Kimmel’s suspension raises questions of what “free speech” really means
The United States is often known as the “Land of the Free,” where the persecuted come to express themselves without the fear of being silenced by a government with opposing views. Under the guise of a state that supports personal expression, the Trump Administration has begun to ramp up censorship of views that challenge its own. While President Trump attempts to frame himself as an advocate for freedom of speech, his actions, including the effective censorship of talk show host Jimmy Kimmel for critiquing the administration’s response to the Charlie Kirk assassination, prove otherwise.
On his first day in office, Trump signed the “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship” executive order, which sought to reduce federal censorship and promote freedom of speech. Despite the President’s intentions at the outset, he has recently allowed the government to engage in unrestrained censorship.
The death of the popular conservative political activist Charlie Kirk triggered various media reactions. Kirk was well known for his inflammatory political views, which he often expressed on The Charlie Kirk Show. His statements made waves on social media, and he furthered his reach through the founding of his youth educational organization, Turning Point USA. After hearing the news of Kirk’s murder, the President posted several somber social media posts mourning the loss of his friend. Although Kirk specifically promoted conservative values, his death triggered condolences from across the political aisle—from celebrities like Dr. Phil to former US President Barack Obama. One of these responses came from Kimmel. The comedian opened his September 17th show by making a statement about Kirk’s untimely death, stating, “we hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang trying to characterize this kid who killed Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.” Unsurprisingly, Kimmel’s remark drew disapproval from many right-leaning Americans.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chair Brendan Carr, a conservative ally of Donald Trump, whose agency regulates Jimmy Kimmel Live!’s broadcaster, ABC, as well as parent company Disney. Given Kimmel’s comment on his show criticizing the pro-Trump Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement, Carr’s actions were not unexpected. While Carr did not directly pull the show himself, he publicly commented that the FCC could revoke ABC’s affiliate licenses in an attempt to punish Disney for platforming Kimmel’s comments. ABC was pressured into suspending the show in fear of government retaliation and further controversy. On this issue, Trump said, “I think maybe their license should be taken away. It will be up to Brendan Carr. I think Brendan Carr is outstanding.” Trump insinuated that broadcasting services should lose their license because they publish unfavorable views of him. This action goes against the First Amendment, specifically the freedom of the press, which is the right to express ideas through various forms of media without government censorship or interference, thus allowing the public to remain informed and aware, upholding government accountability. Additionally, Trump implies that it’s Carr’s responsibility to regulate these channels’ licenses based on their praise, or lack thereof, of Trump. This puts even more pressure on the FCC head to make regulatory decisions based on Trump’s personal motives, rather than in the best interest of the FCC as an organization, in fear of punishment or losing the President’s favor. However, the FCC is supposed to be a nonpartisan organization. Neither Carr’s nor Trump’s political views should control what media can and cannot be seen by the American people.
The First Amendment, as noted earlier, establishes the right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press among other civil liberties. This amendment, specifically the freedom of speech clause, has become a key point of discussion in the Kimmel suspension. Republican politicians, including Attorney General Pam Bondi, have used the term “hate speech” to justify censorship. Hate speech is defined as any communication that attacks or targets individuals based on uncontrollable characteristics, such as race, religion, or gender. Many people claim that hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment; therefore, it is fair game to deplatform Kimmel. However, any kind of speech, including hate speech, is protected by the First Amendment. The exception is incitements to commit acts of violence. According to the New York Times, “the Supreme Court has defined [incitement of violence] narrowly, requiring a likelihood of imminent violence. Mere advocacy—of violence, terrorism, or the overthrow of the government—is legal. The words must be likely to produce violence or lawlessness right away.” This means that to justify censorship, whatever Kimmel said would have needed a high likelihood to produce measurable and significant violence, which it did not.
After Kimmel’s suspension, Bondi spoke on a podcast, saying, “We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech, anything—and that’s across the aisle.” When she made this statement, she reinforced the idea that the government will deliberately censor those who target people with hate speech. This once again is a violation of the First Amendment, in which, like it or not, hate speech is protected.
Government censorship has been exacerbated by the Trump administration’s blatant attacks on the First Amendment. While Trump may have started out his term advocating for free speech, it doesn’t look that way anymore. What you say can and will be held against you; the government is ready to “come after you” for your opinions if they are critical of the administration. Freedom of the press is one of the most essential structures protecting Americans from being blindsided. It’s time to hold politicians accountable to keep it that way.
