Love him or hate him, Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension from ABC should make us pause. Less than a week later, he was back on the air, but the larger story — and what it reveals about the state of free speech in America — should matter to all of us, especially young people.
Here’s the recap. On Sept. 10, 2025, conservative activist Charlie Kirk was fatally shot at a speaking event in Utah. The following week, Kimmel used his late-night monologue to suggest that Republicans were “desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them.” His words were hardly fiery. More observation than indictment, really. Still, the backlash was swift.
Soon after, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr appeared on a podcast and accused Kimmel of deliberately lying to the American people. He warned, “We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” a thinly veiled threat from a regulator with power over broadcast licenses. Hours later, Disney-owned ABC suspended “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” The show was reinstated less than a week later, but the message had already been sent: government pressure can silence voices, even temporarily, on one of the country’s biggest stages. That’s sobering.
And here’s the thing: these free speech debates are not just abstract battles playing out in Washington or on late-night TV. They’re happening on college campuses every day. We like to think of ourselves as tolerant, yet we often struggle to live up to that ideal. Speakers are shouted down. Events are canceled in the name of safety. Social media pile-ons can make someone radioactive for expressing an unpopular opinion.
My own campus isn’t immune. At the University of Pittsburgh last year, students petitioned to block three conservative speakers invited by student groups, arguing their views were harmful to the trans community. The university let the events proceed. That decision wasn’t an endorsement of the speakers’ views. Rather, it endorsed the principle that ideas, even offensive ones, should be confronted in the open. Navigating free speech is never simple. It can be uncomfortable, infuriating, and even painful. But shielding ourselves from what we dislike doesn’t make us stronger thinkers; wrestling with competing perspectives does.
And this isn’t new. Students before us grappled with the same questions, and their struggles still shape campus life today. The campus free speech movement began at Berkeley in the 1960s, when students fought for the right to engage in political activism on university grounds. It was messy, divisive, and sometimes tragic — Kent State in 1970 being the most devastating example. However, those movements left a lasting legacy: students proved that free speech on campus was essential to American democracy.
Today, the challenges look different but feel just as urgent. The Palestine-Israel war has reignited bitter divides on U.S. campuses, with Jewish students in particular reporting rising antisemitism and pro-Gaza protesters facing disciplinary and legal action across the country. That isn’t free speech — it’s intimidation. At the same time, we can’t allow genuine political debate to be silenced under the label of “hate.” The line between speech and harassment is not always easy to draw, but our generation can’t afford to stop trying.
The uproar over Kimmel’s suspension — the protests, the backlash at Disney — was encouraging. It showed that Americans still recognize when free speech is under threat. But here’s the harder truth: the next “Kimmel” may be someone you disagree with. Free speech doesn’t mean defending only the voices we like. It means standing up for the ones we’d rather not hear.
And that standard applies across the spectrum. Conservatives often brand themselves as free speech champions, yet far too many cheered Kimmel’s suspension. Liberals condemn censorship in principle, yet far too often justify silencing speakers whose views feel offensive. Both sides fall into the trap of protecting only the speech that benefits them. Students can’t repeat that mistake. If our generation defends expression only when it serves our side, we’re not defending free speech at all.
The question isn’t whether you like Kimmel’s jokes. It’s whether you want the government determining what voices you’re allowed to hear.
The writer Evelyn Beatrice Hall once summarized free speech this way: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” That’s the standard. If we can’t learn to practice it now, we’ll inherit a democracy where disagreement itself is dangerous.
This is a contributed opinion column. Sienna Walenciak is a Forks Township resident and a student at the University of Pittsburgh. The views expressed in this piece are those of its individual author, and should not be interpreted as reflecting the views of this publication. Do you have a perspective to share? Learn more about how we handle guest opinion submissions at themorningcall.com/opinions.
https://www.mcall.com/2025/09/26/opinion-what-students-should-learn-from-jimmy-kimmels-suspension/
