For Americans, the words are practically sacred: the First Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees freedom of speech. But that right is now the subject of bitter debate, following the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.On Thursday, several high-ranking Democrats accused President Donald Trump of waging war on free speech, after he celebrated ABC’s suspension of talk show host Jimmy Kimmel, who accused the political right of using Kirk’s death to score points.The American Civil Liberties Union, a rights advocacy group, accused the Trump administration of operating outside constitutional safeguards to target its opponents, likening it to the Red Scare of the late 1940 and 1950s under senator Joseph McCarthy.”This is beyond McCarthyism. Trump officials are repeatedly abusing their power to stop ideas they don’t like, deciding who can speak, write, and even joke,” said Christopher Anders, director of the ACLU’s democracy and technology division.So what does the First Amendment say? And why is it up for debate?- ‘How we identify ourselves’ -Ratified in 1791, the Bill of Rights comprises the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution, protecting the fundamental rights of Americans.”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,” the First Amendment says.For David Super, a professor at Georgetown University’s law school, the amendment is “really how we identify ourselves as a nation.”Beyond the varied ethnicities and background of the nation’s 340 million people, “we are thought to be drawn together by a belief in open discussion and a belief that the government can’t shut any of us up,” Super told AFP.The First Amendment even protects speech that is “morally repulsive,” explained Eugene Volokh, a professor of law at the University of California, Los Angeles.Volokh however emphasized that the history of the United States has been marked by attempts to stifle dissident voices.- ‘Malicious writings’ -In 1798, America’s second president John Adams signed into law the Sedition Act, which forbade “any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States.”Then during World War I, the expression of pacifist ideology was banned.From the 1920s to the 1950s, anyone expressing support for communist ideals risked serious repercussions. And in the 1960s, officials in several southern US states battled to silence the civil rights movement.One of the key pillars of Trump’s political movement has been to eviscerate “cancel culture” — the process of criticizing someone for voicing an opinion seen as unacceptable, to the point of that person being ostracized or fired. Trump has often called “cancel culture” a scourge of leftist progressives, claiming that it has been used to silence conservative pundits and politicians.But Democrats have turned the tables on Trump, accusing him of doing the same to US media organizations, major universities and, now, Kimmel — a frequent target of Trump’s ire.”After years of complaining about cancel culture, the current administration has taken it to a new and dangerous level,” Democratic former president Barack Obama wrote Thursday on X.- Conservative push-back -US Attorney General Pam Bondi sparked controversy among conservatives by saying earlier this week that the Justice Department would pursue anyone guilty of “hate speech” linked to the slain influencer.Republican Senator Ted Cruz quickly countered that the Constitution “absolutely protects hate speech.” Bondi then said she meant to refer to “threats of violence that individuals incite against others.”Conservative commentator Tucker Carlson called for “civil disobedience” should Kirk’s murder result in an uptick in laws limiting free speech.And some voices on the far right have criticized a decree signed by Trump in August that makes burning the American flag punishable by up to a year in prison. The US Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that burning the Stars and Stripes indeed amounted to free speech, and was protected by the First Amendment.”I would never in a million years harm the American flag,” conservative radio host Jesse Kelly wrote on X.”But a president telling me I can’t has me as close as I’ll ever be to lighting one on fire. I am a free American citizen. And if I ever feel like torching one, I will.”

