Earlier this year, we wrote about the right to receive speech:
Textually, the First Amendment refers only to a right to speak and makes no mention of a right "to listen," "to hear," or "to know." Nevertheless, in
Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 96 S. Ct. 1817(1976), the Supreme Court held that "the protection afforded [by the First Amendment] is to the communication, to its source and to its recipients both."
Id. at 756.
Therefore, where one enjoys a right to speak, others hold a "reciprocal right to receive" that speech, which "may be asserted" in court.
Id. at 757. To assert a "right to receive" claim, there must be an otherwise "willing speaker."
Id. at 756. This ensures that the party bringing the "right to receive" claim has standind to sue, i.e., that "there is an injury in fact that would be redressed by a favorable decision."
United States v. Wecht, No. 06-3098, 484 F.3d 194, 2007 WL 1086308, at *5 (3d Cir. Apr. 12, 2007). While the speaker need not actually speak and run the risk of Government retaliation, she or he must at least be willing to say that but for the Government's policy, threat, decree or other action the frightened them into silence, they would have spoken.
Pa. Family Inst., Inc. v. Black, 489 F.3d 156, 165-166 (3rd Cir. 2007).
We believe that one of most significant harms caused by the Trump Administration's unprecedented attacks on public officials, government employees, scientists, researchers and members of the Academy is the loss of the ideas, opinions and expertise that they otherwise would have communicated. We are interested in hearing from current or former Government employees, academics and others who have changed their speech or refrained from speaking based on fear of Government retaliation.
In the two months since, the Administration has intensified its attacks on those who express views it does not like. It has called out by name philanthropist George Soros and his foundations, the Ford Foundation, the Nation magazine, and now it has brought about the cancellation of Jimmy Kimmel's late night talk show. All and solely because of the content of their speech. For example, immediately after Kimmel spoke about the killing of Charlie Kirk, Trump's FCC Chairman Brendan Carr appeared on the podcast of right-wing activist Benny Johnson saying the FCC had “remedies that we can look at” and that "[w]e can do this the easy way or the hard way …. 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.” Within 24 hours, ABC cancelled Kimmel's show. Both ABC and the FCC violated Kimmel's First Amendment rights and the rights of the viewing public to receive his speech.
"[A] government entity’s threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion against a third party to achieve the suppression of disfavored speech violates the First Amendment. Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors." NRA of Am. v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175, 180, 144 S. Ct. 1316, 1322 (2024) (internal citations omitted, cleaned up).
This is a class action case waiting to be filed.