‘We’re in the Most Dangerous Point for Free Speech in America’

0:01David French:This is The Opinions, a show that brings you a mix of voices from New York Times opinion. You've heard the news. Here's what to make of it.

0:18David French:I'm Michelle Cottle. I write about national politics for New York Times opinion. And this week, as usual, I am here with my delightful colleagues and columnists, Jamel Bowie and David French. Guys, welcome. How's it going? It's going all right. Hi, Michelle. Going okay, maybe? Living the dream? You're living the dream? Yeah. Okay, well, we're just going to dive right in. Last week, David, you said Republicans and the right had a decision to make, that after the Charlie Kirk killing, there was a fork in the road. They could go high or they could go low. And it looks like this week we found out which way they're headed.

1:01Jamelle Bouie:You have the crazies on the far left who are saying, oh, Stephen Miller and J.D. Vance, they're going to go after constitutionally protected speech. No, no, no. We're going to go after the NGO network that foments, facilitates, and engages in violence.

1:15David French:There's free speech, and then there's hate speech. And there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie in our society.

1:24Michelle Cottle:The radicals on the left are the problem, and they're vicious, and they're horrible, and they're politically savvy.

1:31David French:So, I want to dig into the free speech of it all, both legally and then culturally, especially with all the high-profile firings and other punishments we've seen. But let's start with the law and the Justice Department's take on this situation. David, we heard Attorney General Pam Bondi there, who got some backlash this week for her extremely creative interpretation of the First Amendment. Let me get your thoughts on the head of the DOJ going after free speech. So, Michelle, this was very interesting and very indicative of this moment in American history because you had Pam Bondi come out and say there's free speech and then there's hate speech, which, spoiler alert, that right there is wrong.

2:15Michelle Cottle:That right there is wrong. For decades and decades, it has been very clear that you cannot ban, punish speech because you have deemed its content hateful. This goes back to a case called RAV versus St. Paul. There's strong echoes of that in cases for decades beforehand. So right there, she was completely wrong. Now, the immediate reaction to it in a weird way was kind of heartening. You saw people from all over the political spectrum, including MAGA voices saying, no, Pam Bondi, that is not right. You need to retract that. And so what does she do? She goes and she walks it back. Axios reported that she said, no, no, you know, we're not going to prosecute people for hateful speech.

2:57Michelle Cottle:But nobody told Donald Trump. So Donald Trump, who's her actual boss, is asked about this hate speech issue by ABC's Jonathan Karl. and he says in response to Jonathan Karl, well, that Bondi would, quote, probably go after people like you, Jonathan Karl of ABC, because, quote, you have a lot of hate in your heart, unquote. And then he brags about collecting a$16 million settlement from ABC, which this gets more ominous as the moment's ticked by, for a form of hate speech. And so did you have the same reaction across the political spectrum against Donald Trump when he raises this hate speech issue.

3:42Michelle Cottle:No, no, because in the MAGAverse, there's a permission structure for going after an underling who is deemed to have failed Trump. There's not the same permission structure for going after Trump. And then just hours after all of this unfolds, you see the FCC commissioner, Brendan Carr, going after Jimmy Kimmel, ABC News late night host for, and look, let's just say it. He, what Kimmel was wrong, or I'll say he was half wrong. This is what Kimmel said. We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.

4:22Michelle Cottle:The best evidence does not suggest that this guy, this shooter, was a member of the MAGA gang. But it is true that there's a lot of point scoring going on, especially in the realm of free speech. And so Brendan Carr, the head of the FCC, threatens ABC. And next thing you know, hours after that, ABC yanks Jimmy Kimmel off the air indefinitely. And so what are we looking at here? What we're looking at is a situation where the response from the administration is vengeful, it's punitive, it's far outpacing any evidence in the case, we've not seen any evidence that this shooter was connected to anybody, much less a network of NGOs or other left-wing organizations.

5:04Michelle Cottle:And so what you're seeing here is a pretext for a remarkable crackdown. And honestly, guys, I feel like we're in the most dangerous point for free speech in America in my lifetime, and I don't think it's close at all.