The suspension by Disney-owned ABC of talk show host Jimmy Kimmel is the latest surrender by a US media giant to pressure from the Trump administration, putting the bottom line over free speech.ABC’s decision to pull Kimmel off the air comes two months after CBS announced plans to cancel “The Late Show” featuring Stephen Colbert, another unsparing critic of President Donald Trump.Kimmel, 57, was suspended “indefinitely” by ABC because of remarks the comedy show host made about last week’s murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.In a similar vein, the Emmy-winning Colbert was canned shortly after he criticized a decision by CBS’s parent company, Paramount Global, to pay $16 million to settle a lawsuit brought by Trump over an interview with former vice president Kamala Harris.ABC also came in for criticism after it agreed in December to donate $15 million to Trump’s eventual presidential library to settle a defamation suit instead of fighting it out in court.Kimmel’s departure came after Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman Brendan Carr openly threatened the licenses of ABC affiliates that broadcast his show.Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One on his return from a visit to Britain, Trump complained about the late night shows and networks, saying “all they do is hit Trump.””They are licensed. They are not allowed to do that,” he claimed.Democratic lawmakers and media analysts condemned the FCC threats to revoke broadcast licenses and said media and entertainment corporations were placing their economic interests over free speech rights.”What we are witnessing is an outright abuse of power,” Harris wrote on X.”This administration is attacking critics and using fear as a weapon to silence anyone who would speak out. Media corporations — from television networks to newspapers — are capitulating to these threats.”For Senator Richard Blumenthal, “Jimmy Kimmel is off-the-air because of an unprecedented act of gov’t censorship.””The FCC has now proven that its sole mission is to be the speech police for Trump, punishing his perceived opponents & rewarding his cronies,” Blumenthal wrote on X.- ‘Coercion’ -Jeffrey McCall, a professor of media studies at DePauw University, said Kimmel’s ratings have been “questionable for a long time.””ABC and Disney at some point just had to make a decision that was based more on the marketplace,” McCall said. “They’ve just decided that, from a corporate ratings and revenue standpoint, he’s no longer viable.”Ken Paulson, director of the Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University, said the “problem lies in corporations that apparently make decisions based solely on financial considerations and cannot be trusted to protect the public.”The Colbert cancellation came as the FCC was considering a multi-billion-dollar deal between Paramount Global and Skydance, a company owned by the son of Trump billionaire ally Larry Ellison.The FCC gave the green light to the merger a few days after CBS pulled the plug on Colbert.It also obtained an extraordinary pledge from Skydance that it will “adopt measures that can root out the bias that has undermined trust in the national news media.”In the Kimmel case, the Nexstar group — which controls more than 200 local television stations in the United States — was the first to announce it would no longer air Kimmel’s show after FCC chair Carr’s remarks Wednesday.The Texas company is currently seeking FCC approval of a bid to acquire rival Tegna.Some right-wing commentators have condemned Kimmel’s silencing, comparing it to the 2023 firing of conservative darling Tucker Carlson by Fox News or the 2018 booting of sitcom star Roseanne Barr over tweets seen as racist.Paulson said the situations are not comparable.”In this case, the head of the Federal Communications Commission is targeting the on-air talent,” he said. “Others have lost their jobs because of public outrage.”When the public is angry, networks can take that into account,” he said. “But when the government is angry, that’s coercion.”

A US medical panel handpicked by President Donald Trump’s health secretary made its first alteration to the standard childhood vaccine schedule on Thursday, as public health experts fear more changes that flout prevailing medical advice are in the pipeline.The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) was revamped to reflect anti-vax advocate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s ideals — and among its initial moves was voting to advise that no child under four should receive the combination MMRV shot, which covers measles, mumps, rubella and varicella.Parents should instead be offered the alternative of separate MMR and chicken pox injections for their children, members decided.The combination shot has a small risk of causing temporary, non-life-threatening febrile seizures. But in a call with journalists, Sean O’Leary, chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Infectious Diseases, said the debate was settled years ago and that today parents already have a choice of both options.”I’m still puzzled by why this came back as a point of discussion,” he said. “The only thing I can think of is it’s another strategy to scare parents.”Kennedy has spent decades promoting vaccine misinformation, including the widely debunked claim that the MMR shot causes autism.After his appointment to the federal government, he sacked every person from ACIP, and replaced them with figures whose anti-vaccine views track more closely with his own.That skepticism bled into Thursday’s discussion: the committee’s methods were scrutinized by medical professionals in attendance who can’t vote but can offer input.”You’re not looking at all of the aspects of how we evaluate vaccine implementation,” said Jason Goldman, president of the American College of Physicians.”You’re looking at very small data points and misrepresenting how it works in the real world and how we take care of our patients.”