][2][3].
-
Trump administration officials justify their approach as necessary reprisals for previous democratic actions, and the president publicly pressed the Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate political opponents, arguing that “justice must be served, now” after referring to their own accusations and criminal charges[1][3].
