Freedom of Speech, Press, and Assembly
The First Amendment protects your right to criticize the government, protest its actions, and organize with others who share your concerns.
In September 2025, the American Broadcasting Company(ABC) and its corporate parent, the Walt Disney Company, suspended production of the late-night talk show Jimmy Kimmel Live!, following criticism from conservatives and public pressure from Trump administration.
In January 2026, Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old US citizen and mother, was shot and killed by an ICE agent in Minneapolis, MN. Two weeks later Alex Jeffrey Pretti, a 37-year-old American intensive care nurse for the Department of Veterans Affairs, was shot multiple times and killed by United States Customs and Border Protection agents. The incident occurred amid widespread protests against Operation Metro Surge.
Later that month, Don Lemon and journalist Georgia Fort were both arrested after reporting live from inside a Minneapolis church where activists gathered to protest ICE. Journalists have long been able to cover the most dangerous and controversial events across the globe without facing criminal charges. But under Trump’s orders, Lemon and Fort are accused of conspiracy and violating the First Amendment, according to the federal indictment.
What the First Amendment Says
“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.”
This is the foundation of American democracy. Five protections in one sentence:
- Freedom of religion (government can’t establish a religion or prohibit religious practice)
- Freedom of speech (government can’t punish you for what you say)
- Freedom of the press (government can’t censor or control media)
- Freedom of assembly (you can gather with others, including to protest)
- Right to petition (you can demand the government address your grievances)
These aren’t separate rights—they work together. Free speech means nothing if you can’t gather with others to amplify it. Free press means nothing if government can kill journalists. The right to protest means nothing if government can shoot protesters and lie about it.
Where This Comes From
The Founders wrote the First Amendment because they’d watched the British government suppress dissent, censor newspapers, and prosecute criticism as sedition. They wrote “Congress shall make no law” because they wanted no ambiguity about the government’s power to restrict speech.
Colonial America:
British authorities censored colonial newspapers. They arrested pamphleteers for criticizing the Crown. They banned public gatherings. They prosecuted “seditious libel”—the crime of criticizing government officials, even if what you said was true.
The most famous case: John Peter Zenger, a New York printer, was prosecuted in 1735 for publishing articles critical of the colonial governor. His defense: the articles were true. The jury acquitted him, establishing the principle that truth is a defense against libel charges. This became a foundation of press freedom.
Sedition Act of 1798:
Even after the First Amendment was ratified, the federal government tried to criminalize criticism. The Sedition Act of 1798 made it illegal to publish “false, scandalous, and malicious writing” against the government. President John Adams used it to prosecute newspaper editors who criticized him.
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison opposed the law as blatantly unconstitutional. When Jefferson became president in 1801, he pardoned everyone convicted under it.
Why “Congress shall make no law”:
The First Amendment doesn’t say “the government should generally respect free speech” or “Congress can regulate speech if there’s a good reason.” It says “Congress shall make no law.” This is absolute language. The Founders wanted no ambiguity: government cannot suppress speech, press, assembly, or petition.
Over time, courts have recognized narrow exceptions—you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater, incite imminent violence, or defame someone with actual malice. But the baseline rule is: government cannot punish speech, even offensive speech, even false speech, even speech government officials hate.
Current Attacks on Free Speech
Arresting journalists:
During protests and immigration enforcement operations, journalists have been arrested, detained, and had equipment confiscated while covering events. The justification: they were “interfering” with law enforcement or in “restricted areas.”
But documenting government actions is exactly what the free press clause protects. When government can arrest journalists for reporting on what it’s doing, there is no free press.
Restricting protest:
Federal and local governments have designated “protest zones” far from the events being protested. They’ve required permits that take weeks to obtain. They’ve arrested people for protesting without permits, even though the First Amendment doesn’t say “you can assemble if you get permission first.”
The right to assemble includes the right to assemble where your message will be heard. A “free speech zone” three blocks away from the event you’re protesting isn’t free speech—it’s containment.
Threatening media licenses:
The president has repeatedly threatened to revoke broadcast licenses of media outlets that criticize him. He’s called critical coverage “fake news,” suggested changing libel laws to make it easier to sue journalists, and encouraged supporters to view the press as “the enemy of the people.”
A free press requires independence from government intimidation. When the president threatens media licenses for unfavorable coverage, he’s attacking the foundation of press freedom.
