Tag Archives: free-speech

Charlie Kirk debates Jimmie Kimmel — a BS construction by AI

Posted on by
3

Note to readers: This is what ChatGPT came up with when I asked it to imagine a debate between Charlie Kirk and Jimmy Kimmel. Every word is from ChatGPT, except that one or two AI typos have been corrected.

_________________

Moderator: Welcome everyone to tonight’s debate on “Free Speech and Violence in America.” We’re honored to have Charlie Kirk and Jimmy Kimmel here to share their insights. Let’s begin with opening statements. Kirk, you have the floor.

Kirk: Thank you. Free speech is the foundation of democracy. It empowers individuals to voice their opinions, challenge authority, and push society forward. Throughout history, free speech has been instrumental in civil rights movements, political reform, and social progress. That said, with this freedom comes a responsibility. Words can incite violence, spread misinformation, and deepen divisions. Our goal should be to promote responsible speech—not censor it. Education, open dialogue, and adherence to social norms are the way forward. The core principle is that speech should thrive, but it should not be used as a weapon.

Kimmel: Thanks. I agree that free speech is vital, but let’s be clear. With the right comes the duty to prevent harm. In today’s world, inflammatory rhetoric, hate speech, and conspiracy theories are fueling real violence. We’ve seen many incidents where words have led to deadly actions — racial violence, terrorist attacks, online harassment turning into physical violence. Protecting free speech doesn’t mean tolerating speech that incites or promotes harm. Platforms — especially social media — must be held accountable. We need regulations and policies that draw the line where speech becomes dangerous. Society must defend freedom, but not allow it to devolve into chaos.

Moderator: An important discussion. Kirk, when you hear about hate speech, do you believe there should be limits?

Kirk: I believe in strong protections for free speech. Historically, censorship often suppresses dissent and can be used as a tool of oppression. The issue isn’t speech per se, but how we handle its consequences. Education is key — if people understood the impact of their words, they might moderate their tone voluntarily. Legal limits should be narrow– focused on directly inciting violence or spreading lies that cause harm. Broad restrictions risk infringing on fundamental rights and silencing constructive debate. The solution is fostering social responsibility, not censorship.

Kimmel: But history shows us that certain speech, especially hate speech, has led to violence and suffering. It dehumanizes people and can ignite mob actions or even genocide. Allowing unchecked harmful speech gives license to hate groups. That’s why platforms need clear policies– like removing hate speech and threats — and authorities should intervene when necessary. Sometimes, restrictions are essential for protecting vulnerable communities. We must recognize that the harm caused by hate speech is real, and it requires action.

Moderator: Let’s talk about where to draw the line. Kirk, do you think social media platforms should limit or regulate content more heavily?

Kirk: Platforms do have a role, but overregulation can suppress legitimate discourse. They should implement moderation tools and community standards, but these must be transparent and fair. Ultimately, the true solution lies in education — teaching people to critically evaluate content and behave responsibly online. Suppressing speech outright risks creating echo chambers and authoritarian control, which is dangerous for democracy.

Kimmel: I agree moderation is important, but the scale of social media makes it hard to control harmful content. Platforms often hesitate to act decisively due to fear of backlash or legal challenges. Meanwhile, harmful rhetoric continues to spread. Regulation can set standards that protect users without infringing on free speech. Additionally, social media companies must be held accountable for their role in amplifying dangerous content. We need collaborative efforts—government regulations, technological tools, and community initiatives—to create safer online spaces.

Moderator: Now let’s introduce a new topic — recent controversy surrounding Kimmel’s firing from a major network over comments related to political beliefs. Kimmel, would you like to comment on that?

Kimmel: Absolutely. The situation was very personal to me. I was fired after making some jokes that, depending on who you ask, were either funny or inappropriate, but what struck me was how quickly the culture shifted to silencing opinions and entertainment if they didn’t align perfectly with certain political narratives. It raises a fundamental question about free expression — should entertainers be penalized for their viewpoints or jokes? I believe that diversity of opinion, even offensive or controversial humor, is vital in a free society. Silencing voices due to pressure or fear undermines that principle.

