Parody, Pressure, and the First Amendment:

 The First Amendment is explicit: “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” But as recent events show, government officials don’t need to pass a law to silence voices. They can pressure, cajole, and intimidate private actors into doing the censoring for them. That practice, known as jawboning, undermines constitutional protections while allowing officials to claim clean hands.

Two very different stories illustrate the danger.

In 2025, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr publicly called on ABC to punish late-night host Jimmy Kimmel for his jokes about Donald Trump. Carr used the language of regulatory threat: why should a company that relies on FCC licenses “platform” such content? No formal FCC action followed, but the message was unmistakable. A regulator with authority over ABC’s broadcasting licenses had implied there might be consequences for failing to rein in speech.

This is jawboning in its purest form: the government doesn’t ban speech, but it pressures private entities into self-censorship. The result is just as chilling as direct censorship — broadcasters and platforms conclude it’s safer to silence controversial voices than risk regulatory retaliation.

In 2022, The Onion filed a satirical amicus brief in support of Anthony Novak, an Ohio man arrested for running a parody Facebook page mocking his local police department. His parody worked too well: some people were fooled, and police retaliated by charging him under a vague “disrupting public services” statute.

The Onion’s brief argued that parody must be allowed to mislead, exaggerate, and ridicule, even if the powerful are embarrassed. To require disclaimers or allow thin-skinned officials to punish satire is to destroy the very mechanism of parody. “Parody functions by tricking people into thinking it’s real,” The Onion explained — and that function is constitutionally protected.

These two cases — one a late-night monologue, the other a small-town parody — converge on the same problem: public officials exploiting ambiguity to punish or suppress speech they dislike.

• Carr claims he was merely “speaking,” not censoring.
   
• Parma’s officers claimed they were enforcing the law, not retaliating against parody.
   

In both situations, officials wield plausible deniability while the effect on free speech is unmistakable.

Another shared lesson: speech today often flows through intermediaries — broadcasters like ABC or platforms like Facebook. Those intermediaries are highly sensitive to regulatory pressure, legal risk, and public controversy. A single threat or lawsuit is enough to make them overcorrect, silencing lawful speech.

Whether through jawboning or retaliatory arrests, the result is the same: citizens lose their ability to ridicule, critique, and challenge government power. And parody and satire, long recognized as vital “safety valves” in democracy, are especially at risk.

The Onion’s defense of parody and the Kimmel controversy both remind us that the First Amendment is not self-enforcing. It depends on vigilance — not only against outright censorship, but also against its quieter cousin: the pressure campaign.

If parody can be punished, and if regulators can quietly bully networks into self-censorship, then free expression is undermined even without a single law being passed. The First Amendment is strongest when it protects the ridiculous, the irreverent, and the inconvenient — especially when those in power would prefer silence.

We live in a moment where powerful institutions—government officials, corporations, broadcasters—are being pressured to silence dissent. The FCC, under the guise of “regulation,” is using threats and intimidation to muzzle voices it doesn’t like. And when companies like Disney cave to that pressure, it’s not just a late-night host who suffers. It’s all of us. Because every act of silence chips away at the protections of free speech and a free press—the keystone holding up democracy itself.

Our society depends on media that tells the truth, asks hard questions, and refuses to bow to bullies. When the press is intimidated into silence, the public loses its shield against authoritarianism. And make no mistake: the attack on Jimmy Kimmel is not an isolated incident. It’s a test. If they can silence one, they can silence all.

But here’s the thing: corporations like Disney don’t ultimately answer to the FCC. They answer to you. Their power is built on your dollars, your subscriptions, your loyalty. Without your support, their licenses are meaningless.

This site exists to remind you—and them—that consumer power is political power. That free speech is not negotiable. And that we, the public, are not spectators in this fight. We are participants, defenders, and stakeholders in the democratic experiment.

So welcome. Explore. Share. Speak out. Join us in holding corporations accountable when they betray the very freedoms that sustain them.

Because if we don’t draw the line here, they will never stop pushing it.

Federal Communications Commission

 9050 Junction Drive

Annapolis Junction, MD 20701

Subject: Grievance Regarding Regulatory Chilling of Free Speech

To the Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission:

I write as a citizen exercising my constitutional right to petition for redress of grievances. I am deeply concerned that actions and statements by federal officials — including, but not limited to, the practice of pressuring private companies to silence speech — amount to unconstitutional jawboning. Such conduct undermines the First Amendment and represents a direct assault on the sovereignty of a free people.

