Exploring the Ongoing Concerns Regarding the American Right to Freedom of Speech in Speech and Media
By Eleni Maglaras, Anastasia Surya and Erica Na
Freedom of speech has long been considered one of the most quintessential rights of American democracy, but it can quickly become contentious when political violence is factored in. That being said, one must ask: Is the constitutional right to freedom of speech in the United States under threat? Reflecting on our nation’s history, the U.S. government has a history of limiting free speech during times of crisis, due to the potential dangers public criticism could pose to civic unrest or national security concerns. For instance, during the Civil War, many Americans self-censored themselves in order to preserve the union, believing that trading their free speech for silence was worth preserving the Union. As a result, journalists were unable to obtain timely, accurate information on the military campaigns, either out of fear of aiding the enemy or of depressing national morale. About five decades later, as the U.S. was entering World War 1, President Woodrow Wilson publicly stated that disloyalty to the war effort “must be crushed out” and that disloyal individuals had “sacrificed their right to civil liberties” like free speech and expression. Through passing laws such as the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918, President Wilson and federal government employees were permitted to target any form of speech that could be interpreted as criticizing the war effort, the draft, the U.S. government, or the flag. These instances show that when the nation feels threatened, free speech becomes a likely target. In the present day, similar concerns are reappearing on university campuses nationwide, and a recent slew of politically-motivated violent crimes has justified strong fears among the public that free speech is now unjustly under attack, as well as questions of how that could delegitimize American democracy. This notion is further bolstered by the current digitized, media-centered era of politics, which has been said to cause the current high levels of political division.
Despite America’s self-proclaimed title as the global arbiter of free speech and individual liberties, recent trends suppressing freedoms of speech, as well as broad concerns across the political spectrum, call into question this label: Is the constitutional right to free speech in America under attack?
Campus Speech
College campuses have long stood as microcosms of democratic vitality whose conditions may assess the quality and distribution of free speech across a nation. Distinguished by their encouragement of political and academic dissent, dialogue, and discovery, these qualities have faced external pressures in recent years, prompting fears that administrative censorship and funding cuts have begun to constrict student voices and fundamental First Amendment rights. The case of Mahmoud Khalil, a student leader at Columbia University, epitomized this erosion. His detention by ICE agents earlier this year—for his association with pro-Palestinian demonstrations—served not only as a chilling warning to international students but as a sign of the Trump administration’s increasingly forceful approach toward campus activism. Similar protests broke out across several campuses across the nation, including UCLA, UT Austin, and Yale, many of which were forcibly cleared by police. That situation, coupled with the financial and political pressures now exerted on universities themselves, reflects a larger pattern: a campaign to discipline the academic institutions into compliance.
At the core of this campaign lies what some have dubbed “Trump’s compact”—a series of negotiations and coercive settlements between the federal government and major universities. According to The New York Times, institutions like Brown, Columbia, and the University of Pennsylvania have agreed to new administrative policies and multimillion-dollar penalties in exchange for the restoration of federal funding. These measures have ranged from limiting protest zones and mandating facial identification for demonstrators to implementing ideological reforms. The University of Pennsylvania, for example, was pressured to adopt new rules concerning transgender athletes in exchange for leniency on financial sanctions, while Columbia accepted a $200 million penalty along with a suite of restrictive speech policies. Harvard University, by contrast, refused to yield to these demands—rejecting external audits of its programs and declining to surveil its international student body, instead choosing to sue the current administration over sweeping budget cuts. Harvard ultimately recovered its funding, but the legal battle is yet to be resolved.
To underpin the gravity of potential free speech violations on private campuses countrywide, one must consider the legality of the Trump administration’s budget cuts, as well as the historical precedent of political action on university campuses. Private colleges, as many forget, are not bound by the First Amendment in the same way that public universities are. Yet, when government actors begin to manipulate or censor the internal speech policies of private institutions, they encroach upon constitutional territory—blurring the boundary between regulation and repression.
In order to contextualize the gravity of the threat of campus censorship, one must consider the legacy of student activism in the United States—campus protests helped end the Vietnam War, advance the Civil Rights movement, and compel divestment from apartheid South Africa. Yet today, similar demonstrations—particularly those aligned with the Palestinian cause—are being labeled as threats to public order. Following a wave of pro-Palestinian protests, federal investigations were launched at more than sixty universities, beginning with Columbia. Administrators, under federal and congressional pressure, have imposed harsher disciplinary measures, restricted protest locations, and demanded visible identification from masked protesters. The administration has justified these interventions as efforts to curb antisemitism and maintain campus safety. The Trump administration attempted to crack down on international students, claiming to be monitoring their social media activity, including posts made, liked, and shared, in order to target potentially terrorist-affiliated individuals. In response, several activist groups have discouraged international students from participating in politically oriented activities actively targeted by the Trump administration. Furthermore, many influencers have since taken to social media to warn international students against commenting on the contentious issue. And, due to the historical significance of campus protests, free speech debates have exploded online, leaving greater levels of political division in their wake.
