>> Jimmy Kimmel Live is set to come back on the air tomorrow.

But concerns over freedom of speech still linger with ongoing debate about government censorship amid pressure from the Federal Communications Commission, ABC suspended Kimmel last week after comments he made about Charlie Kirk's death on his late night show.

The move sparked outcry from Kimmel supporters who say the Trump administration went too far in an effort to silence him.

Joining us to talk about all this are Laura Beth Nielsen along sociology professor with Northwestern University.

Are co-lead counsel for tech policy at the Foundation for individual rights and expression and on zoom, Chicago, based comedian Patton again.

Lots to dig into.

Thank you all for joining us.

We appreciate it.

So it was just this afternoon we learned that Kamala set to return after his suspension last week, which drew a widespread backlash.

Here's a bit of what President Trump had to say yesterday at Charlie Kirk's memorial service.

>> And the same commentators who this week are screaming fascism over a canceled late night TV show where?

The anchor had no talent and no ratings.

Last week were implying that Charlie Kirk.

Deserved what happened >> So, you know, Ari FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, pretty openly be the threatened ABC after Campbell's comments about Charlie Kirk.

What do you make of the FCC's Roland Kimmel suspension?

What's not unprecedented >> Network pulling a host after controversy.

What is entirely unprecedented is the direct line from government threat.

2 network action.

And that's what's so astonishing here.

The FCC's threats to do this either the easy way or the hard way, which is truly something you expect to hear in the Godfather not coming out of the mouth of government official played a huge role in that pressure.

And as we've seen with lawsuits and other regulatory pressures of institutions are caving left and right.

And that is a really big problem for free speech in America.

>> And of course, there's also the issue of, you know, major media group that owns many ABC stations that needs FCC approval for, you know, a potential merger deal.

So that sort of another wrinkle there.

Yeah.

And and these these companies are always going to have business before the FCC.

It is just it.

that can't be helped.

But what lack the problem is.

>> When you pay the extortionist once they always come back for more, it's never just once.

So unless you plan on keeping every single time, the Trump administration as an issue or will a future administration even has an issue with what you're broadcasting You're in for a bad time.

If you think that this is just you're in a cave in and go along with this.

>> You know, Pat is as a comedian.

What effect do you think a suspension like this can have on the larger community of comics and performers, even folks who aren't necessarily particularly political.

>> Well, I think it's just a little bit alarming, right?

And then seems speak to a trend we with cold air on the heels of this.

It sounded like they were to do more like this is not the last shoe to drop.

There might be more consequences.

don't know.

It's kind of seems surreal.

You know that I'm even here talking about this.

>> I'm kind money.

Seems to be a place where we talk about troops and in is a place where we kind of tackle heart issues and it you know, when they're starting to silence comics, a cause for concern.

So I think we have continue just watch and see what what happens next.

Yeah.

>> You know, learn about obviously there's been lots of conversations hear about the government's role, potential overreach into folks using words like censorship in what circumstances is the government allowed to restrict speech?

>> Well, it's a great question and a lot of people are framing what's happening right now in terms of hate speech.

And it's important.

To understand that, you know, speech in the United States of America is allowed until it's not.

And hate speech is not a category and that we have decided is okay to legally restrict.

We restrict lots of kinds of speeches, defamation.

We restrict commercial speech advertising we're checked, fighting words.

We hate speech is not something that we.

Constitutionally can restrict and the circumstances in which the government itself can restrict speech are extremely limited.

It has to be sort of very specifically tied to reviewing famous troop movements in sale reviewing war should plans were and >> other than that, the tenants, the the bigger tendency is pressed to prefer.

>> And there might be consequences later, but we don't restrict it up at first.

Yes, to the question of prior restraint.

there are folks that are saying that the FCC's role in all this is really unprecedented.

I mean, are there other >> past instances of government interference that come to mind for you that compare it sort of this level.

>> Well, we have a lot of institutions right now that are being asked to have kind of speech litmus test that we have thought of in the past as independent institutions, universities, my own university, Northwestern.

I also worked at the American Bar Foundation, the American Bar Association.

There's there have been reprisals, law firms for who they representing in court law clinics.

So we're seeing a lot right now in terms of the government wanting to limit speech.

then of course, we have historical examples like the Sedition Act and things that we look back on and considered grave errors and our history.

we seem to be repeating them.

Well, you know, to that question our about page speech are things that.

>> Categories of speech we might want to restrict their folks who, you know, have argued that if you're calling out Charlie Kirk's rhetoric saying that he made racist statements or even making jokes about his death.

That that can be hate for that that can feed into political violence.