Kirk: I agree with you. Freedom of speech includes the right to express unpopular opinions, including satire and humor. When society starts punishing individuals for expressing their views, it’s a step toward authoritarianism. The marketplace of ideas flourishes only when all voices can be heard, even if those voices are uncomfortable or controversial. I believe that silencing or punishing individuals—whether entertainers, journalists, or citizens — because of their opinions or jokes — undermines the very foundation of our democracy. Free speech is messy and can be uncomfortable, but it’s essential for progress. When we start policing humor or viewpoints out of fear, we risk creating a society where only certain approved voices can be heard, and that’s dangerous. We need to defend the right to express even unpopular or provocative ideas, because only then can real debate and growth occur. Censorship, whether by corporations or government, erodes liberty and sets a dangerous precedent.

Kimmel: Exactly. When individuals are silenced or penalized just for expressing their opinions, it sends a signal that certain ideas are unacceptable — no matter how silly or offensive. That’s not the path to a healthy democracy. We must stand firm in defending free expression, even when we disagree with what’s being said. Otherwise, we pave the way for authoritarian control and a stifling culture where conformity replaces free thought.

Moderator: Thank you, Kirk and Kimmel, for your insightful perspectives. To summarize, both of you agree that free speech is a fundamental pillar of democracy, but with important responsibilities. Kirk emphasizes the importance of education, responsible discourse, and cautious moderation to prevent censorship and authoritarianism. Kimmel highlights the need for accountability, especially on social media, and stresses that harmful speech can incite violence and must be regulated to protect vulnerable communities.

Regarding the recent controversy about Kimmel’s firing, both agree that silencing or punishing individuals for their opinions erodes free speech and opens the door to authoritarian control. The balance, as you both suggest, is in protecting the right to express unpopular ideas while ensuring public safety and social harmony. Ultimately, fostering open, respectful dialogue and safeguarding free expression are essential for a healthy society.

Thank you both for a compelling discussion.

_________________

I say bullshit. This sanitized, anodyne debate imagined by ChatGPT sounds like a love-fest.

Sure, it’s likely that both men would come down on the side of free speech, in the abstract, and both would caution against internet excesses.

But the debate imagined by ChatGPT completely ignores the overt calls for violence by such groups as Antifa and BLM and the barely-concealed calls for violence from Democrat leaders such as Senator Schumer’s threat against Supreme Court Justices.

It also ignores Kimmel’s false suggestion that the Kirk murderer was “one of” MAGA. Any legitimate discussion of Kimmel’s firing has to deal with that lie. Finally, it ignores the refusal by about half of the Democrats in Congress to join in a joint resolution condemning that violence.

So why did Chat GPT sidestep these issues?

I saw a piece a few months ago (if I could remember where, I would give credit to the author) suggesting that AI will not take bias out of the news. Rather, it will legitimize it. When you’re watching Rachel Maddow, you know she’s biased. When you’re inquiring with ChatGPT, you assume that the machine is not.

In addition, AI knows only what it reads on the internet. The old saw “the internet says . . .” is literally 100% of the basis for AI’s conclusions. Computer programmers would say garbage in, garbage out.

For the record, I think Kimmel’s bosses should fire him, or not, based on their sense of human decency and what he brings to their business. (My own sense of decency comes down in favor of the firing.) I think viewers should watch Kimmel, or not, based on their personal sense of human decency and what he brings to their entertainment life. I’m wary of the government getting involved in those decisions.

Also for the record, I occasionally use AI for research, but never for writing. I happen to think that, for now, I’m a better writer than the machine.

