S1: It's time for KPBS Midday Edition. Today's show is all about free speech and what that looks like under the Trump administration. I'm Jade Hindman with conversations that keep you informed , inspired , and make you think. We'll speak with a political and constitutional scholar to talk about our First Amendment rights and government influence. Then we'll continue our conversation with local comedians to find out how recent efforts to censor comedic political commentary are impacting their work. That's ahead on Midday Edition. Free speech is dominating the headlines right now. Last week , ABC announced it would indefinitely suspend late night host Jimmy Kimmel after he commented on Charlie Kirk's killing. This came shortly after FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said publicly , quote , we can do this the easy way or the hard way , end quote. The move also comes after Trump reached million dollar settlements from ABC and CBS over coverage , and Congress has stripped federal funding from NPR and PBS. Leaders and scholars are sounding the alarm about our right to free speech and freedom of the press , and many fear this could signal a new era of political censorship. Joining me to make sense of this is Eric Epps. He's a professor of political science at Imperial Valley College. Rick , sorry about that. Welcome to you. Both.
S2: Both. Very quick. Thank you. Nice to be here.
S1: Glad to have you. Also , David Laurie is here with us. He's the legal director with the First Amendment Coalition in San Diego. David , it's great to have you joining us as well.
S3: Thank you very much. Great to be here.
S1: Great to have you. Um , David , I'll start with you.
S4: That is censorship by any other name. And if you don't believe me , you can ask Senator Ted Cruz , who said the same thing. Hmm.
S1: Hmm. You know , and and for anyone who doesn't know what Kimmel actually said , we do have a clip that I'd like to go ahead and play now.
S5: We had some new lows over the weekend , with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them , and doing everything they can to score political points from it. Yeah.
S1: Yeah. And so in response to that , uh , FCC chairman , uh , Carr actually went on a podcast and again said , you know , we can do this the easy way or the hard way and really pressured , um , these companies and networks to get rid of the Jimmy Kimmel show. So , Rick , you heard that.
S2: Jimmy Kimmel , as well as many of others have spoken candidly about , you know , the the presidency or the foibles of , of heavy handed politics , whatever the issues may be. And this goes back for , you know , centuries of criticism. And so there was nothing unusual about people speaking up , speaking out against issues that they find to be relevant or counter to what one political party may see. However , this is , you know , one of the first times that we have seen a heavy handed , um , reproach , if you would , of of , uh , of an individual who when you listen to the rhetoric , it said nothing , uh , inflammatory as far as I am concerned. Um , you know , some people have said it's in poor taste , right ? It's ah , the timing of it's not good , but it's rare the case that you find that that timing has any element of this. In fact , Jimmy Kimmel himself had said that it was horrible about what happened. You know , he , you know , he he really was very , you know , affable and and respectful of , of the shooting and what happened to this individual. But he also very made it very straight , straightforward comment that the MAGA group was using it to , you know , push their agenda. And I think the evidence is readily available that that's what's happening and it's happening more and more under this administration. It's very disturbing. Mhm.
S1: Mhm. You know , David , media companies Nexstar and Sinclair both own a range of ABC affiliates It's. And we're the first to come out and decide to nix Jimmy Kimmel Show indefinitely. Right now , Nexstar is seeking FCC approval for a merger with Tegna. If that goes through , the company would own three TV stations in the San Diego market.
