Since ABC suspended “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” last week, fans of the show, as well as members of the general public, expressed shock. While some are writing the matter off, the suspension came after Kimmel commented on Charlie Kirk’s murder, causing many viewers to believe this was done in an attempt to silence the broadcast. The Lanthorn Editorial Board believes increasing censorship among both corporations and individuals is a result of pressure from the current administration, and reflects unconstitutional speech suppression.
Trump has a history of attacking the media by referring to critical and factual outlets as “fake news,” causing a distrust in journalists and even talk-show hosts. While this has been a common talking point among conservatives, now the administration seems to be taking steps to silence media figureheads. This past week, Trump said a channel’s license should be revoked if a network airs too much criticism of him. This only reiterates the fact that Trump seems to believe free speech only applies when content speaks highly of him, and that the show’s cancellation is likely a result of “unfavorable” content.
The ability to publicly question figures of authority is a key way, especially for journalists, to exercise the First Amendment. The amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, speech and the press, among other rights. With this in mind, we see the show’s cancellation and recent comments made by Trump to be a reflection of unconstitutional free speech repression. As journalists, we believe representations in the media should be accurate and factual, but to us, there is room for the expression of opinions in certain forms of news and entertainment.
Comedy is often used as a more palatable method of delivering social commentary on current events. Viewers may not always agree with the subject matter or delivery of a joke, but that doesn’t mean the content shouldn’t be protected by free speech. While there is a line to be drawn when it comes to hate speech, in this instance, Kimmel’s comments were not inherently hateful, and we certainly do not think this is a justifiable reason to pull the program altogether.
Just two days after Kimmel’s comments, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chair Brendan Carr took to right-wing commentator Benny Johnson’s podcast to blast Kimmel.
“They have a license granted by us at the FCC, and that comes with an obligation to operate in the public interest,” said Carr. “But frankly, when we see stuff like this, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change (their) conduct to take action.”
The FCC’s main purpose is to promote financial competition and strengthen the country’s communications infrastructure. The agency has no place in policing free speech or taking charge of how a company manages its staff. Although the FCC took no direct action, Carr’s comments are deeply concerning. It is completely inappropriate for the FCC to make public threats or apply pressure on networks to handle employee-conduct situations in a certain manner. Kimmel’s comments in no way violated the law, no matter how inflammatory some critics are making them out to be.
Recent events clearly contradict this sentiment and only increase tension between government institutions and their citizens. While the Republican Party may notably be a strong supporter of free speech, this support typically comes as a defense for hateful or discriminatory comments. As the consequences of these executive orders play out, the United States government is crossing into the threshold of unconstitutional censorship.
The precedent for censorship of government criticism is not unique to this administration, or even this century. Following the Nazi takeover of Germany, Joseph Goebbels was personally responsible for ending the careers of actors who “made witticisms about the Nazi regime.” The similarity between Goebbels’ actions and the Trump administration’s modern-day censorship should concern Americans and international governments alike.
We believe this suppression of speech will not end with public figures, and will no doubt seep into the average citizen’s ability to criticize their government. Alarmingly, there is evidence this has already started. Following Kirk’s death, a registry of people who’ve criticized him has been released. This included the contact information, employers and cities of residence for individuals who were considered to be “celebrating” Kirk’s murder. These actions further violate citizens’ right to privacy.
Although this database has since been taken down, other concrete actions have also been taken against private citizens, including the firing of several university staff members and journalists nationwide. Washington Post columnist Karen Attiah was fired following a thread of X posts calling for gun control. She directly mentioned Kirk, quoting racist comments regarding Black women. We believe comments like Attiah’s are nowhere near fireable offenses, and instead reflect the nature of political suppression.
As journalists who write editorials expressing our opinion on current affairs, it’s deeply troubling to think we’re living in a country where our work could be used to silence us. Freedom of speech shouldn’t just apply to comments deemed appropriate by the government, but also to critical opinions. Under a democracy, we should be allowed to voice our opinions without prosecution. The Trump administration’s actions against freedom of speech are undemocratic and unjustified, serving as complete infringements on our rights as citizens.
