Seriously, Is Laughter Illegal? Trump Takes Aim at Late-Night Satire

What’s more American than late-night television, right? And, let’s be honest, what’s more American than a politician getting a good-natured — or, well, not-so-good-natured — roasting from a comedian? Yet, it seems there are some who might disagree with that particular freedom, or at least, their interpretation of it.

Case in point: Donald Trump, who, for once, has aimed his considerable ire not at a rival politician or a “fake news” outlet, but squarely at Seth Meyers, the sharp-witted host of NBC’s “Late Night.” Trump, in a move that honestly left many scratching their heads, suggested that Meyers’ brand of comedic mockery was, dare I say it, illegal. Illegal, you ask? Indeed, that’s what he seemed to imply.

Now, we’re talking about satire here, aren’t we? The very bedrock of political commentary since... well, forever. From ancient Greek playwrights poking fun at leaders to vaudeville acts, and yes, to modern late-night monologues, using humor to dissect power has been a staple. And in the United States, famously, this kind of expression is broadly protected under the First Amendment. It’s not just “allowed”; it’s often seen as vital, a sort of pressure release valve for public sentiment, and a check on authority, however lighthearted.

But, and this is where it gets a little hazy, or perhaps just peculiar, Trump’s history with media criticism is, to put it mildly, contentious. He’s famously thin-skinned when it comes to jokes made at his expense. We’ve seen it time and again, whether it’s “Saturday Night Live” or various other comedic outlets. To him, it often feels less like good-natured ribbing and more like a personal affront, perhaps even a calculated attack. So, to suddenly elevate comedic jabs to the realm of illegality? That’s a whole new ballgame, isn’t it?

Honestly, the legal grounds for such a claim are, shall we say, non-existent. Our legal system, thankfully, makes a clear distinction between defamation (which requires malice and false statements of fact) and satirical commentary, which is clearly intended as humor. To equate a comedian’s monologue with a crime seems to fundamentally misunderstand the role of satire in a free society. It’s a statement that, frankly, tells us more about the speaker’s perception of his own untouchability than it does about the actual laws governing free speech.

So, what does this all mean for the future of late-night, or indeed, for any comedic takes on political figures? Probably not much in the grand scheme of things, one might argue. Comedians, you see, tend to thrive on controversy; it’s practically their oxygen. And while such pronouncements might make for good headlines, they rarely, if ever, stifle the very voices they aim to silence. If anything, they just give Seth Meyers—and frankly, every other late-night host—even more material. And that, in truth, is the enduring punchline.