S4: First , separate and apart from what the government does or does not do. Concentration in media ownership can present problems to the extent that , you know , one company controls multiple platforms from which the public can acquire news and information. That's not a question of governmental censorship. That's a question of concentration of ownership , which can be a potential problem. Related to that , however , is the second point , which is that to the extent the government has leverage Ridge over whether to approve a certain merger. That creates an obvious incentive for the companies seeking approval to curry favor with the government. And this administration has made abundantly clear that it will exercise that leverage not for legitimate business or regulatory reasons , but to censor and discourage speech that it dislikes , and to favor and encourage speech that it approves and likes. And that is a censorship problem. The government should never be putting its thumb on the scale of what is the right or the wrong thing to say in the media. Now take Jimmy Kimmel's comment as an example. Some people might find it extremely offensive and inflammatory. Some people might find it entirely appropriate , that is , for people in civil society to judge and decide for themselves. And if people want to boycott the station or if people want to pull that show or where companies affiliates want to pull that show from their programming. That's their decision. As long as the government is not putting its thumb on the scale. And this administration has been made no secret , it's been open and notorious and transparent that it will retaliate against critics. It will retaliate against anyone who opposes this regime. That is not democracy. That is authoritarianism waiting to happen. And I'm very , very concerned. And this transcends politics. Whether you agree with Jimmy Kimmel or not , whether you agree with Trump or Brendan Carr or anybody else , and there are people on the right who have quite correctly called this out as a threat to freedom of speech. More , they may say , I completely disagree with that , Jimmy Kimmel said. But the government should not be threatening to retaliate against the station or against the network because that violates fundamental rules of freedom of speech , and that will blow back on us if the other side gets in power. That is. I deeply respect those on the right who have called this out as as censorship and waiting. Hmm.
S1: Hmm. Rick , what do you what do you you know , these media mergers say for you ? Yeah.
S2: You know , and I agree with David , you know , and I think this is sort of interesting , an interesting time because , you know , and many of us know that historically that , you know , news and integrity , the news was really important , you know , back in the days , right , that in fact , if you looked at CBS , ABC or NBC going back , you know , 40 , 30 , 40 , 50 years ago , it really was about it wasn't about picking one side or the other. It's about trying to provide information to the public so the public can make it , be it , you know , educated well , you know , well versed on these issues. And now with all the polarization and those who are being put forward even to , to to sell this information , very few of them are , you know , political scientists like myself , you know , versed in this field or like , or like David , a constitutionalist , right. Who they go get people who have , you know , a communication studies major , but has a million followers. And they say , what do you think ? Give you a microphone and then whatever they say , no matter their limited knowledge , that becomes true. Instead of the people who really are the experts in the field. And that's a really disconcerting aspect across the board as far as the , you know , the idea of the authority , the rise of authoritarianism , you know , which is incredibly troubling , because when you can use when you can take a playbook and , and silence those silence dissent , which is the essence of democracy , is is to be able to dissent free of risk of your being assaulted or maligned. Um , that says volumes. And the fact that there's a , there's a part of the public that's been manipulated into standing , you know , very strongly against one side or the other , then they've been manipulated into thinking that that democracy doesn't is not for everyone. It's only for certain groups of people who follow whatever that group that's in power actually suggest. And that's a very that's a very dangerous precedent.
S1: Well , and speaking of that , David , I'm going to let you answer this last question here before we go to break and continue our conversation on the other side. But , you know , over the weekend , President Donald Trump told the crowd at Charlie Kirk's memorial that he hates his opponents and does not want the best for them.
S4: It's another thing to say , I hate you , but I will defend your right to disagree with me. Politics is ugly. Politics has always been ugly. But underlying politics , there needs to be a fundamental commitment to rule of law and a fundamental commitment to freedom of speech as the oxygen of civil society. So I'm most troubled by not just the fact that there's polarization. We've had deep polarization in this country at different times , but what's most frightening to me is the complete disregard , the apparent complete disregard and disrespect from this administration of the fundamental right to freedom of speech , even for the people that we most disagree with.
S1: Still to come , we continue our conversation on free speech on the other side of this break. KPBS Midday Edition is back in a bit. Welcome back to KPBS midday Edition. I'm Jade Hindman. This hour , we're discussing the state of free speech following the latest out of the FCC and the possible local implications of that. I'm here with David Loy. He's legal director with the First Amendment Coalition in San Diego. And also Rick Eppes , political science professor with Imperial Valley College. Um , Rick , you know , before we went to break , you wanted to add to what David Loy said about rhetoric from the president and add some context through the lens of the Bill of rights. Yeah.
