Share this post:

Donald Trump must be breathing a sigh of relief over his decision not to wade into the ‘free speech’ debate in a press conference during his state visit to the United Kingdom.

In February, Trump’s Vice-President JD Vance accused European nations including the UK of “suppressing” free speech.

Asked whether he agreed with his deputy, Trump skipped the question altogether, leaving Keir Starmer to pick up the baton of “defender of free speech”.

Trump may have been satisfied with that result, which made him look magnanimous toward his host – but back in the United States, events were already undermining him.

Late-night host Jimmy Kimmel has been suspended by TV channel ABC after mocking the late right-wing activist Charlie Kirk, who was shot dead last week.

The Guardian tells us what Kimmel actually said, so we have a record:

Kimmel said: “We hit some new lows over the weekend with the Maga gang trying to characterize this kid who [is accused of having] killed Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.”

During his opening monologue for Tuesday night’s show, Kimmel said: “Many in Maga-land are working very hard to capitalize on the murder of Charlie Kirk.” He accused the US vice-president, JD Vance, of blaming the left for Kirk’s death without evidence.

Vance had said: “While our side of the aisle certainly has its crazies, it is a statistical fact that most of the lunatics in American politics today are proud members of the far left.”

Kimmel responded by saying: “And by ‘statistical fact’, he means ‘complete bullshit’.” Kimmel went on to cite a study that found far-right groups were the greatest source of domestic terrorism and extremist violence in the US. The Department of Justice has removed the study from its website.

“Here’s a question JD Vance might be able to answer: who wanted to hang the guy who was vice-president before you? Was that the liberal left? Or the toothless army who stormed the Capitol on January 6?” he said.

What would once have been shrugged off as a comedian needling a political figure (for clarity: Vance) has instead been treated as a free speech crisis — with the punishment raising deeper questions about who gets to decide what can and can’t be said.

ABC suspended Jimmy Kimmel Live! after the US government pressurised the broadcaster to crack down on him. It has been suggested that the owner of some ABC-affiliated TV channels has demanded that he not be allowed to return until he has apologised and paid compensation to Kirk’s family.

If true, that sets a dangerous precedent: free expression reduced to a financial transaction, available only to those who can afford to buy it back.

Genuine advocates of free speech were shocked. Here’s The Guardian again:

The US-based free speech advocate group the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression said the suspension was an example of another media outlet that had “withered under government pressure, ensuring that the administration will continue to extort and exact retribution on broadcasters and publishers who criticize it.

“We cannot be a country where late night talk show hosts serve at the pleasure of the president. But until institutions grow a backbone and learn to resist government pressure, that is the country we are.”

Hollywood then joined the fray – allegedly.

Jennifer Lawrence is reported to have said: “Freedom of speech cannot be bought with money; it is the voice of the people.”

This prompted at least one media outlet to draw parallels with her role as Katniss Everdeen in The Hunger Games, casting her as a rebel taking on the Capitol.

We are left with a startling contrast between regulated free speech (in the UK) and a pretence of free speech that hides suppression (in the US).

For clarity: here in the UK, we do not have a single constitutional free speech guarantee like the US First Amendment. Instead, free speech is protected through common law, the Human Rights Act 1998, and parliamentary statutes.

Free speech here is not absolute, but is balanced against other legal protections, including defamation and libel laws, public order and hate speech laws, obscenity, terrorism, and national security statutes.

This means people can speak freely on most topics, but the law can intervene if speech is considered threatening, harassing, inciting violence, or otherwise unlawful.

Debate over “free speech” often revolves around what is socially acceptable or professionally permissible, rather than legally prohibited. Politicians, journalists, and commentators are rarely at legal risk unless the speech crosses the statutory thresholds.

In the States, the First Amendment guarantees that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” This protection is broad and near-absolute – in theory. There are very narrow exceptions, such as obscenity, true threats, incitement to imminent lawless action, defamation or libel (civil, not criminal).

This means the law gives US citizens wide latitude to criticise politicians, corporations, and public figures. Even offensive or controversial speech is usually legally protected.

In practice, free speech battles often involve social, corporate, or regulatory pressures rather than the government directly restricting speech. Network suspensions like that of Jimmy Kimmel, advertiser boycotts, or platform moderation can curtail expression even if it is constitutionally protected.

The experience of recent days suggests that US “free speech” is a legal fiction, suppressed by the financial clout of the wealthy.

Perhaps JD Vance should take a look at what is going on in his home country and reconsider his words to Europe.

But what do you think? The question is simple: which version of “free speech” would you rather have?

Share this post: