The recent suspension of Jimmy Kimmel from late-night television, seemingly a temporary measure, has sparked a debate surrounding the Trump administration’s approach to media criticism. A small but notable group of conservatives and Republicans have voiced strong objections to what they perceive as the administration’s heavy-handed tactics, labeling them as “mafioso behavior.”
Senator Ted Cruz, for instance, condemned the administration’s actions, warning of a dangerous precedent that could be exploited by future Democratic administrations to silence conservative voices. Cruz added that such power, once established, would be used ruthlessly. Similarly, Ben Shapiro, while expressing little sympathy for Kimmel, highlighted the potential for abuse, emphasizing the dangers of granting the FCC the power to censor content deemed “informationally false,” arguing that such authority could easily be wielded against conservative media outlets in the future.
This criticism, though limited in its scale, deserves recognition as a crucial counterpoint to the prevailing climate of bullying and moral panic following the tragic murder of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk. The response to Kirk’s death has presented a striking paradox: admirers praise Kirk’s staunch defense of free speech, yet simultaneously advocate for actions that directly contradict that principle.
The cognitive dissonance is stark. Kirk himself, rightly ridiculed the legal concept of “hate speech,” asserting that all speech, however ugly, gross, or evil, is protected under the First Amendment. However, following his murder, Attorney General Pam Bondi promised a crackdown on “hate speech,” promising retribution against those who engage in such speech, particularly in light of Kirk’s death.
President Trump, characteristically, framed the issue in personal terms, claiming that excessively negative news coverage constitutes an infringement on free speech. “that’s no longer free speech,” he declared, adding that negative portrayals of positive news stories are “really illegal.”
The central argument presented by Cruz, Shapiro, and other conservatives regarding the administration’s administration’s heel turn on the First Amendment, while factually sound, suffers from a critical flaw. While they are correct in fearing that a future Democratic administration might use the current precedents to target right-wing media—an argument often bolstered by the claim that the present actions are merely exploiting precedents set by previous Democratic administrations—their argument misses the fundamental wrongness of the actions themselves.
The “they did it to us first” and “they could do it to us later” arguments, whether applied to censorship, “lawfare,” congressional redistricting, or other issues, sidestep the morality of the actions. Kirk’s murder, for example, remains unequivocally wrong, regardless of his views or the content of his speech. Murder is inherently wrong; we stop calling it murder only if mitigating factors exist. Retaliatory violence, even against a prominent left-wing figure, would be equally wrong. The principle that two wrongs do not make a right is fundamental, yet it is often disregarded in the current tribal political climate.
The prevailing logic echoes the ” Chicago way,” where any perceived transgression must be repaid with interest. While cautioning conservatives about the potential consequences of their actions is understandable, and perhaps even necessary to gain traction, it is deeply regrettable that tribalism compels both sides to abandon objective moral standards. The use of government power to punish critical speech is fundamentally wrong, regardless of who holds power or the perceived validity of the criticism.
The “fight fire with fire” approach is ultimately self-defeating. It leads to widespread destruction and sets a dangerous precedent, allowing opponents’ indefensible actions to become the new norm. The solution isn’t to fight fire with fire; it’s to fight it with water. A dose of calm, rational thought is desperately needed in the current political climate.