I don't even get the point you are trying to make. The issue is removing people due to their political opinions. This might have happened to Kimmel now.
You are still free to associate with anyone freely, but there is an expectation that you behave like an adult and can withstand different opinions. Otherwise no sensible dialogue is possible. Obviously that was not the case for the murderer of Kirk and the general sentiment is that some political factions have had difficulties here as well.
> The issue is removing people due to their political opinions.
No. The issue is who is doing that action. Illegal speech is not the same as rude speech. My boss can’t declare my opinions illegal. They can fire me.
> You are still free to associate with anyone freely, but there is an expectation that you behave like an adult and can withstand different opinions.
Nah. I can throw a tantrum, publicly decry you as an asshole and go no-contact with you. That’s legal, and part of my freedom of expression and association.
The government can’t confiscate my license over the tantrum.
I wholeheartedly disagree. If you are excluded in research for your opinion, we could just as well install the church again. The vanity is the same.
This time it is Trump directly. Sure, that is also a problem. Previously it was the handlers of government, so it didn't need to intervene directly. NGOs or just companies getting government grants, didn't matter.
> I can throw a tantrum, publicly decry you as an asshole and go no-contact with you. That’s legal, and part of my freedom of expression and association.
Of course and I welcome you to do so.
We are not talking about instances where people were rude to their bosses. We are talking about instances where people had the wrong political opinion and some faculties are in dire need of reform because of the structures they formed by excluding everyone not in line. That is a problem, obviously. A problem best described as a violation of freedom of expression. You can look up the definition on wikipedia. In the first sentence there is something about repercussions. Easy concept, you would think...
> Wiki: Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction
After very clear threats of official action from the FCC chair up to and including revocation of their broadcasting licenses. For protected speech. That is a very, very clear First Amendment violation.
"FCC chairman Brendan Carr has threatened to take action against ABC after Jimmy Kimmel said in a monologue that 'the MAGA gang' was attempting to portray Charlie Kirk‘s assassin as 'anything other than one of them.' 'We can do this the easy way or the hard way,' Carr said. 'These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.'... 'You could certainly see a path forward for suspension over this,' Carr said."
Doubly so when the people saying you can’t are the government.