Larry Flynt, Jimmy Kimmel, and the First Amendment
When it comes to the Trump regime's attacks on freedom of speech, we're somewhere between the third and fourth alarm of a five-alarm fire.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
— First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
Larry Flynt was probably best known as the publisher of Hustler, a “girlie magazine” that pushed the boundaries of what was acceptable content. Flynt was unapologetic for the content of his magazine and, if sales of his magazine were any indication, there was a huge market for what he was peddling. It made him a millionaire many times over.
But Larry Flynt is probably known most for becoming an unintentional First Amendment advocate. He found himself in court multiple times on obscenity charges. His First Amendment challenges culminated in Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, the case that garnered Flynt the most attention.
The case was ultimately heard by the Supreme Court, which found that the scathing satirical ad that characterized Jerry Falwell as an incestuous pervert was within the scope of Flynt’s First Amendment rights. (It’s questionable whether the current SCOTUS would reach the same conclusion if presented with the same case today, but that’s perhaps another discussion.)
The bottom line in Flynt’s long line of First Amendment cases is that a completely unlikely person ultimately became known as much — or perhaps more — for being a First Amendment advocate than he was for his porn empire.
“I think I had to stand in a courtroom and listen to a judge sentence me to 25 years in prison before I realized it [the First Amendment] was something that could no longer be taken for granted.”
— Larry Flynt, Publisher
That brings us to the more recent unintentional First Amendment hero, Jimmy Kimmel. Kimmel, like a number of comedians, has become known for his often withering criticism of Trump, his administration, and his various lackeys and sycophants. Long before the most recent dustup, you could tell that Kimmel had gotten under Trump’s extremely thin orange skin, because Trump would publicly criticize Kimmel, saying that he was “low IQ” and had “very low ratings” (which, in Trump’s mind, is the worst possible insult he could hurl).
But Trump’s revenge machinery went into high gear when Kimmel made a completely true but perhaps insensitively timed observation about the murderer of recently deceased white supremacist Charlie Kirk. Kirk had managed to galvanize the youth vote for Trump with his hate speech cloaked in religion, and Trump didn’t want to risk alienating that valuable voting bloc.
Kimmel’s relatively tame observation was immediately followed by footage of Trump boasting about his plan for the new White House ballroom in response to a reporter’s question about Kirk. Kimmel then had the audacity to broadcast Trump’s own words to highlight his self-interest.
Kimmel had broken Trump’s number one rule: Never mock the king, especially by simply telling the truth.
We will probably never know precisely what went on behind the scenes — what phone calls took place among Trump, FCC Chairperson Brendan Carr, ABC Disney, Sinclair, and Nexstar. But given this regime’s history, we can be certain that there was a lot of backchannel conversation and arm-twisting, resulting in Carr threatening to revoke the broadcast licenses of stations that didn’t bow to Trump’s will.
ABC Disney pulled Jimmy Kimmel Live! from its schedule. Sinclair and Nexstar went so far as to keep Kimmel off the air even after ABC Disney had relented and returned the show to its schedule.
It quickly became clear, however, that Sinclair and Nexstar had overplayed their hands. They apparently thought they would be able to determine, on behalf of each of the individual markets they serve, what those communities’ standards are. More importantly, they believed that their positions as station owners somehow gave them the authority to deprive the viewers in those communities of their First Amendment rights.
But viewers pushed back, in a big way. Viewers put pressure on Sinclair and Nexstar via social media posts, complaints to advertisers, and boycotts of individual stations. Once Sinclair and Nexstar realized they were losing advertising dollars for themselves and for ABC (and that no one was watching what they put on in place of Jimmy Kimmel Live!), they scurried to save face and put Kimmel back on the air.
There’s another issue here — one that at first may seem tangential but is extremely important to the long-term health of the First Amendment. Nexstar and Tegna (another corporate owner of local TV stations) have proposed a merger that would make them the largest owners of stations in the country. Nexstar — and Sinclair, by extension — didn’t want to do anything that would put that merger at risk.
