As America 250 celebrations unfold this year, one of the most revealing tests of free expression played out not in a courtroom, a congressional hearing or a campus quad — but across four consecutive Hollywood awards ceremonies. What the 2026 awards season demonstrated, ceremony by ceremony, is that the chilling effect on speech in this country is no longer solely a product of government action. It is increasingly driven by the always-on commentariat that social media has — a force that can amplify a voice to millions and destroy a reputation in the same news cycle.
The arc was striking. At the Golden Globes in January, the entertainment industry spoke in code. Winners kept their speeches deliberately vague. Jean Smart accepted her award for “Hacks” by telling the room, “Let’s all do the right thing. I think everybody in their hearts knows what the right thing is to do.” She had already said her “rant” on the red carpet, she explained — a telling separation of protest from the podium. The political statements that did appear came through accessories: “Be Good” pins honoring Renee Good, the activist killed by an ICE agent in Minneapolis, worn by Mark Ruffalo, Wanda Sykes and others. The one exception was presenter Judd Apatow, who declared, “I believe we’re in a dictatorship now.” Ruffalo went furthest — but off-stage, in interviews, not from the microphone.
Three weeks later at the Grammys, a different industry — younger, less corporate, with artists who maintain direct-to-fan platforms — decided the risk calculus differently. Bad Bunny opened his acceptance speech with “ICE out!” Billie Eilish said “F*** ICE” and “No one is illegal on stolen land.” SZA urged listeners not to “fall into despair.” Best New Artist winner Olivia Dean called herself “a granddaughter of an immigrant.” Host Trevor Noah jabbed the president directly, and “ICE Out” pins were everywhere. It was the most overtly political major awards ceremony in years.
The aftermath was immediate and telling. Within hours, President Trump called the show “virtually unwatchable” on Truth Social. Elon Musk amplified attacks on Eilish. Senator Mike Lee argued that anyone invoking “stolen land” should surrender their own property. And Ricky Gervais resurfaced his 2020 Golden Globes monologue — “If you do win an award tonight, don’t use it as a political platform” — posting, “They’re still not listening.” A comedian who had not been in the room used the commentariat to insert himself into the narrative, and his post generated as much discussion as the speeches themselves.
At the SAG Awards on March 1 — now rebranded as the Actor Awards and streamed on Netflix — the pendulum swung to near-silence. Harrison Ford’s lifetime achievement speech was about gratitude and carpentry. Michael B. Jordan’s Best Actor win for “Sinners” was emotional but personal. No “ICE Out” pins were visible. No political declarations came from the podium. For a union ceremony representing 160,000 performers, the restraint was remarkable.
Then came the Oscars on March 15, which split the difference. Host Conan O’Brien acknowledged “chaotic, frightening times” but pivoted to optimism.
Jimmy Kimmel, presenting the documentary awards, offered the sharpest line of the night: “There are some countries whose leaders don’t support free speech. I’m not at liberty to say which. Let’s just leave it at North Korea and CBS.” That dig referenced both FCC Chairman Brendan Carr’s escalating pressure on broadcasters and the recent cancellation of “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.” David Borenstein, accepting the documentary feature Oscar for “Mr. Nobody Against Putin,” drew the evening’s starkest parallel: “When a government murders people on the streets of our major cities, when we don’t say anything, when oligarchs take over the media and control how we could produce it and consume it — we all face a moral choice.” Javier Bardem, wearing pins reading “No a la Guerra” and the Palestinian Handala symbol, said simply: “No to war, and free Palestine.”
For those of us who study and defend the First Amendment, this four-ceremony arc is worth examining closely. The traditional free-expression concern — the one the Founders enshrined in those 45 words — is government suppression of speech.
But the 2026 awards season revealed a second, parallel chilling effect that operates outside any government action. When Will Smith struck Chris Rock at the 2022 Oscars, the clip was looping on every platform within minutes, spawning memes, debate threads and instant verdicts before the Academy could respond. That episode crystallized a shift that has only deepened: awards shows are no longer contained broadcasts. They are clouds of images, clips and reactions generated and distributed in real time across every time zone. The audience does not just watch; it edits, captions and renders judgment before the next presenter reaches the microphone.
The result is a free-expression paradox. Social media empowered #OscarsSoWhite into institutional reforms that traditional ratings pressure never could. Fans, activists and viewers outside the United States now participate directly in shaping which moments matter and why. But the same dynamics that empower can chill. When every utterance is instantly archived, clipped into a 15-second vertical video, stripped of context and framed by someone else’s caption, the cost of a real or perceived misstep can feel prohibitively high. Publicists now game out not only what their clients will say on live television but how those words will look on TikTok at 2 a.m.
This is not the government restricting speech. It is something newer and harder to address: a distributed accountability system with no due process, no appeals mechanism and no proportionality. A celebrity who says the wrong thing at the Grammys does not face prosecution. They face something that can be equally career-altering: a 48-hour cycle of clips, quote tweets and cable-news segments that ignore nuance from every syllable.
The First Amendment is a barrier between the government and its citizens. It does not reach private actors, including social media platforms and the millions of users who constitute the commentariat. That means the new chilling effect operates in a constitutional blind spot. No court can remedy it. No legislation can regulate it without creating its own First Amendment problems.
What can be done is to name it clearly and understand what it costs. The 2026 awards season showed major entertainment industry players learning, ceremony by ceremony, to calibrate expression for an audience that is always watching, recording and ready to rewrite the script, 24/7. The Globes offered coded caution. The Grammys erupted. The SAGs went silent. The Oscars split the difference. Each response was rational. None was fully free.
As America 250 invites us to reflect on the health of our democratic values, the entertainment industry’s struggle is a mirror for a much larger challenge. Hollywood has always been about controlling images. The 2026 awards season showed that the image is no longer one that TV, music or film can control. Rather, the controlling force is not the government the Founders warned about, but the audience the Founders empowered.
Stuart N. Brotman is Digital Media Laureate at The Media Institute and the author of “Free Expression Under Fire: Defending Free Speech and Free Press Across the Political Spectrum.” He can be reached at snbrotman@gmail.com.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here