At the moment, the nation has been tensely silenced. With the cancellation of Stephen Colbert and the temporary suspension of Jimmy Kimmel, the government control over media is becoming disdainfully overpowering,  and the power of major news organizations are therefore being censored by the United States government. This shows that major corporations, such as NBC, can’t control their own media if a higher authority disagrees with it. 

In 1969, the United States Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio brought about a change to how citizens think of free speech in relation to intent. This change came to be known as The Brandenburg Test. This test could be used to decide when speech was intended to advocate for illegal action and when said speech could be restricted. It came with the decision that the government may prohibit speech if it shows that what’s being said is directly trying to cause purposeful and lawless action, and that it is likely to produce such action. 

This test relates to the suspensions and, in extreme cases, cancellation of these television hosts and other media personnel because, at the moment, the government is trying to restrict them because comments made by the television hosts are seen as purposefully disrespecting the government and its correspondents. This is where the test could be helpful, and this is where we could learn from previous mistakes, as well as allow the government the opportunity to fix said mistakes in the future. What is happening now can only be characterized as a maltreatment of the Bill of Rights. This apparent abuse of power shouldn’t be stood for, and people all over the country are doing exactly what they should do: they are banding together, not only among discussions, but also because of the criticism shown to the government by society on social media. Some are outraged by this recent event, and social media has proven that it can make a difference in meaningful public discussions. 

This censorship isn’t only happening with hosts of television shows; it is much, much larger than that. The overstep of authority, which is covered by the media, is also affecting big names in the newspaper industry, such as the New York Times. However, this isn’t anything new: the press has received an abundance of backlash for things they have written in their papers since their establishment. 

One case from the past that specifically relates to this situation is the Supreme Court case titled New York Times v. Sullivan. In the year 1960, the New York Times ran a full-page ad that openly criticized the police of Montgomery, Ala. for the unfair treatment of civil rights protesters. Although a select few facts were seen as untrue, most of the criticism was accurate and protected under the First Amendment. The police commissioner at the time, L.B. Sullivan, sued the paper in Alabama Court on the grounds that the ad had hurt his reputation. After the New York Times lost in Alabama, they brought their case all the way to the Supreme Court, arguing that the ad was made without an intention to ruin the police commissioner’s reputation and was therefore doing nothing unconstitutional. They were protected by the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. This decision also set the standard that in order for an act to be seen as libel, the recipient of such speech must prove that it hurt their reputation.

So the importance of what the government has done in regards to the cancellation of the two hosts’ shows is simply put: intent. Did the speaker mean to hurt the leader’s reputation, or were they just reporting the news like everyone else? Without intent, it is believed that the government can’t punish someone if they are simply reporting news. 

In today’s society, the internet plays a major role in the spread of information, and it creates a wildfire of opinions and videos to major news organizations across the nation. This widespread amount of information has suggested that the government is in a situation where it feels threatened. Although television and newspapers are the original sources, the media spreads it faster than it ever has in the past. Therefore, feeling threatened, the government challenges the media that started the conversation. 

There have been a myriad of court cases over the years that led to a verdict based on the First Amendment, and there will continue to be more. So, society should understand the importance of its freedoms, and the government should as well. The government shouldn’t be able to take it away, especially if there is no conclusive evidence on the reasoning. Society should acknowledge its rights, and have the government respect the line between abusing power and enforcing it. 

The government shouldn’t fear public discussions, or else the nation could be in for an overwhelming debate about the government and its authority to restrict the rights that are fought for. Citizens must speak their minds, be respectful and above all, know their rights.