S2: Yeah. Well , so , you know , of course , obviously the freedom of speech is one of the elements , primary elements of the Bill of rights. But what I wanted to say was this is that , you know , when we talk about the Bill of rights , the Bill of rights was created to protect us , the people , from the government , right ? It was supposed to give us the sense of it's actually the foundation of what holds democracy together was letting the people know they had some rights to protect themselves. But I will tell anyone and I , as I tell my students , that your rights are subject to interpretation. So your view of what you think freedom of speech is or , or the right to bear arms or , you know , or the right to peacefully assemble all those things that that we sort of hold up in as monikers of , of the Bill of rights , along with , you know , all the various aspects of criminal elements that are part of that in terms of detainment. The reality is what you think it to be very real doesn't matter. What matters is the person who is who has power , what they interpret it to be. So the analogy I would use is like you're one person. And if if somebody you want to hold up your book and say , here is the Bill of rights , says this , that's great. But if the person who if you were unlawfully detained by the police , for example. And you thought you could hold that book up ? Does it really matter at that moment ? Or it's a person who has power that is that one who matters. And the truth of the matter is , while your interpretation may feel good to you , what matters is the person who has power over you that you're challenging what their interpretation is because you're one individual and they are collective. And frequently this is where things get messy. Unless it goes to some sort of legal opinion that then draws us into our framework that supports , either supports , or does not support the essence of things like free speech or or , you know , freedom , right , to bear arms and those things. So in this case , you know , this is a direct challenge to the freedom of speech and being able to say what you need to say. And in democracy , it is the freedom of speech is the pressure valve of democracy. And when you can't , it's a litmus test. And if you can't have that right , or if it's being impeded by corporate , by strong arm , by the government , by corporations caving into the government , that is a huge slap to the face of democracy. And I think a lot of people , the general public , have bought into it and think that that's normal. And I think once you normalise it , that's where that's when things start to really fall apart.
S1: Well , David , that in mind , I'd like to talk about the wider implications of this for everyday people and employees. You know , people are losing their jobs due to social media posts about politics and even less than that. Karen Attia with The Washington Post was just fired. And right here in San Diego , a Navy doctor was just removed from her leadership position after right wing activists shared her screenshots of her LinkedIn account , which included her pronouns.
S3:
S4: Because private entities are not governed by the First Amendment , you know , for First Amendment purposes , a private employer is free to take whatever action it wishes in response to an employee speech. California does have certain statutes in its labor code that do restrict employers right , private employers right to or some state and local employers rights to , um , to fire people because their speech and their political speech in some circumstances , um , the government is bound by the First Amendment , and the government generally should not be , you know , firing rank and file employees simply because of their viewpoint. Now , if you are the mayor's chief of staff and the chief of staff undermines the mayor's politics or policy , the mayor can say , I need the chief of staff who's loyal to me. So it's a bit of a sliding scale. Um , so but in essence , the government should not be terminating employees. So , you know , rank and file employees simply because it does not like what they have to say. Now , the military's a little different. Um , you know , the military has more leeway to crack down on speech of rank and file. Uh , for understandable reasons. Um , so every case depends on its facts. But as a general matter , the First Amendment says the government should not usually be firing rank and file staff simply because it disagrees with their politics. Mhm.
S1: Mhm.
S2: And I'd say real quickly and I agree with David on this , but one of the things we've seen happen in this administration is the just , just the wiping out of the federal bureaucracy. You know , and that's , that's. And in fact , so , David , what you just said , I think is the essence of what concerns me most is that to come in and be able to unwind the federal bureaucracy or put people over part of the bureaucracy who have no experience whatsoever in those fields is terribly troubling. And I think that's one of the realities of the fact that we're seeing happen , and particularly for the use of a pronoun or not use of a pronoun , that you think that if you were going to be removed to be for something that was really , you know , ideologically problematic. But just because you put , you know , he she , they them whatever you're using that they take that and say that's a grounds for termination. That's , you know , that's mind numbing really. It's. Yeah.
S1: Yeah , absolutely. What do you think the implications are though ? Um , for when when government is able to pressure corporations , um , and then corporations capitulate by then getting rid of various employees for their , their freedom of speech.