5:19David French:All right. I want to dig into that more. But first, Jamel, I want to get your thoughts on all of this. It's just a lot to process.

5:27Jamelle Bouie:There's nothing David said that I disagree with. I think his account of this is right on the money. The best way I think I can put this is that these people, the administration, the people eagerly trying to use Kirk's death to impose basically state-directed speech restrictions who are threatening to go after freedom of assembly. This is when you're You're threatening, you know, saying we're going to use the state to go after NGOs. We're going to use the state to go after organizations that do activist work. You're threatening freedom of association. This, to me, it's just like these people hate your freedom.

6:09Jamelle Bouie:Like I don't know what else to say. They hate the fact that you can talk back to them. They hate the fact that you can organize against them. They hate the fact that they cannot control what you say and think and do. I watched Vice President Vance guest host Charlie Kirk's show. And I have to say, as a bit of an aside, it's really strange to have like government of podcasters. I know we're all in front of mics right now. Thank you. But, you know, the president loves to go on podcasts. The vice president, if you watch the video feed, it didn't identify him as the vice president. It identified him as a close friend of Charlie Kirk.

6:50Jamelle Bouie:also, I guess, podcaster. The FBI director is a podcaster, right? Like everyone's a podcaster and it's very weird. And it's like, this is government by, for, and of podcasters. Anyway, that's an aside. I watched this J.D. Vance tirade, this screed, and it's him fabricating and making up and kind of, I would say, lying direct to camera about the reality of the situation, about the realities of political violence and everything, and threatening Americans' kind of basic fundamental rights to speak freely, basic fundamental rights to associate with whom they please, to engage in political activity as they please.

7:31Jamelle Bouie:And I just find it remarkable. I also think that they're very much getting ahead of themselves. I think on the MAGA, right, and certainly the image the administration wants to portray, is that Kirk was this figure beloved by tens of millions of Americans. But in point of fact, although he had a large audience and it was influential, this was relative to the entire population of the country, pretty narrow. You know, I, talking to my parents after the event last week, they didn't know who Charlie Kirk was. They're like well-educated, engaged people, had no idea who he was. And many, many, many, many, many millions of Americans had no idea who this guy was.

8:13Jamelle Bouie:He was not at the head of any kind of social movement. He was not some sort of movement leader. He was a media personality, a popular one within a certain segment, but nothing more and nothing less. And the administration attempting to turn this slain media personality into a kind of martyr for the country, some sort of state-sanctioned saint, and then using that to go after freedoms that people in this country take for granted. Americans take for granted their right to talk crap about other people, to say that the president sucks, right? Like that's something Americans take very seriously, in fact, their right to just say what they please.

8:54Jamelle Bouie:This, to me, feels like them, the administration, its allies, attempting to impose something for which there is no real popular support. And I do wonder if we are not anticipating a real backlash that's going to come in a strong way.

9:15David French:See, Jamal, you are always more optimistic about the coming backlash than I am, David. This is optimism. This is just sort of, you know.

9:23Michelle Cottle:Look, you know, I think when we talk backlash in this moment, we have to talk about what does backlash mean? because really almost at no point in the last 10 years has Trump been a majority, a popular figure with a majority of Americans. But at this point, I think we've learned that you're not gonna see something like, in the absence of maybe some catastrophic economic belt down, you're not gonna see anything like the kind of low approval ratings that you saw for George W. Bush, say at the end of his second term, that he has a higher floor than most politicians because of the dedication of that Republican base.

10:02Michelle Cottle:However, the biggest issue in confronting Trump has always been that that 60 % of America never really was fully united on getting rid of Trump. They may not have liked him, some percentage of that. They may not have liked him, but some of them were saying, I'm gonna vote for him anyway because I don't like the present conditions, I don't like inflation, et cetera, et cetera. The key to ending Trumpism isn't necessarily, And people need to get out of their heads this idea that, aha, this is the thing that will fracture his base. And instead, put in your head, aha, is this the thing that could finally unite his opposition?

