This posting is inspired by yesterday's suspension of the Jimmy Kimmel TV Talk Show on ABC
Jimmy Kimmel, Stephen Colbert, and the Fragile Edges of Free Speech
Freedom of speech in America has always lived in tension with power. We like to think of the First Amendment as an unshakable shield, guaranteeing that no matter how offensive, satirical, or politically charged our words may be, the government cannot silence them. And yet, every so often, a case comes along that tests just how strong that shield really is.
The suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live! after Kimmel’s remarks about Charlie Kirk’s assassination is one of those moments.
Kimmel and the Weight of Words
Kimmel’s monologue was blunt, even scathing. He accused conservatives of trying to distance themselves from Kirk’s killer while simultaneously exploiting the event for political theater. That kind of commentary is classic late-night fare — sharp, partisan, designed to provoke laughter and discomfort in equal measure.
But this time, the consequences came fast. The FCC Chair, Brendan Carr, openly threatened broadcast affiliates with regulatory action if they aired Kimmel’s words. Nexstar, a powerful group of ABC affiliates, quickly dropped the show. Disney’s ABC followed, pulling Kimmel off the air indefinitely.
What troubles me here is not whether one agrees or disagrees with Kimmel’s words. It’s that the machinery of government regulation — the FCC’s licensing power — was invoked as a weapon against political commentary. That should send a chill down anyone’s spine.
Colbert’s Brush With the FCC
This isn’t the first time late-night comedy brushed up against the limits of official tolerance. Back in 2017, Stephen Colbert faced a wave of FCC complaints after a crude joke about Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. The FCC said it would “review” the matter, but ultimately no sanction followed.
Why? Because Colbert’s joke, however vulgar, aired after 10 p.m. (the “safe harbor” for indecency) and, more importantly, it was satire — protected political speech, not obscenity. Courts have long held that satire and opinion, especially about political figures, occupy the “core” of the First Amendment.
Colbert’s case ended as a reaffirmation of free expression. Kimmel’s case, so far, feels more like a warning.
The Difference That Matters
Both Colbert and Kimmel live in the same legal universe. They are broadcast personalities, subject to the FCC’s rules. They both trafficked in sharp political commentary. Yet the response was starkly different.
Colbert: Investigated, but ultimately shielded by precedent and public tolerance.
Kimmel: Pulled off air under the shadow of license threats.
The distinction isn’t about the law so much as about power and will. The FCC technically has limited authority over content — mostly around indecency, obscenity, and knowingly false “news distortion.” Kimmel’s remarks don’t neatly fit any of those categories. They were political opinion, not news. But a regulator’s threat, even if legally shaky, is often enough to make broadcasters fold.
That’s where the danger lies. The appearance of censorship, the risk of reprisal, is sometimes as effective as censorship itself.
The Chilling Effect
Free speech isn’t just about what’s written in court decisions. It’s about what people feel safe to say. When networks see a comedian suspended after a regulator’s threat, they internalize the lesson: play it safe. Avoid sharp commentary. Don’t risk the license.
This is the chilling effect at work. Speech doesn’t have to be banned outright to wither; it can die quietly in boardrooms and affiliate offices, smothered by the fear of government retaliation.
Why This Matters
If Colbert’s case showed that satire could still survive the outrage cycle, Kimmel’s case suggests that times have changed. Political speech — the most protected category of expression under our Constitution — is now at risk of being muzzled, not through legal judgments but through regulatory intimidation.
The First Amendment was designed to protect us against precisely this kind of abuse. It was meant to ensure that political commentary, even when offensive, even when uncomfortable, could not be punished by those in power. But what happens when power doesn’t need to win in court — when the mere threat is enough to silence?
What Comes Next
The real question is not just what happens to Jimmy Kimmel, but what happens to everyone who dares to speak freely on air. If regulators can target late-night comedians, could local broadcasters tone down investigative reporting? Could journalists soften coverage of political figures to avoid the FCC’s glare?
We may be entering a new era where the “safe harbor” for satire and commentary shrinks — not because the law changed, but because fear did. And once fear reshapes the media landscape, it’s hard to roll back.
If we want freedom of speech to remain more than a slogan, we have to defend it not only in courtrooms but also in cultural practice. That means demanding courage from broadcasters, accountability from regulators, and vigilance from all of us.
Because in the end, free speech survives only if enough people are willing to risk speaking freely.
Meanwhile, I asked my Virtual Assistant if what happened to Kimmel and Colbert may also happened to Jimmy Fallon, Another late night Show on NBC.
Finally, My Food For Thought: ABC decision over Kimmel comments about Charlie Kirk’s killing comes hours after Trump-appointed chair of US media regulator threatened broadcaster’s license.