S2: Well , again , it's one of those moments that it's sort of , you know , while not without precedent , what you find out is that these companies all have private their own. But at the end of the day , they're owned by private , private citizens who have their own political views. Right. So even though there may be a body , you know , a board of directors or , you know , things like that that exist at the higher framework , they all have a political ideology that they utilize , and what they try to do is push their view of the world onto this , onto the to the politics and policies. That's where that's where it gets messy. So all these companies have capitulated , you know , and I you know , I have to say I've been very disappointed that some of them did allow themselves to be strong , armed and manipulated , but it also reflects that they're there entities within their organizations who share the same ideological premise that have allowed for this to happen. So some of it is of being fearful of the president , right ? Fearful of the administration , which is frightening enough that you have to be fearful of the of the the entity that's supposed to be leading us and guiding us. But the other side is that there are people within that house that are also , I would argue , just as guilty of capitulation. Mhm.
S1: Mhm.
S4: The Government cannot do indirectly what it can't do directly. So the government should not be strong arming private companies or private entities to censor their own staff. Some organizations and some media have stood up and refused to bend the knee. And I commend them. There are law firms that are fighting the administration have fought censorship. There are universities that have stood up and fought censorship and retaliation. There are others that have capitulated and bent the knee. I wish more would stand up , because the best defense against authoritarian is the best defense against an authoritarian takeover is a strong showing by civil society and a strong resistance. And again , this transcends politics. This should not be a matter of left , right , Democrat or Republican. This should be a matter of we defend the fundamental right to freedom of speech for everyone. A principle is not a principle if it's not inconvenient sometimes , and I commend those who have stood up and continue to resist and fight back against this attack. On the fundamental premise of freedom of speech , which again , I submit , is the oxygen of all civil society.
S2: I was I was just going to say quickly , I think part of this also really gets to a root of a bigger problem , which is the lack of of teaching civic education. You know , when I came through , you know , junior high school , way back in the day , they taught civics. Most of these kids now don't get taught anything until they get to be in college. So they have no sense of what it means , really , to to operate and work within a democracy. So I tell my students frequently one two things one , that freedom isn't free and that democracy takes work. And if you're not going to participate , then you might as well put a crown on the guy's head and call him a king , or call her a queen and call it a day. But it requires our participation and the fact that there's such a huge level of a lack of knowledge of anything related to this , other than what they see on social media , which can be incredibly divisive , then , you know , they just operate being manipulated. Which again , when one of those core essences of power , um.
S1: You know , here's a question , Rick , because , you know , the events of the day , they're not just happening in a silo. They're all connected. So when you look at the killing of Charlie Kirk and the government censorship or pressure that's happening now , even Donald Trump's desire to designate Antifa a terrorist organization , though Antifa is not an organization. Um , all of that put together.
S2: And I know we'll talk about that momentarily , but the idea of creating a , an institutional framework that is built on conservatism and institutionalized their ideology , their view of the world , and putting that into play in every aspect of government across the federal bureaucracy. The president. The office of the president across every aspect of life. And , you know , it's interesting. The beauty of democracy is that it is diverse. It should be diverse. It should , you know , no matter whether if you're a religious person , that's great. But you know what ? You have to acknowledge the people who are atheist or agnostic , right ? You've got to be able to govern everyone. Just like when Obama was president , he couldn't just legislate for black people. He has to legislate for everybody , no matter where he matter , no matter his skin color. So the idea of what that really represents is that we see now that sort of very protracted view of trying to permanently institutionalize conservative rule over the country. And , you know , you can't you can't shove a particular ideology down the throats of people. And then if people were to look at the hypocrisy of some of the things that for people who stand in these positions , it's it's even more frightening. And that's what you know , again. But our ignorance , our lack of knowing is our undoing And the problem is , because there's so many. There's millions of bits of data out there. Where do you go to get the truth ? And then they marginalize it by saying , hey , you know , everything's fake news , you know ? And that's that's really the damning part of that. Yeah.