10:41Michelle Cottle:Because the uniting of the opposition to Trump would mean a 60-40 sort of arrangement in this country. And so that is, to me, the question. The question isn't, is this one thing or any number of things going to fracture Trump's base? It is, is this one thing or any combination of things going to unite the majority of Americans who are dissatisfied with Trump? And this is where I think their overreach comes in.

11:06Jamelle Bouie:Yeah, and can I just add to that really quickly? I think it's important to recognize that sort of most people who aren't particularly plugged into politics, I think for most of the year, have not thought of this as any different than a regular presidential administration. They don't like it, right? They don't like the cuts. They don't like a lot of the stuff they see. They don't like the ice raids or what have you. But they don't think of it as different than something that came before. But if you have the government, if you have the state, the administration, saying, your favorite late-night comedian can't be on air anymore because he's guilty of speaking ill of my political allies, that's the kind of thing that does dilter down to regular non-political, apolitical people.

11:53Jamelle Bouie:and may begin to show them that, oh, this is actually different. This is not just another Republican administration. This is something that is going after things that I, rights that I take for granted that I really value. And nothing's automatic here. There's still, politics still needs to be done, right? Like a political opposition still needs to take these raw materials and turn them into narratives that help people understand what is happening. But the raw materials are there. The materials to show ordinary Americans that the character of this government is not what you think it is and is threatening your basic rights as Americans, that message can be crafted together, and it just depends on an opposition to do it.

12:41All right.

12:42David French:So that speaks to a question I want to ask both of you, which is that, okay, we have this moment. I think the Trump administration is working as hard as it can to make the Republican Party the party against free speech, the party of cracking down on your political critics. But Americans are being told we're going to crack down on hateful speech, vile speech that is causing political violence. So even folks who philosophically like the idea of free speech, is this something that's going to rally them, really? And again, we're back to that question of what is really going to move people. And, you know, in the last several years, it has been the right that has been fired up about free speech, not the left.

13:35David French:Like, this has not been a crusading point for the left or even the center. So, I mean, how optimistic are we that that 60 percent David's talking about is going to look at this as a major issue for them to push back on? I'm just not that optimistic.

13:54Michelle Cottle:Oh, I don't think this alone. I mean, look at it this way. It's a cumulative effect. It's sort of brick by brick rather than any one key moment. Because once again, if there was any such thing as one key moment doing it, January 6th is like a much bigger deal than any of this. But Michelle, you hit on something very important, and that is how the right is very good at keeping the troops together, you could have 100 Democratic politicians say all of the right things from Obama all the way through expressing lament and grief at Charlie Kirk's assassination. You could have all of the mainstream media, even the, you know, you could have the nation, or was it Jacobin magazine editorialized against the Charlie Kirk murder.

14:41Michelle Cottle:This Jacobin, that's not mainstream, that's left. And then there's a teacher in Portland who gets on TikTok and celebrates it, You know, and they're like, look, this is what the left is doing. That's what they are doing. And this is they. That's what they are. And so they're very good at that. And that rallies the base. Okay, for sure. And I don't think anyone has found a way to penetrate that closed loop. But here's the thing. If you're looking at the 60%, if on the one hand you're saying, we're taking out the worst of the worst and the NGOs and the terror networks, and that means Jimmy Kimmel.

15:15Michelle Cottle:Then you're like, there's a disconnect, right? I mean, if the next thing you had after this, we're going after the bad people, was singling out somebody who had done some horrific celebration of Charlie Kirk, who was a television personality, just horrific celebration of the death, that would land very differently than Jimmy Kimmel. One of the things that you're seeing on the right is these guys are extremely hubristic right now. They think all of the wind is at their back. They think that they are the alphas of the culture right now. They are feeling their oats. And they are overreaching at a level.

15:53Michelle Cottle:And I agree with Jamel. They are absolutely overreaching. But here's what worries me. Can you overreach so much that when you push so far into actual authoritarianism, does that have a more intimidating effect than it does a rallying effect. And it's obvious to me that that's what they're heading towards. They're trying to push all the way through normal American politics and get to a point where they feel like that they can dictate the terms of the debate through sheer retribution and intimidation and cow opponents into silence. And so I think that is literally the core theory of the case here, that they can just push through normal politics and achieve sweeping permanent change through the raw exercise of power.

