The No Political Enemies Act, or NOPE Act, reaffirms and enhances our first amendment right.
SAN DIEGO — The debate over free speech is intensifying after late-night host Jimmy Kimmel was indefinitely suspended by ABC for comments about the fatal shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. In response, some Democratic lawmakers are pushing new legislation aimed at what they say will protect free speech.
The NOPE Act, short for No Political Enemies Act, was introduced Thursday by Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy. He said the measure reaffirms and strengthens First Amendment protections, ensuring that no president, Republican or Democrat, can punish people for their beliefs.
“This is legislation that makes sure the law is on the side of free speech, and the right to dissent,” he said.
Murphy was joined by several Democratic senators, including California’s Alex Padilla and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.
“Democrats will not stand by. We will fight these abuses in the courts, in the court of public opinion, in Congress,” Schumer said.
The NOPE Act would extend protections to media outlets, political groups, nonprofits, and other organizations, stating that the president and federal agencies cannot “weaponize” government power against those who disagree with an administration. It would also provide tools for people who believe they were wrongly targeted, such as meaningful access to evidence, correcting the imbalance of proof, and covering legal costs.
Former President Donald Trump denied that Kimmel was targeted.
“You can call that free speech or not, he was fired for lack of talent,” Trump said.
CBS 8 Legal Analyst Wendy Patrick said the proposal would extend beyond current constitutional protections.
“The issue becomes when somebody does suffer adverse consequences—firing of a job, reputational damage, whatever it is—this bill would go further and say, if we can prove government harassment, we’re even going to help you with your legal fees,” Patrick said.
Patrick noted that courts would ultimately determine what constitutes illegal government action. She also pointed out that, while Democrats introduced the bill, the broader conversation on free speech resonates across party lines.
“While this bill was introduced by the Democrats and has virtually no chance of going anywhere far in a Republican-controlled Congress, some would say, at the very least, we’re talking about the value of protecting free speech, and that can never be a bad thing,” Patrick said.