That merger requires approval from Brendan Carr’s FCC, and Carr has already proven his undying fealty to Trump. Approval of the merger also relies on the FCC lifting the cap on the number of local stations a company can own. Sinclair would also benefit from lifting the cap. (Viewers, however, would not.)
Such a change would virtually guarantee that there would be no unbiased local news in many markets. Ownership of so many stations by right-leaning Sinclair, Nexstar and Tegna would be an autocrat’s dream.
This potential right-wing control of the vast majority of local television news would be happening after a couple of decades of the decline in the number of local newspapers and the shrinking or consolidation of newspapers in major markets, making it increasingly difficult for average citizens to find unbiased information or opposing viewpoints about issues that affect their communities.
When I think about my own community — Portland, Oregon — as an example, the local television news landscape is troubling. There are five TV stations that broadcast local news in Portland. The current configuration is already fairly right-leaning in a primarily progressive/left-leaning market:
KATU — Channel 2 (ABC affiliate owned by Sinclair) — As a Sinclair-owned station, KATU has succumbed to entirely biased reporting. They are required to run opinion programming masquerading as news reporting provided by their right-wing overlord. Ever since Sinclair acquired KATU, their local news broadcasts have invariably painted Portland in a negative light, quietly attributing every unflattering aspect of the city to liberal and progressive policies.
KOIN — Channel 6 (CBS affiliate, owned by Nexstar) — The broadcasts I’ve seen on KOIN haven’t shown a particular political slant, but they also don’t make much of an effort to include national news stories in their local broadcasts. They currently seem mostly to broadcast somewhat anodyne stories.
KGW — Channel 8 (NBC affiliate owned by Tegna) — This NBC station is the most watchable of our local news stations. It doesn’t intentionally venture into controversial topics, but it doesn’t shy away from them either. It seems to reflect the true character of Portland and Oregon as a whole more than the other stations but, of course, that’s only my perspective.
KPTV — Channel 12 (Fox affiliate owned by Gray Media) — When I was younger, I used to hear phrases like “ambulance chaser news” and “if it bleeds, it leads.” Of all the stations in Portland that have news broadcasts, KPTV is closest to that model. Their broadcasts often start out with a 10- or 15-minute rundown of the latest violent crimes and car crashes, the equivalent of a sensationalized on-air police blotter. Their news programs also sometimes feature national stories with coverage provided by Fox News.
KPDX — Channel 32 (CW affiliate owned by Nexstar) — KPDX co-broadcasts news programming with KOIN, so there’s virtually no daylight between KPDX and KOIN when it comes to news content.
If the Nexstar/Tegna merger is approved, there will be no local news that isn’t generated by a right-leaning organization or that overtly broadcasts news from a right-leaning perspective (or both). There will be no local news that is free from bias. That’s a recipe for a misinformed community.
I used Portland as an example, but this scenario is playing out in communities across the country. In fact, it has happened already in some communities where Sinclair controls most or all of the local affiliates, leaving huge swaths of the nation with completely biased media.
The First Amendment is clearly under attack. It would be alarming enough if it were only a late night talk show. But this most recent attack is part of a well-orchestrated plan to suppress any speech that doesn’t align with the values of the Trump regime.
We’ve witnessed book bans and book burnings. There have been and continue to be armed threats against peaceful protests. There has been pressure from the regime (some call it extortion) on network news organizations and newspapers. Reputable news outlets have been denied access to White House press briefings, only to be replaced by questionable right-wing propagandists, podcasters, and bloggers. There have even been threats made to ban pornography, which loops us back to the accidental First Amendment champion, Larry Flynt.
It’s going to be a long, slow fight on many fronts to reclaim and restore our most fundamental rights as citizens. Perhaps the best way to protect our First Amendment rights is to exercise them — loudly and frequently — in whatever ways we can.