By T‑Paine
Published: 09-18-2025
I can’t believe I’m about to say this: Charlie Kirk’s death should radicalize you. Not in the "he was a martyr and we should avenge him" way, but rather the "if we aren’t going to stand up for free speech over this then we’re letting his death be for nothing.” While Kirk's views were often divisive and inflammatory, his tragic end has highlighted a disturbing trend: the weaponization of his death to justify censorship and suppress dissenting voices.
On September 15, 2025, Jimmy Kimmel, host of ABC's Jimmy Kimmel Live!, made a comment during his monologue suggesting that Kirk's assassin was aligned with the MAGA movement. He stated, "We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it." This remark, though speculative and lacking concrete evidence, was enough to prompt a swift and severe response.
FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, appointed by former President Donald Trump, condemned Kimmel's comments as "sick" and misleading. He hinted at potential regulatory action against ABC, warning that the network must serve the public interest. Shortly after, major ABC affiliates, including Nexstar and Sinclair, pulled Kimmel's show from their programming. ABC itself announced the indefinite suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live! in response to the backlash.
This chain of events raises critical questions about the state of free speech in America. While Kimmel's comment may have been ill-advised, it was made in the context of a late-night comedy monologue—a space traditionally reserved for satire and commentary. The overreaction to his words, leading to the suspension of his show, sets a dangerous precedent for censorship in the media.
Moreover, the irony is palpable. Charlie Kirk, a staunch advocate for free speech and against what he perceived as liberal censorship, would likely have opposed such heavy-handed tactics to silence a critic. His death, intended to be a rallying point for conservative causes, has instead become a symbol of the very censorship he once decried.
Before this, Stephen Colbert received what could only be described as a warning shot. CBS quietly removed several of his recent monologues from streaming platforms, and insiders report the network demanded he avoid directly criticizing conservative political figures in certain segments. The official reasoning was “brand protection” and “audience retention,” but the message was clear: even satire has its limits under the current media climate.
Colbert, long known for skirting the edge of political commentary, suddenly found that the freedom he’d exercised for years was now conditional. The network’s action, though subtle, signaled to late-night hosts across the country that commentary—no matter how factual or humorous—could carry real consequences if it made corporate partners or political figures uncomfortable.
Unlike Kimmel, Colbert’s situation didn’t involve the First Amendment directly; CBS is a private company and can technically control content. Yet the effect is chillingly similar: late-night hosts are pressured to self-censor to protect corporate interests, even if it means softening criticism of public figures or avoiding topics entirely. For viewers, this means the laughter comes at a price—one measured in silent compromise rather than open debate.
Taken together with Kimmel’s suspension, the Colbert episode paints a worrying picture of late-night television as a battleground for free speech, corporate control, and political influence. It’s a reminder that even in spaces designed for satire, the consequences for speaking plainly—truthful or not—are real, and they’re escalating.
In the aftermath of these events, it's essential to reflect on the broader implications. The suppression of speech, even when it comes from those with whom we disagree, undermines the foundational principles of democracy. Charlie Kirk's legacy, though contentious, should not be used to justify the silencing of opposing voices. Instead, let it serve as a reminder of the importance of protecting free speech for all, regardless of political affiliation.