Charlie Kirk's political power grew by strategically positioning himself as a direct opponent to the "woke movement" and "cancel culture" on college campuses. This narrative was highly effective in persuading conservative donors that his confrontational approach was a necessary fight, turning cultural discourse into a powerful fundraising mechanism.

Attempts to shut down controversial voices often fail. Instead of disappearing, suppressed ideas can fester and become more extreme, attracting an audience drawn to their defiance and ultimately strengthening their movement.

Contrary to the belief that banning a book increases its sales (the Streisand effect), the current wave of book bans is successfully creating a chilling effect. This leads to decreased sales and access for authors, particularly those from marginalized groups.

Senator Ed Markey argues that government overreach succeeds partly because large media companies choose to "roll over" and pay fines or accept chilling effects rather than legally challenging threats to their First Amendment rights. This corporate capitulation is a key, overlooked factor in the erosion of free speech.

Republicans speaking out against the censorship of Stephen Colbert is less a test of their moral backbone and more a strategic calculation. Their willingness to dissent serves as an indicator that they perceive Donald Trump's political power and ability to retaliate as weakening, suggesting the 'Trump fever' may be breaking.

Physically shouting down a speaker offers a temporary, local victory. However, the act of suppression is often recorded and shared, reaching a far larger 'audience' online. This audience frequently reacts against the suppression, giving the original message more power than it would have had otherwise.

The impact of a media story isn't measured solely by audience size. Its real influence can stem from capturing the attention of a few powerful figures, like Donald Trump, who then amplify the narrative and shape political discourse, as seen with the saga around Barry Weiss and CBS News.

While both the Biden administration's pressure on YouTube and Trump's threats against ABC are anti-free speech, the former is more insidious. Surreptitious, behind-the-scenes censorship is harder to identify and fight publicly, making it a greater threat to open discourse than loud, transparent attacks that can be openly condemned.

Gradual, complex issues like deploying federal troops into cities often fail to trigger a strong public backlash. In contrast, a sudden, easily understood event, like a late-night host's firing, can galvanize immediate outrage, revealing a disconnect in what the public perceives as a "red line."