Constitutional lawyer Gene Nichol argues that government officials, once wary of appearing authoritarian, have grown increasingly comfortable in suppressing academic inquiry, while stating that even public institutions have become less capable of resisting these encroachments. Nichol points to Louisiana as a case study in this decline: when researcher Ivor van Heerden criticized the Army Corps of Engineers for its failures in the construction of New Orleans levees after Hurricane Katrina, Louisiana State University—under political pressure—moved to silence him, an act later condemned by the AAUP as censorship. For Nichol, this erosion is a direct threat to democratic society itself, given that public universities educate more than 70%of America’s higher education students. He continues, insisting that academic freedom is inseparable from civic freedom.
Such developments have led many scholars, students, and civil libertarians to warn the public of potential democratic backsliding. While fears of free speech infringement exist across the political spectrum, the cases now unfolding on America’s campuses reveal the particular anxieties of those who see in these acts the shadow of authoritarian ambition. The university, once imagined as the guardian of inquiry and dissent, is becoming the battleground for its survival.
Political Violence
Earlier this year, right-wing political commentator Charlie Kirk’s assassination while addressing a crowd at Utah Valley University sent a shockwave through American society. The response, however, was hardly uniform. Right-wing members of the political spectrum regarded the event as a gruesome display of political violence, taking the event as a dangerous precedent, symbolic of greater democratic backsliding and an effort to suppress political speech. Some argued that fierce opposition from the left and the rhetoric of democratic leaders radicalized the gunman, enabling him to carry out the crime, even citing commentary online, where citizens expressed joy at the gunman’s actions, regarding Charlie Kirk’s extremist views as a threat to society. In other instances, angered Democrats contended that Republican leaders had shown no remorse or effort to honor the lives of Minnesota Democratic Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, who had been shot and killed in their home in June, while going to great lengths to honor a civilian, Charlie Kirk, who played no formal role in the government. Both instances, however, contribute to a larger trend of political violence on the rise in the United States, and a public increasingly unsure of what to do with it
A central factor that has contributed to the increase in violence in the United States is the growing provocative tone of political discourse. Traditional ideological divides, primarily focused on policy disagreements, have transformed into a more personal animosity. That bubbling anger is heightened by a combination of social media, conspiracy theories, and personal grievances. Experts on political violence warn that their study of political assassinations shows a pattern of igniting a "process of escalation" that may encourage others on the extreme political spectrum to retaliate.
In mid-September 2025, Jimmy Kimmel Live! was suspended by ABC and Disney after Kimmel delivered a monologue criticizing President Donald Trump and certain Republican reactions to the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. His remarks were quickly condemned by critics as insensitive and politically hostile, sparking backlash from conservative media figures and Trump administration officials. The pressure campaign led major affiliates, including media companies Nexstar and Sinclair, to drop the show entirely, forcing a temporary network shutdown. While Disney initially defended the suspension as an effort to “avoid inflaming tensions,” the situation quickly shifted. The company’s focus on its image over a network’s free speech was disappointing. However, after discussions with Kimmel, the show returned on September 23, though some stations still preempted it for days. Inside Disney, some executives called the move an overreaction to external political pressure; others cited security and advertiser concerns. Consequently, the controversy became a flashpoint in the broader debate over free speech in the media. Critics warned of increasing constraints on dissenting voices under the Trump administration. Meanwhile, supporters of the suspension framed it as a necessary measure to preserve civility and public safety amid political volatility.
The network’s quick response to public pressure revealed how corporate institutions, much like universities, are increasingly fearful of backlash in a polarized environment. The mixed reactions highlight the growing divide in the American understanding of free speech. Kimmel’s suspension brought to light the true national dilemma: whether or not free speech can truly survive in an ecosystem governed by both fear and faction.
Our country's escalating political divisions are leading each side to view the other's opinions as threats, prompting mutual attempts to suppress dissent out of fear of being silenced themselves. If this trend persists, the nation’s future may be marked by increased polarisation, eroded public trust, and weakened civic discourse, leading to a dull future in which open dialogue is rare and mutual distrust dominates human interactions.
Bibliography
BRETTLE, ADRIAN. “Free Speech in the Civil War.” Journal of Policy History 35, no. 4 (2023): 475–504. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0898030623000210.
Roos, Dave. “The Sedition and Espionage Acts Were Designed to Quash Dissent During WWI | HISTORY.” HISTORY. February 17, 2025. https://www.history.com/articles/sedition-espionage-acts-woodrow-wilson-wwi.
“Analysis: Why Charlie Kirk’s Killing Could Embolden More Political Violence.” 2025. PBS News. September 14, 2025. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/analysis-why-charlie-kirks-killing-could-embolden-more-political-violence.
Shiffman, John, Ned Parker, and Linda So. “Nation on edge: Experts warn of 'vicious spiral' in political violence after Kirk killing.” Reuters. September 11, 2025. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/nation-edge-experts-warn-vicious-spiral-political-violence-after-kirk-killing-2025-09-11/
https://www.nytimes.com/article/trump-university-college.html