S1: Yeah. Well , you mentioned the 2025 playbook.
S2: Anyone who is who challenges the ideologies of conservative rule are silenced and including those who are who are comedians , those who kind of brought levity to it , as they always have , are being silenced , which had never really been the case before. They may try to silence political pundits , but rarely did they go after the comedians , or even President Johnson and others laughed at when they were being criticized by others. But this particular administration , when you laugh , when you make fun of them or joke about them , they have now made it very clear that there is like a zero tolerance. And the fact that they. It's like they take a strong arm , like it's weird sort of Mafia style view of how they treat people. That and that. And we have we have taken it. And that's the problem was if we don't push back against the government incursion , then they will just keep taking. And that's the scary part. They will take until we stop and say enough. Yeah.
S1: Yeah. David , quickly , before we go , I want to give you the final word here.
S4: This is qualitatively different from any administration I've seen in living memory. And all governments push the limits. All governments tend towards censorship at some level and should be resisted. This administration is different both in quality and degree , and that is terrifying and I agree. You know , it is incumbent on all of us in civil society to resist this attack on the fundamental pillar of freedom of speech , regardless of your political position or your political party.
S1: I've been speaking with David Lloyd , legal director with the First Amendment Coalition. David , thank you so much.
S4: Thank you.
S1: Also with us , Eric Epps , political science professor with Imperial Valley College. Uh , Rick , sorry about that. Thank you so much.
S2: Thank you , I appreciate it.
S1: Still to come. We hear from local comedians about how they're navigating their work in light of censorship , of comedic political commentary. More after the break. Welcome back to KPBS midday Edition. I'm Jade Hindman , so this past hour we've been talking about political censorship and the right to free speech in light of Jimmy Kimmel Live being taken off the air. Of course , that's just the most recent in a slew of actions. We can start back with Amber Ruffin , for example , just today , the ACLU , though , came out with an open letter signed by 400 celebrities in support of Kimmel and condemning the suspension there. Today , we also want to look at what this could mean for comedy , not just on a national level , but also right here in San Diego. I'm joined live by two professional comedians local to San Diego. Walter Ford has been doing stand up for a decade. He's also been on the show. Netflix is a joke. Walter , welcome to you. Well.
S6: Well. Thank you , I appreciate you. Thanks for having me.
S1: Glad you're here. Also with us is Victor Paz. He's the founder and co-producer for cackles , a local comedy company. Victor , it's good to have you here as well. Thank you. So this question is for both of you. It's been a little less than a week since Jimmy Kimmel's show was taken off the air. What are your initial reactions to the news ? Walter , I'll start with you.
S6: Um , initially , I honestly feel like for the first time in my life , I'm watching the government , um , attempt to censor free speech , you know , and , uh , it's it was pretty shocking. It was pretty shocking. It made me also think about how local that actually can get here in the near future. Yeah.
S1: Yeah.
S7: Um , for the last few decades , I think this is the first time it's been so overtly done in the public eye , and I think that's the scarier part , that they flexed their muscles just out on broad , sitting on the , you know , lawn of the white House and like , hey , and I and I thought that was the scariest part for me because it's like when they did it behind the scenes , you were kind of like , we know you're doing something , but we don't see it , but when we see it , we're like , hey , like it's like , you know.
S1: It's in your face.
S8: Right ? Yeah , yeah.
S1: But also , since it's in your face , it almost like demands a response from you. Correct.
S7: Correct. Right.
S1: Right. You can't act like. Well , we're not sure this is what's happening. No.
S8: No. Yeah.
S1: Because it's right here.
S8: Right there.
S7: They used to , ironically , have the integrity to lie to our face about it , you know what I mean ? Like , I don't know how else to say it. Like , at least they kind of hid that they were liars. But , like , now it's like , no , you're just gonna you're just gonna overtly say , no , you don't have the right to talk back to us. And this is the first time I think it's directly come pretty much from the president , and I think that's the scariest part of it all.
S1:
S6:
S1:
S6: I was going to ask , could I get that question again ? I kind of lost you a little bit there.
