First Amendment or FAFO, knowing the difference
I want to be clear: I am using real names in parentheses only to give context. I am still very shattered by what happened last week with the assassination (Charlie Kirk), and this is why I want to go down this rabbit hole in the most logical of all ways.
My purpose is to gain clarity.
This is a good time to start differentiating terminology and getting acquainted with logical axioms.
Constitutional, legal, First Amendment (constitutional law):
The focus is whether the government suppressed or punished speech. Example: if a state bans (Charlie Kirk) or anybody else from speaking on a campus because of his views, that is a First Amendment violation. That is actual censorship because the state is directly silencing a voice.
Under American law (constitutional law), this flows from the state action doctrine.
The First Amendment binds the government, not private actors. If a federal agency or a public university silences a speaker because of political content, the Constitution is implicated. If a private business makes a decision on its own, it is not.
Blackstone defined law (natural law) as “a rule of civil conduct prescribed by the supreme power in a state, commanding what is right and forbidding what is wrong.” By that standard, censorship by government is the clearest violation of lawful order.
Contractual, private business law:
The focus is whether a private employer has grounds, morals clause, reputational damage, financial harm to end a contract. Example: ABC ending (Kimmel)’s contract after a tasteless joke where he implied that (Kirk)’s assassin is MAGA, lying.
This is enforcement of a contract, unlike what many people are calling censorship. This is the key difference between rights and consequences. The First Amendment (constitutional law) protects the right to speak, but it does not shield anyone from criticism, lost audiences, or contractual termination. Speech is free, and consequences in the private sphere are real.
When the words themselves are detached from principles of truth, integrity is lost.
Opinion under the First Amendment (constitutional law):
Example: (President Trump) saying (Kimmel) has no talent is not censorship. It is his opinion, and his right to express it is protected by the First Amendment (constitutional law). He also has the right under private law to sue the (New York Times) or any other news outlet for slander or defamation if they spread lies about him. Those are civil remedies available under contract and tort law.
Moral and ethical behavior (ethics):
Example: people rejoicing after (Charlie Kirk)’s death is called Schadenfreude, the moral failure of taking pleasure in another’s pain.
Normal people taking action online by focusing on this behavior has also driven employers to terminate contracts with those who amplify or glorify it. This is what culture calls FAFO, fuck around, find out. Again, another misrepresentation of what censorship means.
Integrity and principles are the measure here: when words or reactions betray truth, the culture corrodes.
Lawful, natural law:
Example: the assassination of (Charlie Kirk) is the most radical violation of natural law. It is a violation of property rights in the truest sense, his life, his body, his voice, his liberty are his property, and to destroy them by force is to trespass against the most fundamental right of self ownership.
By contrast, (Kimmel)’s case is not a violation of property rights. His contract is property of both parties, and if he breaches its terms or damages the business, the employer is within its lawful rights under contract law to end it. He retains his voice, his liberty, his right to speak, he simply no longer has that particular platform.
I am interested in determining the difference logically. Do your homework. All information is available online for free. Ignorance is killing civilization.
Until spring 2026, realities will clash and lies will multiply. Truth depends on grounded perception. I come back to logic. Saturn and Neptune retrograde in Pisces during eclipses create confusion, and only clarity of thought cuts through.
