Late-night host Jimmy Kimmel was suspended by ABC on Sept. 17 after making a joke about President Donald Trump’s response to right-wing activist Charlie Kirk’s death, sparking a national debate over free speech and government influence in the media.

Five days after Kirk was fatally shot on Sept. 10, Kimmel delivered a monologue criticizing what he called the “MAGA gang’s” attempts to distance themselves from the shooter. He later joked that Trump’s decision to discuss building a $200 million White House ballroom after Kirk’s death represented “the sixth stage of grief: construction.”

After Kimmel’s remarks aired, the Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr, a Trump appointee, condemned Kimmel’s segment and publicly questioned whether ABC should face consequences. Hours later, Nexstar Media Group – which owns 32 ABC affiliates – announced it would pull “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” from its stations. That evening, Disney, which owns ABC, suspended the show entirely.

The public response was immediate. Within five days, 1.7 million subscribers cancelled their Disney+ memberships, and the American Civil Liberties Union released an open letter signed by more than 400 actors and musicians condemning the suspension. With intense public pressure, Disney took back its decision a week later, and Nexstar resumed airing the program.

The Campanile thinks Kimmel’s suspension reveals a growing threat to free expression in the United States. Unlike a typical online outrage, this case was driven in part by pressure from the federal government. When a government agency influences editorial decisions of private media companies, it undermines one of democracy’s core values, including our own as a nation: the right to speak freely.

While some found his comments insensitive, Kimmel’s comments did not mock Kirk and fell within his constitutional right to free expression. The suspension, seemingly prompted by political pressure from a federal agency, sets a concerning precedent in which government officials appear to control decisions of private media companies.

At its core, this incident is not about whether Kimmel went too far, but what role the government should play in regulating speech. The First Amendment protects beliefs that challenge and provoke others, not just popular or comfortable ones. When the government forces media companies to conform to political backlash, they don’t just disregard constitutional principles: they undermine the foundation of a free society.

Once the government begins to shape the boundaries of permissible speech, it sets a precedent of censorship. Student journalists in California, including those at Palo Alto High School, have similar rights to report freely on issues that matter to their communities. While California’s Education Code 48907 offers strong protections, the broader political climate can influence how freely student reporters feel they can speak, especially on sensitive stories. After all, if professional journalists can face suspension for political commentary, who is to say we won’t be targeted next?

The Campanile thinks a healthy democracy depends on protecting speech we disagree with just as much as speech we support. Freedom of expression is not a partisan privilege; it’s a civic necessity. Once the government begins to shape the boundaries of permissible speech, the precedent opens the door to censorship and self-censorship.

At a time when political polarization threatens open dialogue, defending press freedoms and the right to criticize the government is not a threat to society; on the contrary, it is imperative to maintaining a healthy democracy. Kimmel’s removal and reinstatement should serve as a reminder of our responsibility to safeguard free expression, as citizens or consumers. Without that vigilance, free speech risks becoming a privilege only for those who agree with the government, not a constitutional right for everyone.