The First Amendment prohibits government censorship. Yet when regulatory agencies leverage their authority to intimidate or pressure broadcasters, platforms, or companies into silencing speech, the effect is indistinguishable from direct censorship. Citizens see their voices erased, not because the speech is unlawful, but because government actors exploit their regulatory power to chill expression.

Two recent examples illustrate the danger:

1. FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr and Jimmy Kimmel — By invoking the FCC’s licensing authority while publicly calling for punishment of speech critical of a political figure, Commissioner Carr signaled that regulatory consequences could follow if a broadcaster did not comply. This is government coercion masquerading as commentary, and its chilling effect is undeniable.
    
2. Anthony Novak v. City of Parma — When police officers arrested a citizen for parodying their department online, they abused legal ambiguity to retaliate against protected satire. The Onion’s amicus brief in the case reminds us that parody must be free to ridicule, mislead, and sting the powerful — or else it is not parody at all.
    

In both cases, the principle is the same: public officials weaponize their position to punish or suppress lawful speech. They do so indirectly, through pressure and retaliation, while claiming plausible deniability. But the injury to free expression — and to public trust in government — is real and lasting.

As a regulatory body tasked with protecting the public interest, the FCC must not only refrain from such conduct but also recognize and address how regulatory chilling, jawboning, and retaliatory enforcement corrode the foundations of democracy.

I therefore demand that the FCC:

• Publicly affirm that it will not use, or appear to use, its regulatory authority to pressure companies into silencing lawful speech.
   
• Commit to transparent safeguards ensuring that any communication with regulated entities cannot be construed as coercive or retaliatory.
   
• Recognize that chilling lawful speech through indirect means is as unconstitutional as banning it outright.
   

The people of this nation delegated limited powers to their government, not the authority to silence them. Any attempt — direct or indirect — to erode the protections of the First Amendment is an assault on our freedoms and an insult to the sacrifices of generations before us.

Respectfully,

[Your Name]

 Disney-ABC Home Entertainment and Television Distribution

500 S. Buena Vista St.

Burbank, CA 91521 

Subject: Stop Cowering. Start Defending Free Speech.

To Bob Iger and the Disney Board,

Enough.

What you are doing right now—suspending Jimmy Kimmel in response to a thinly veiled mafia-style threat from FCC Chairman Brendan Carr—is nothing short of cowardice. You are surrendering the very freedoms that make your company possible. And let’s be clear: you don’t exist without us. You depend on consumer revenue for survival, and without that revenue, you don’t need broadcast licenses.

Carr is not wielding legitimate authority—he is bullying you into silence. He is contradicting his own past statements about the sanctity of free speech while dangling licensing approvals as leverage to bend media companies to his will. That isn’t regulatory oversight. That’s political jawboning, and it’s unconstitutional. Courts have said again and again that government cannot coerce private companies into suppressing speech. Disney knows this. You could win that fight in court every single time. But instead, you are playing along, letting this administration weaponize the murder of Charlie Kirk as a pretext to muzzle dissent.

This isn’t just about Jimmy Kimmel. This is about the principle that the press—whether it takes the form of nightly comedy or nightly news—stands as one of the few remaining bulwarks protecting democracy. When the government pressures a network into pulling a show because it criticizes the ruling party, it erodes not only freedom of the press but also freedom of speech for every single citizen who relies on a functioning media to safeguard truth.

Make no mistake: if you sell out free speech now for short-term convenience, you are setting fire to the foundation of the society that sustains your business. Your profits will not protect you when the ground underneath you is gone. You will not need an FCC license when you no longer have viewers, because you chose to serve political bullies instead of the public.

We—the consumers who fund you—demand better. We demand that you stop capitulating to threats. We demand that you put your enormous resources toward protecting the rights enshrined in the First Amendment. If you cannot muster the courage to do this for the sake of democracy, then do it for the sake of your own survival. Because we will not bankroll a company that sells us out to authoritarians.

This is the line. Stand up now. Restore Jimmy Kimmel Live. Defend the principle of free speech. Show us that you serve your consumers, not the cowardice of executives hiding from confrontation.

If you fail, know this: we will use the only power you respect—our money. Disney Plus, Hulu, your theme parks, your movies—all of it is discretionary spending. And if you think we won’t walk away, you’re already proving how badly you underestimate the public you claim to serve.

History will remember. The only question is whether Disney will be remembered as a company that cowered before a bully—or one that finally stood tall when it mattered most.

You. Make. Me.

—A Furious Customer