16:37Jamelle Bouie:I think that's right. I think that's absolutely their theory of change. And I think it's mistaken in part because their theory of change and their theory of society is very top down. You see this whenever Christopher Ruffo talks about this stuff. He seems to have this idea that there's some representative of liberals, of liberalism that can offer terms of surrender, right? when Vance talks about going after NGOs, earlier in the year, Elon Musk had similar words, you know, we defunded or we destroyed USAID. We've done a blow to the left. What they believe is that liberal politics, liberalism, social justice politics, all these beliefs are a top-down phenomena of elites that they don't like.

17:27Jamelle Bouie:And so that if you get rid of, if you go after George Soros, if you go after the Ford Foundation, if you go after USAID, if you go after television comedians, then people will stop believing this stuff. You will secure your victory because none of this is real. It's all just top down. I happen to think that this is a bit of projection about the nature of their political movement, that it is quite top down. It is funded by, you know, secretive billionaires who can allow someone like Charlie Kirk to work out the kind of performance they're doing and not really have to worry about earning money in any way.

18:09Jamelle Bouie:That there's this huge infrastructure of money and influence on the political right that does do what I think they think happens on the political left. And I think that the weak point in this strategy is simply that the stuff that they hate flows organically up from the bottom, right? The reason why George Floyd became a cause for millions of Americans isn't because a bunch of liberal elites in television studios were telling people you have to care about George Floyd. This was an organic reaction of the society to something that many people felt was wrong. And their feelings that it was wrong is in turn a product of organic changes in the society.

19:02Jamelle Bouie:It's a product of integration among people. It's a product of, you know, scholars and historians doing their own work in their own thing. and that kind of slowly changing understandings of what American history is. It's just a product of civil society and of democratic life kind of happening spontaneously. And that's not something you can control from the top down. Like successful authoritarians know this. Successful authoritarian movements, successful authoritarian countries know that they can't actually control every thought of the people under them. All they can do is make it disadvantageous to express that.

19:41Jamelle Bouie:And then also make life good for enough people that no one cares all that much.

19:45David French:Well, that certainly could be where the administration is sort of headed, right?

19:50Jamelle Bouie:That could be where we're going. I don't think on the make things good enough for enough people that they don't care is like working out for them precisely because of the economic mismanagement. I think that's another weak point of all of this. But I just want to emphasize, and you guys tell me I'm optimistic. I'm not optimistic. I'm just sort of like, I'm always, my question is always, well, how does this actually work practically? Like the mechanics of these things, how is this kind of consolidation supposed to work in practice? And if the theory of the case is that no one really believes in liberal values, no one really believes in values of equality and inclusion, if that's your theory, then you're going to be surprised when it turns out that, in fact, many tens of millions of Americans believe these things and believe them quite sincerely and are willing to act on those beliefs.

20:50Michelle Cottle:You know, there is about a 50-year unfolding genesis of this belief that social change occurs top down. And part of it is rooted in a very important choice that the conservative American religious community made sort of slowly at first and then more rapidly, beginning about 40, 50 years ago. And that was as they looked at social changes around issues of sexuality and other issues, they determined that the way to intervene into the process of social change in America was going to be primarily political and not cultural. And you began to see emerging, and you see this throughout a lot of sort of American evangelicalism, is this idea that really the ultimate way of achieving change.

21:35Michelle Cottle:The real, what really gets change is the attainment of power. And that then began to channel so much of religious activity in this country into the acquisition of power. There's a show on Amazon Prime, Shiny Happy People, that has taken two seasons looking at sort of two big religious movements in the US, one involving teens, one involving like homeschool parents, et cetera. And one thing that you see is a lot of these figures, as they got more influential, many, not all, but many of them, as sort of the culminating act of influence, they moved into politics. The cultural influence became merely the prelude for the real thing, which was politics.