“Disinformation” is not the same as falsely shouting FIRE in a crowded theater

Posted on by
4

Here’s how the First Amendment debate over governmental prohibitions on free speech has been framed:

  • The Democrats want the government to prohibit people from spreading “disinformation” that they don’t like.
  • The Republicans correctly point out that the First Amendment, in general, prohibits such a prohibition.
  • The Democrats then respond that the First Amendment does not apply because disinformation is like falsely shouting FIRE in a crowded theater – people’s safety is at risk.
  • Republicans then point out that the analogy between political speech and falsely “shouting FIRE in a crowded theater” is rooted in a Supreme Court case dating back to WWI. In that case, the Court upheld a restriction on speech in opposition to the wartime draft. The Court decided that political speech opposing the draft was like falsely shouting FIRE in a crowded theater, in that it could cause America to lose the war. It was a stretch, but that was the Court’s analogy.
  • But, say the Republicans, that Supreme Court case was later rejected during the Vietnam War in 1969 (a much less popular war than WWI) and was essentially overruled. Political speech today clearly is protected by the First Amendment – even if it’s highly unpopular or even untrue.

So far, so good. But many Republicans have gone on to imply that the Supreme Court’s overruling of the “shouting fire in a crowded theater” analogy means that the First Amendment gives people the right to falsely shout FIRE in a crowded theater.

This was a mistake for two reasons. The first is strategic and the second is legal.

The strategic reason is that contending the First Amendment gives people the right to say things to cause an immediate, panicked mayhem violates common sense and tends to discredit the First Amendment. Casual thinkers start to casually think, “Gee, if the First Amendment gives people the right to cause dozens of trampling deaths in minutes, just to watch people get trampled, then maybe the First Amendment is not such a good thing.”

The legal reason it’s a mistake to imply that the Supreme Court ultimately decided falsely shouting FIRE in a crowded theater is protected by the First Amendment, is that the Supreme Court never did.  

Rather, what the Court held in that later case was that political speech is simply not the same as falsely shouting FIRE in a crowded theater. The latter is false and may produce immediate maiming and death, while the former is a political statement which might be false (or might not be) but is not likely to produce immediate maiming and death.

If the Supreme Court is ever confronted with a case where someone is prosecuted for causing immediate maiming and death by falsely shouting FIRE in a crowded theater, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not decide that his grotesque mischief is protected by the First Amendment.

But, you say, isn’t the First Amendment absolute?

No, it is not. For example, there is no First Amendment right to tell material lies in the sale of a product – to engage in false advertising. The First Amendment does not give a business the right to falsely state that their snake oil has cured cancer in 29,385 people if it hasn’t, or falsely state that customers can return goods for a cash refund if they can’t.

There is no First Amendment right to state falsehoods on your tax return. You can’t tell the IRS that you earned X dollars when you really earned X + Y dollars, as Hunter Biden has learned to his dismay (along with thousands of other citizens over the years, notoriously including Al Capone).

There is no First Amendment right to lie under oath. That’s perjury, and it’s a crime – and it’s not protected by the First Amendment.

There is no First Amendment right to defame a person, as several media outlets learned when they falsely characterized a teenager as racist because it suited their narrative. 

There is no First Amendment right to make or distribute child pornography.

But most other speech is indeed protected by the First Amendment, particularly political speech. Saying that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians, or that Barack Obama or Vladimir Putin is running the White House, or that the 9/11 attack was orchestrated by the CIA or by aliens, or that your uncle was eaten by cannibals, is all generally protected as political speech – whether it’s true or not.

Such political speech is not the same as shouting FIRE in a crowded theater to cause an immediate mob scene of trampled human bodies.

Whether there’s a political price to be paid for false speech is, of course, a separate issue. Sometimes there is, and oftentimes there’s not. Either way, that’s not a legal matter, but a political matter.

Our nation stands nearly alone in the protections of the First Amendment. In most of Europe, you can be sent to jail for “hate speech” that a judge finds offensive. And many people have been. That is not the law in America, yet.

The Republicans have by far the better of this First Amendment debate, but they’ve expressed their argument poorly by implying that you can indeed shout FIRE in a crowded theater.

The proper argument is: Granted, you can’t falsely shout FIRE in a crowded theater, but political speech is nothing of the sort.

Glenn K. Beaton practiced law in the federal courts, including the Supreme Court.