- ‘Illegitimate’ -Following much head-scratching over language, the committee voted that the combination shot would still be covered under the Vaccines for Children federal program — which helps fund many immunizations in the United States — even though they were no longer recommending that shot for kids under four.A couple of members abstained — because they said they weren’t sure what they were voting for.The decision means some federal programs will cover the shot but others won’t, creating a patchwork system that public health experts fear could sow widespread confusion among parents.”Parents like me depend on a childhood vaccine schedule built on science and trust. Every change should strengthen, not weaken, the safety net — that keeps our kids healthy,” epidemiologist Syra Madad told AFP.She said Thursday’s committee discussions “risk eroding protections we know work.”Committee members put off until Friday a closely watched vote on whether to scrap the longstanding standard of immunizing newborns against Hepatitis B within the first 24 hours of life.That move has been met with widespread alarm by public health experts, including from some voices on the panel.Swift vaccination has proven the best way to prevent any maternal transmission of the incurable, highly contagious disease that can cause severe liver damage and cancer later in life, said Adam Langer, a CDC scientist who presented to the panel.Amending the advice could amount to a “devastating decision,” said O’Leary of the AAP, a body that did not attend the committee meeting despite a past history of collaboration. “This is in the midst of a growing wave of what we’re seeing with rumors, falsehoods, inaccurate information surrounding our country’s immunization efforts,” he said.”This committee is illegitimate.”In opening the two-day meeting, ACIP chair and biostatistician Martin Kulldorff insisted that the panel was, despite much criticism and fear to the contrary, “pro-vaccine” and will “welcome scientific critique of any of our votes, as there are gray areas.”But Wilbur Chen, an infectious disease physician, cast that defensiveness as disingenuous.”They do not intend to debate using sound, rigorous, reproducible science; they are echoing poor and falsified information,” he told AFP.Along with the Hepatitis B vote on Friday, the committee will reconvene and consider this season’s Covid-19 shot, including who should get it and who should pay for it.

The United States on Thursday again wielded its veto and thwarted a UN Security Council call for a ceasefire in Gaza, shielding its ally Israel from meaningful diplomatic pressure.The 14 other members of the Council backed the resolution, initiated in August in response to the UN’s official declaration of famine after nearly two years of Israel’s war on Hamas in the Palestinian territory.The vote came as Israeli tanks and jets pounded Gaza City, the target of a major new ground offensive, forcing Palestinians to flee south.The resolution text seen by AFP had demanded “an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire in Gaza respected by all parties” as well as the immediate and unconditional release of hostages.The United States has repeatedly rejected that approach multiple times, most recently in June when it used its veto to back Israel.”Let this resolution send a clear message, a message that the Security Council is not turning its back on starving civilians, on the hostages and the demand for a ceasefire,” Denmark’s UN ambassador Christina Lassen said ahead of the vote. “A generation risks being lost not only to war — but to hunger and despair. Meanwhile Israel has expanded its military operation in Gaza City, further deepening the suffering of civilians as a result. “It is this catastrophic situation, this humanitarian and human failure that has compelled us to act today.”Pakistan’s ambassador Asim Ahmad called the veto a “dark moment in this chamber.””The world is watching. The cries of children should pierce our hearts,” he said.- ‘Genocide’ accusation -The previous US veto sparked an unusual show of anger from the 14 other members of the council, who are increasingly vocal in their frustration over their apparent inability to pressure Israel to stop the suffering of Gaza’s inhabitants.For the first time Tuesday, a UN-mandated international investigative commission gave its independent analysis, accusing Israel of committing “genocide” in Gaza since October 2023 with the intent to “destroy” the Palestinians.The issue will be central to next week’s annual UN summit in New York.Israeli ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, condemned the resolution, saying  that “for some members of the Council, this is a performance. For Israel, this is a daily reality. The proposal was presented without condemnation of Hamas, without condemnation of the October 7 massacre.”Danon sparred repeatedly with Algeria’s ambassador Amar Bendjama who asked Palestinian people to “forgive us because this Council could not save your children…our sincere efforts, shattered against the wall of rejection.”