But are there any sort of constitutional justification is for restricting speech on grounds like that?

No, it and and you know, the categories on Texas Beach do include things like incitement, but that's a very narrow category this week that is limited to speech that is intended to and likely to cause someone to act unlawfully immediately like within the next couple seconds.

Not even 5 minutes from now.

>> So it doesn't fall within that.

And what you see here is this almost.

This in North Korea, asked him to this where people are trying to be if people are attempting to get People Punisher insufficient morning in a sense.

But even as distasteful as we might find, joking about someone's death or saying I'm not sad day died, which, by the way, you know, people on the right have said about other people like George Floyd.

you know.

That's not enough to cause speech to be unprotected.

In fact, that's the kind of distasteful provocative, yet important speech to protect because if we can't criticize things as they are somebody for who they were, we lose a whole lot of what makes Democratic self-governance possible.

Yes, even someone makes a comment, that's that's a cooler.

That's off color that's not inciting and activites and of itself.

And the Supreme Court said explicitly that free speech serves its highest purpose when incites people not to unlawful action.

But 2.

Discomfort or, you know, that acts of provocation.

That is the point to free speech.

We don't need it to protect discussing the weather past.

You've you've been a guest before on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.

Someone with a long history of political humor.

>> Do you worry late night hosts might start to shy away from discussing, you know, the topics of the day, if they're potentially hot button, even though in many ways that's that's a big part of the job for a late night host.

>> Yeah, I don't think you'll see that.

I think you may even see more because this is kind of poking the bear with You know, I think comics are going maybe even get louder in a way both sides.

I hope that it still.

Is rooted in truth and looking to make people think.

Around laughter still think it.

I still hold that.

It brings people together, but I don't think it's going to be like, you know, comics, good comics.

They talk about the elephant in the room.

They talked about the things that are uncomfortable or maybe offer to approach.

That's why usually a little bit easier when it's addressed under the umbrella of comedy.

So I certainly hope not.

I I don't love like heavy handed super heavy like there's other things to discuss you know, it's not the only topic, but I hope it continues to hold up a mirror to society.

That's that's what comedy is.

Yeah.

People are able to laugh about it.

You know, maybe they can start to see their way toward.

>> Now taking everything, you know, you're seeing other people's opinions, not taking everything quite a seriously, perhaps.

You know, Laura Beth, you are among several Illinois professors on Turning Point USA's watch list of so-called radicals.

Turning point, of course, being the Charlie Kirk's on political organization.

What was that experience like?

>> I was put on the watch list after published an op-ed in The La Times which was about the argument for restricting hate speech, which as I said is not restricted.

The United States, but even just discussing it.

Got me on the watch list.

And then your deluge with hate mail threatens to or discusses fantasies about coming to kill you coming to do other very violent things, too.

Emails and phone calls to the president of the university.

I would never send my children and Northwestern because you let these radical it's it's really hard to withstand.

But we are told, you know, don't be a snowflake.

Don't be so sensitive.

These are just words until they become a threat, which is another category of speech.

You can restrict.

That's what we're not seeing on the other side right now.

you know, it's my feelings are hurt because you're not properly morning.

Charlie Kirk, are you think it's OK and you think it's okay that he's dead and those are awful vile sentiments.

The man has children, his wife.

He has a family that same argument goes for us, too.

When he puts us on his watch list, we get those death threats.

We get that kind of intimidation.

Our jobs feel threatened.

So we need to have a set of standards that applies equally and not just to the powerful and privileged You know, Pat, you touched on this earlier, but comedians often use there ability to engage in free speech to make jokes that are subversive are that are off color.

Things like that.

>> Why is it important to have that that open Mike kind of a platform?

Well, I think it you again, it's just a place where people.

Gather to maybe hear about the things that they're seeing and feeling and experiencing but can't really verbalize.

You know, you mentioned open mic.

That's where we go to develop material and, you know, America needs to always all the mikes.

We should.

We should have platforms where people go and talk about and debate and openly, you know, commenting can bring up debate.

You know, I've had that or you bring up a topic and then afterwards people might engage with you to offer different perspective on it.

It's just it's not a threat.

And I think that's what people need to pump the brakes on.

really all of and every side maybe stopping in listening to each other a little bit.

And hearing some of these words that you know.

What are we really doing to each other?

We're making enemies out of each other.

when when you start to do that with comedians who are really, you know, I always think overstating it calling us who have come story about now, but important voice.

And it is important voices all the same.

I thank you all for sharing your your perspective on this.

Unfortunately, that's where we'll have to leave it.

But we