In a landmark decision in 2024, the United States Supreme Court unanimously upheld a fundamental principle of free speech: that government entities cannot penalize individuals or businesses simply for expressing opinions that officials may find objectionable. This tenet is of particular significance to media organizations like Ars Technica.
However, nearly a year later, instances of government-led censorship targeting disfavored voices have become increasingly prevalent. A notable example is the recent controversy surrounding late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel, which underscores a troubling trend in restricting free expression. Yet, the situation also illustrates how public sentiment can steer change in the face of judicial inaction.
Challenges to Free Speech
Justice Sonia Sotomayor articulated the core of free speech rights in her remarks last year:
“Over sixty years ago, this Court determined that when a government body uses legal threats or coercive methods to suppress disfavored speech, it violates the First Amendment. Today, we reiterate that government officials are not permitted to coerce private entities to punish or silence dissenting viewpoints.”
Brendan Carr, Chair of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), has long understood the implications of these rulings. In the past, when accusations of “social media censorship of conservatives” surfaced, Carr consistently emphasized the need for transparency regarding government attempts to influence social media companies.
His statements mirrored earlier executive orders advocating for “freedom of speech,” which criticized federal attempts to exert “substantial coercive pressure” on entities to moderate or suppress speech opposed by the government.
Recent sentiments, however, reflect a stark shift in priorities, focusing now on silencing political adversaries. Carr has made headlines for aggressive rhetoric, exemplified by his threatening remarks directed at media companies following Kimmel’s controversial comments, stating, “We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can choose to act against Kimmel, or the FCC will take more action.”
He indicated he might scrutinize other shows that he found objectionable, including late-night offerings from Seth Meyers and Jimmy Fallon.
Governmental overreach in discourse is not limited to Carr. The Department of Homeland Security recently issued a peculiar press release urging “media and the far left to cease hateful rhetoric” aimed at President Trump and his supporters, a statement that sought to lower the “temperature” in political discussions.
Amid this backdrop, President Trump continues to make headlines with his incendiary remarks. In a recent appearance at a memorial service, he exhibited a similar message of division, stating, “I hate my opponent and I don’t want the best for them.”
Reports from sources like The New York Times indicate that the push for censorship originates from the highest levels of government. Trump has suggested protestors be prosecuted under mob-related laws, called for the removal of late-night comedians who mocked him, and made legal threats against media organizations he perceives as critical.
Broadcast companies seeking deals with the FCC seem increasingly cautious. Paramount, for instance, recently made a substantial payment to Trump’s presidential library after airing snippets of a Kamala Harris response during broadcasts, coinciding with a $8.4 billion merger pending approval by the FCC.
Following Kimmel’s recent comments on his ABC show, significant groups of broadcast stations, including those owned by Nexstar and Sinclair, opted to halt airing more of Kimmel’s segments. Although Nexstar claimed its decision was unaffected by Carr’s comments, it has substantial business before the FCC that necessitates particular scrutiny.
Sinclair has historically leaned conservative and welcomed Carr’s remarks while seeking his assistance, highlighting the need for regulatory changes to benefit local broadcasters over national networks.
ABC’s parent company, Disney, is similarly reliant on favorable treatment from the Trump administration regarding upcoming deals, underscoring the tangled relationship between corporate interests and political pressures.
Backlash Against Censorship
In light of these developments, a robust backlash against Kimmel’s suspension has emerged. Former Disney CEO Michael Eisner publicly questioned the lack of leadership in the face of such intimidation, calling Kimmel’s indefinite suspension a prime example of unacceptable bullying.
A coalition of hundreds of Hollywood figures, including prominent actors and artists, signed an open letter asserting that any attempts by authorities to pressure creatives undermine the essence of a free society.
Even some Republican lawmakers expressed their disapproval of Carr’s actions, likening his threats to criminal intimidation, a view that resonates with long-standing concerns regarding government intervention in free speech.
The growing discontent has found support among everyday citizens, with many canceling subscriptions to Disney+ and Hulu in light of ABC’s actions. Prominent figures like Y Combinator founder Paul Graham expressed their disappointment, stating their family terminated their Disney+ subscription “due to Disney’s capitulation to the Trump administration.” Comedian John Oliver has echoed this sentiment, encouraging fans to boycott the services as a form of protest.
Social media buzz around these cancellations has even garnered coverage from outlets like USA Today, emphasizing the level of public outrage directed at the media’s perceived complicity in political censorship.
While some users faced difficulties accessing cancellation pages, many others experienced no issues, revealing a widespread intent to take a stand against perceived government overreach and media capitulation.
Kimmel’s Return
Trump’s ongoing obsession with international perceptions of the US is now marked by ridicule stemming from the Kimmel situation, further complicating the narrative around American governance.
Initially, it seemed uncertain whether Kimmel would return to television. Past instances, such as Stephen Colbert’s own show facing cancellation, fueled speculation regarding corporate responses to political pressures.
However, following rising public pressure, Disney announced that Kimmel would return to the air, although the willingness of all affiliates to broadcast his show remains uncertain.
In a world where “free speech” often intersects with government control, this episode offers a glimmer of hope, showing that public dissent can still lead to tangible outcomes. Whether one agrees with Kimmel’s comments or views, the debacle surrounding his suspension reinforces the notion that protest remains a powerful tool against encroachments on free expression.
In these trying times, even small acts of resistance can illuminate the path forward.
