"The First Amendment says nothing about your getting paid for saying anything. It just says you can say it. I don't believe that if a corporation pulls all the money out of you or a network pulls their money away or you get fired, you're being censored"

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to free speech from government interference or punishment. It ensures individuals can express their ideas, beliefs, and criticisms without fear of legal reprisal from the state. However, it does not provide a guarantee of financial compensation or job security for expressing those ideas, nor does it obligate private entities, such as corporations or networks, to support or platform any particular speech.

Penn Jillette draws a distinction between the legal right to speak and the expectations many people have about being supported or profiting from that speech. When a corporation or network decides not to fund, sponsor, or continue a relationship with an individual because of their statements, it is not an infringement of the constitutional right to free speech. Private actors choosing how to allocate resources, curate content, or maintain their brand are exercising their own rights. These actions reflect business, ethical, or reputational interests, not government-imposed censorship. Losing a platform, audience, or source of income may have personal consequences, but it does not equate to the government preventing someone from speaking their mind.

Jillette’s perspective challenges the increasingly common conflation of social or economic consequences with formal censorship. Canceling a show, terminating a partnership, or withdrawing sponsorship are examples of market choices or community standards, not legal prohibitions. While public discourse, social pressures, or company policies might influence what is said and by whom, the essence of First Amendment protection is freedom from government suppression, not freedom from criticism or commercial consequences.

Understanding this distinction encourages a more nuanced view of free speech. It underscores the responsibility individuals and organizations have in navigating the complex terrain of speech, ethics, economics, and reputation, while recognizing that true censorship is the domain of government, not private enterprise.