The CBS Example
CBS, with its legacy spanning Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite, and 60 Minutes, was acquired by Skydance Media. David Ellison, Skydance founder and son of billionaire Trump supporter Larry Ellison, now controls the network.
What followed:
- CBS appointed a new ombudsman with “strong conservative credentials”
- Brought in Bari Weiss to “manage” the news department, including 60 Minutes
- Promised to run full, unedited interviews after receiving blowback from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem
- In talks to hire a news executive who believes “mainstream press is reflexively biased”
- CBS’s previous owner paid Trump $16 million to settle a lawsuit he brought against the network
- Trump’s FCC pressured the network during the ownership sale
- Skydance now wants to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery (owner of CNN)—a deal requiring Trump administration regulatory approval
This is how press freedom dies without formal censorship: The president sues networks. His regulators block sales. Then a Trump supporter’s son buys the network. The network restructures its newsroom to address “concerns” from Trump and his cabinet. And when that network wants to buy CNN, it needs Trump administration approval again.
No censorship law required. Just financial pressure, regulatory power, and the understanding that critical coverage has consequences.
Pressuring entertainment:
Networks have faced pressure to censor late-night comedians like Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert for jokes about Trump. The pressure comes through multiple channels—threats to broadcast licenses, advertiser pressure, corporate ownership changes, and direct attacks from the White House.
Comedy and satire are core First Amendment-protected speech. When networks self-censor comedians to avoid presidential retaliation, free speech is chilled without any formal law being passed.
Why This Matters
The First Amendment exists because the Founders understood that governments hate being criticized. Kings imprisoned dissenters. Colonial governors censored newspapers. Even the Founders themselves, once in power, tried to criminalize criticism through the Sedition Act.
Free speech is uncomfortable. It means protecting speech you disagree with, speech that offends you, speech that makes you angry. But the alternative is government deciding which speech is acceptable and which isn’t. History shows that governments always define “unacceptable speech” as criticism of the government.
Free press is essential to accountability. If government can control what media reports, citizens can’t make informed decisions. If government can arrest journalists for covering its actions, there’s no check on government power.
The right to protest is the last resort when other channels fail. If you can’t vote out the people in power (gerrymandering), can’t stop them in court (packed courts), and can’t petition them for change (they ignore you), protest is what’s left. When government can kill protesters and face no consequences, there is no peaceful way to challenge government action.
The chilling effect is real. When Renee Good was killed for protesting, how many other people decided it wasn’t worth the risk? When journalists are arrested for covering immigration enforcement, how many outlets decide to stay away? When the president calls the press “the enemy of the people,” how many reporters self-censor to avoid being targeted?
This is how the First Amendment dies: not through a formal repeal, but through making people too afraid to exercise their rights.
The Enforcement Gap
Courts can enforce the First Amendment—if they’re willing to stand up to the executive branch. Federal judges have blocked some government restrictions on protest, struck down some arrests of journalists, and protected some press freedoms.
But enforcement depends on cases reaching courts, plaintiffs having resources to sue, and judges ruling against the government. When federal agents kill someone and the federal government investigates itself, there may never be a trial. When journalists are arrested and released without charges, there may be no case to appeal. When protesters are intimidated into staying home, there’s no First Amendment violation to challenge—just the absence of protest.
The First Amendment also depends on cultural norms. For decades, even presidents who hated media criticism accepted that attacking the press was inappropriate. That norm is gone. When the president calls journalists “enemies of the people” and threatens broadcast licenses, he’s not violating the First Amendment directly—but he’s creating an environment where his supporters feel justified harassing and threatening journalists.
The First Amendment only works if government officials respect it and citizens demand it. When both fail, the protection disappears.
Government couldn’t label protest movements as terrorism to justify surveillance and prosecution.
Critics argue that absolute free speech protection enables dangerous rhetoric, spreads misinformation, and undermines social cohesion. They point to countries with hate speech laws and argue America should follow their example.
The response: Yes, free speech enables offensive and false speech. That’s the point. The alternative is trusting government to decide what speech is acceptable. History shows that governments define “dangerous speech” very broadly when given the chance. Today it’s hate speech. Tomorrow it’s criticism of government policy. Eventually it’s any dissent at all.
The Founders didn’t protect free speech because they thought all speech was valuable. They protected it because they didn’t trust government to make that determination.