S1: Yeah , yeah.
S6: It actually makes me speak even louder about my comedy.
S1: That's a. Change.
S8: Change.
S6: I think , right now. Uh , used to. Yeah. Yeah. I think you said the best , uh , the best action is to , uh , understand that. What ? We're in a moment in time where we have to meet the moment. And right now , speak up even more than we were before.
S1:
S6: And that's online as well. Yeah.
S7: Yeah. Um , so I , I operate , uh , the way I operate my comedy is I'm more , uh , I'm more tongue in cheek in my humor and point out the absurdities , and I and I think , uh , I haven't really found a way to point out how absurd this is , to be honest with you , without feeling like I'm copying everybody else , and I and I like , I like to always , uh , spin around my head. Um , I look at things from two perspectives. I also look at things from a , the perspective of a producer , because we produce about 11 , 12 shows all around San Diego. And , um , as a producer , I was concerned that some of the comedians might not have the grace to to handle such a topic. We all can't be Jon Stewart , you know , we can't all handle such difficult situations so well. Um , and so it's like I've looked at it two different ways. Like as a comedian , I'm like , I and I don't want people to say however they want , whatever they want. But as a producer , I'm like , hey man , like I also got to sire some some way. You know what I'm saying ? I don't I don't know how to quite put it.
S8: Yeah , well.
S1: You know , I mean , how how have , like , how have people in the the circles you run in , in the comedy industry ? How ? I mean , is there a consensus that free speech is being challenged , in fact.
S7: Oh , absolutely. I mean , I know , I know , I , me and Walter don't always run in the same circles. We know of each other , but we haven't really performed on shows together. But , um , comedy is a small world. Uh uh , either you have principles of free speech or you do not have principles of free speech. That's not right. That's not left. That's just either you're okay with the government intervening , intervening and stopping , uh , stopping people from saying what they want or you're not. Now people will come up with all sorts of excuses and they'll say things like , well , Jimmy Kimmel was on the down low on the downslope. Oh , well , so was every other television show. They were all down 70%. But what they weren't saying is. But look what their views were on YouTube. Look where their views were on Instagram , like where their views were on TikTok. They were picking up their views just the same. It was just on different media formats. And people aren't evolving with the times. I mean , I'm a comedian. Walter is a comedian. We both have to have social media , whether we like it or we hate it. They're important for our careers.
S1: Yeah , that's something I hadn't even thought about.
S6: Um , and kind of going back to my last point where we need to , um , find what powers or what collectively we can do to make sure that this doesn't come to our doorstep. I mean , a lot of people are pretty , pretty scared and nervous right now. You know , and I know people that are also in the media space , um , that are even afraid to use social media the same in fear of , uh , losing money and fear of losing deals , or in fear of having their platform silenced as well.
S1: Yeah , well , and you know , as we're sitting here right now , we just got some breaking news and that Jimmy Kimmel Live will return to ABC on Tuesday after being benched by ABC Disney. Um , for Charlie Kirk comments. Um , reaction from both of you on that , Victor.
S7: I think it kind of shows that the public still wields some power. I think that's I mean , there were so many people that went and you know , I over overall , I don't think I seen one comedian that was cool with counseling , Jimmy Kimmel and on whether they were right or left or whether they were in the Rogan Rogan sphere or not. Um , and on the and also , I think the , the , the regular , um , the regular I am a regular person. I don't know why I'm saying it that way. Uh , but people that like , had Disney and Hulu and they , were all canceling their stuff , saying , hey dude , we're going to flex our muscles too. We can make a difference. And I mean , you have a whole bunch of people doing the same thing , and we all work in unison and it's amazing what we can accomplish in even three , four days. Yeah.
S8: Yeah.
S1:
S6: I mean , if I , I could be misquoting , but I believe they lost about three , $3.1 billion of of a valuation in , in , like , a day or something like that. And so it just shows because I'm also a person that canceled my , uh , Disney+ immediately. So it shows that solidarity , um , can push these platforms no matter who they , um , who they have to answer to. Mhm.
