Recent events have sparked conversation about the first amendment and freedom of speech.
ABC pulled Jimmy Kimmel Live! off air after comments Kimmel made about the assassination of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk, which has sparked public and regulatory pressure, including warnings from FCC Chair, Brendan Carr. Disney reinstated the show six days later, calling his remarks “ill-timed and thus insensitive.” Still, many ABC affiliates, such as Nexstar and Sinclair, have refused to air the episodes, even after the return. Both companies have cited concerns about community standards and content.
The editors had a variety of opinions on the Kimmel situation. One editor shared how first amendment rights may not apply in a situation like this saying, “I think just like any job the agency under which you’re working for has the right to terminate your position based on things you say. The first amendment doesn’t protect you from your employer as you are working under a private company.”
Another editor agreed with this sentiment, claiming that it is up to the employers to make the decision, “If they decide they don’t want to air a certain show anymore, that is their right to do so.”
One editor disagreed with how far the networks went in this situation. They said, “I think it is abhorrent that networks went to the extent they did just because of an ‘ill-timed’ comment. People have said way worse and gotten away with it, but when it touches on a subject a little too hot to handle, it’s not okay.”
At the Pentagon, new guidelines rolled out under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth requiring “credentialed reporters” to sign a pledge that any information, even if unclassified, must be approved by Defense Department authorities before publishing. Critics, such as Seth Stern with the Free Press Foundation, warned that the new policy “operates as a prior restraint… the most serious First Amendment violations,” according to TIME.
The editors were asked about their thoughts on free speech and where the line might be in journalism. One editor defined free speech as “…the ability to speak about opinions, ideas, criticisms, and thoughts without facing any government interference or retaliation.”
When it comes to free speech in journalism, the editors had differing opinions on where the line may be drawn. Some editors didn’t think that line was truly there at all. One editor uniquely explained it. They said, “There isn’t a single hard line in free speech, but more like zones, the way planets orbit a sun. Too close to the sun and you get a burning hot take, too far and the speech is frozen out as ‘irrelevant’. The Goldilocks zone is the socially acceptable opinion, where most people feel comfortable, but all zones are allowed to and should coexist without turbulence.”
One editor had a slightly different opinion, saying that there is a line that could be crossed. They said, “I do think there is a line in free speech and journalism. I am a big believer in freedom of the press, but if certain articles are extremely biased or opinionated when they really shouldn’t be, I think that could lead to problematic outcomes and false information.”
A third editor also had a strong belief in a journalist’s right to freedom of speech. They said, “Journalists having the right to free speech is imperative to informing the public about current events. I think that journalists should be able to say what they want as long as they are following the code of ethics, this way they do not open themselves up to libel or defamation suits.”
Free speech is never simple. Recent events have shown how fragile it can feel in practice. Whether it’s a late-night host suspended under political pressure or journalists facing new restrictions at the Pentagon, the boundaries of what can be said and who gets to decide remain contested. What hasn’t changed is that the First Amendment continues to spark debate across media, institutions, and households alike. The real test going forward is not whether free speech will always be comfortable, but whether institutions and individuals are willing to protect it when it isn’t.