S8: Mhm. Yeah.
S6: And I think we just we experienced that in real time. Mhm.
S8: Mhm.
S1: There it is. Here's a quite a doozy for you. Um you know there were a lot of comedians in the scene who actively supported and advocate for President Trump because they say they they want to protect freedom of speech , especially in that move to remove Jimmy Kimmel from air.
S6: Can I , can I get the getting part of that question again ? Because I kind of lost you a little bit. Yeah.
S1: Yeah. Just there were some I mean , there are some comedians who , who sit on the other side of this and believe that the move to remove Jimmy Kimmel from air was , in fact , um , a move in the right direction for freedom of speech.
S6: Oh , yeah. you know , I think I think those people are just doing the same thing that Disney was doing , and they're just placating to a certain base and placating to a certain person. You know , I mean , we all have opinions , but I think that there's certain certain people and there's always going to be certain people that will just go along with whatever the status quo is. And I think those people were just saving face. You know , and in lieu to keep up their base or sell tickets or whatever you , you know , business they can get from that.
S8: Yeah , yeah. Yeah.
S6: Yeah. Cause that's insane.
S1: Well , Victor , what do you think about that ? I mean , because at the end of the day , everybody's got an opinion , and I guess everybody has the right to their opinion.
S7: I mean , I could say I'm athletic and £160 all day. That don't make me athletic and £160. You guys ever see a picture ? I mean , I'm closer to 300. Um , so , I mean , I don't I don't know how you could possibly say the government and the FCC commissioner saying , you know , a threat and a letter and how ? That's freedom of speech. Like and and mind you , I have a lot of nuance when it comes to free speech. I'm very similar to the gentleman that was on here earlier. And that like , there's a difference between the marketplace of ideas and , and them saying , hey , we don't want your ideas , we're not going to watch you and we're not going to send you money and freedom of speech , which is when the government comes in. I can say whatever I want , but if I'm insulting you and your audience is like , screw that guy. That's that's fair , that's fair. That's that's the marketplace of ideas. Saying my , my idea wasn't worth anything. So I think that once the government intervenes , that's my problem. When when people say , hey , we don't want none of that. That's just the marketplace of ideas saying no. And I think people confuse freedom of speech and with cancel culture , and they're not the same thing to me. Right.
S8: Right.
S1: Well , yeah.
S9: No , not at all. Um , And. So.
S8: So. Yeah. Sorry. No , no. You're good. You're good.
S1: I was gonna then go in. And what exactly is cancel culture again ? But. But that's.
S8: Another show. I'm sorry about that. No. You're good , you're good.
S1: Well , I mean , how would you characterize the comedy scene today , Walter ? I mean , you've been doing stand up for ten years now.
S6: Um , that's kind of a lot of the business now , I will say also , it's kind of , uh , moved and shifted to a more political stance just because of the environment that we're in. You know , people still do their little high high , you know , jokey jokes , but it's definitely more , um , in totality. A lot of people are speaking up on more political things , even if they aren't the most political type of person or have the most political type of comedy. And I think it's just from the changing landscape that we've seen in America in the last ten years , you know , literally since 2025 or 2015. Yeah.
S8: Yeah.
S6: Um , and I and I the reason I think that's a good thing , because the entertainers are the soothsayers of the of history. So right now , I think there's just a lot of people that are using their expression to get their point across and share information. Right.
S8: Right.
S1: Well , in Victor I mean comedy. You know , it has a long history of rocking the boat. Yeah.
S7: Yeah. I mean , uh , comedian , I , I always say that we're the we're the modern day gestures. Um , our job is to poke at the king , and we're not allowed to poke at the king. Then we're not allowed to do our job. Um , I think that's why guys like , uh , Stephen Colbert or Jon Stewart , um , some of these guys have become so important in society. Um , the Jimmy Kimmel's and the Jimmy Fallon's. But even back in the day , a lot of people , you know , Jay Leno and Carson and all the Lettermen. All these guys had their moments where they also poked at whatever was in front of them at the time , because that's our job as jesters is to set it straight and be like , hey , dude , this is absurd. This is ridiculous. And we're supposed to let you know , and we're supposed to , uh , use entertainment in our in our comedic voice to tell it. Now , I'll be the first one to say that , um , Walter is ten years in , and I'm only three years in. He's much more mastered of his craft than I am. Um , but I've always been a big fan of comedy and political comedy , especially , um , I think we've become extraordinarily polarized , and people don't even want to hear the other side. Even if a comedic standpoint as a producer , I've heard somebody say , you had three people bashing Trump , and I was like , I don't even have too much political stuff on my stage. I have some stuff where people are making points about the absurdities of society. I don't consider that political. I just consider it honest. Um , but some people just associate one thing with politics. And , um , and I think that's , uh , that's a danger in itself because now we're not even open to discussing things. And , um , that's not even freedom of speech. That's just the society's saying , I don't even want to listen to you. I'd rather we were talking at each other , and we're not we're not having a conversation anymore. Um , and that was that was honestly one of them , one of my big issues with a lot of these online debaters , they're they're stuck on a hill and they're not having a conversation. Right ? They're just kicking down the hill saying , uh , no , I'm right. You're just going to have to listen to me till I prove it to my audience , not to the person they're actually having a conversation with.
S1: One of the many consequences of , uh , you know , manipulating facts , right ? Correct.
S8:
S1: Um , ultimately , what are your hopes for comedy ? What needs to be done to make sure comedians can continue to punch up instead of punch down ? Walter.
S6: Um , I think right now , what we what we need is kind of how , like , they tried to get it back in the day. We need , like , a , um , some kind of agency or some kind of like , like a comedian owned. Uh , what's the word ? I'm looking.
S8: For a. Union.
S1: Union.
S8: Or something.
S6: We need somebody that could speak for it. Say that. Again.
S8: Again. I don't.
S1: Know , a union. Or.
S8: Or.
S6: Yeah , union. That's what we need. Some kind of union or something like that. That can speak for entertainers and that can have some sort of , um , help and resources. Just like in the case of Jimmy Fallon , something happened to him. We have some resources to be able to , to , um , fight back against these different.
S8: Jimmy Kimmel.
S6: Entities that have certain certain agendas , you know ? So , sure , I think I think that'll be the best thing right now for the future.
S1: All right , Victor , I'll let you have the last word here.
S7: All right , well , I nominate , uh , Walter for the first president of comedians. Um.
S8: Um.
S7: Uh , no , I think he's right. I think , um , also in the comedy world , there's , uh , there's always a barrier between being a club comic and being , you know , which are like the upper echelons , the comedy stores , the improvs , all these big things. And , um , a lot of us comedians are very good , but don't get a chance to , to perform in front of those audiences. Um , and because of that , there is a segregation , even amongst comedians , just because we don't roll in the same circles. Like , like I said , I've known of Walter for a long time. I've been trying to get him on to a show. We just haven't had a moment to book him. Um , but , uh , yeah , I think it's absolutely , um , absolutely important that we find some sort of way to align as comedians. And that's that's right and left , because we all have to have principles and stand by what we stand by. Um , most people would say , you know , uh , Jon Stewart was a Democrat and he was a leftist , right. But he went super hard at Clinton. He went super hard at Oklahoma.
S8: All right. Hey , well , you all.
S1: Stay in , stay.
S8: Doing the good work.
S1: I've been speaking with local comedians Walter Ford and Victor Paz. Thank you both for joining us today.
S6: Thank you as well. Have a blessed day. Talk to you soon.
S8: You too.
S7: Thank you so much.
S1: Thanks for joining us today. If you missed anything , you can download KPBS Midday Edition on all podcast apps. Don't forget to watch Evening Edition tonight at five for in-depth reporting on San Diego issues. Also , you can always share your feedback or segment ideas at midday at KPBS. Or you can give us a call. The number is (619) 452-0228. I'm Jade Hindman. We'll talk again tomorrow. Until then , make it a great day on purpose , everyone.
