The War on Free Speech

How the FCC’s attack on Late Night talk shows demonstrate a growing suppression on our American liberties

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the essential freedoms of religion, peaceful assembly, press, petition, and, most notably, speech. Yet, in recent years, especially in the media, this right has become more and more threatened. 

Brendan Carr, the Trump-appointed chair of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), has long made clear he was a strong advocate for free speech, declaring on Twitter, now X, in 2019, “Should the government censor speech it doesn’t like? Of course not,” and in 2023, “Free speech is the counterweight [and] check on government control.” 

This is the same Carr who appeared on a right-wing podcast on September 17, 2025, explicitly threatening ABC, and its parent company Disney, demanding that the Kimmel show be taken off the air after Kimmel suggested that Trump supporters had weaponized the assasination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk to attack the left. In response, Sinclair and Nexstar, two major American media companies that own and operate television stations affiliated with networks like ABC, CBS, and Fox, decided to pull Jimmy Kimmel Live! off the air, citing concerns around Carr’s statements. After Kimmel’s show was reinstated on September 23, 2025, he accurately described the actions of the station groups who refused to air his show as “un-American.” Carr had gained the approval of the president and of Republican leaders through his criticism of perceived liberal bias in the mainstream media. It was this belief that led to his rise to his current position, rather than the belief in freedom of speech. 

A similar situation occurred with Stephen Colbert and his Late Night show in July of 2025. In October 2024, Trump sued Paramount Global, CBS's parent company, over a 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris that he believed deliberately made her look better. CBS initially denied any wrongdoing, citing the lawsuit as “frivolous,” yet later settled in July 2025 for $16 million. Colbert, in true satirical fashion, described the settlement on his show as a "big fat bribe" intended to get Trump's approval for Paramount’s pending merger with Skydance Media. Colbert's show was then promptly cancelled by CBS, a clear move of political censorship as punishment for his critique. Of course, officials maintained that the decision was “purely a financial one,” despite Colbert’s show leading its time slot.

The broader implication of these actions is clear: powerful political interests are limiting the boundaries of what public figures can safely say, even on platforms known for political satire and commentary. 

One might ask, “why does it matter if companies and networks occasionally censor controversial ideas?” This would be the same as asking, “Why is our right to freedom of speech so important?” Although the First Amendment does protect against the government itself outright suppressing speech, the true threats come from political pressure and corporate censorship. Public officials and movements use their influence to silence critics by threatening regulatory consequences, such as in the case of Kimmel’s show. If expressing a dissenting opinion could cost a network its FCC license, it’s understandable, yet also concerning, that they would resort to self-censorship.

Additionally, media conglomerates, such as Sinclair and Nextar, often control what is aired, and base much of that on profit margins and the preferences of advertisers. The same can be said for any major entertainment platform, news outlet, or social media company. This creates a filter where content that is safe and ad-friendly will be prioritized over content that is controversial or criticizes power. These kinds of content, as shown with Colbert’s show, will be silenced or downplayed because they’re bad for business. Therefore, your opinion is not formed by knowing all the facts, but rather, it is shaped by what platforms like Twitter, TikTok, and Facebook choose to show you.

These kinds of censorship are important to address because America is built on the idea that the free exchange of ideas and informed citizenship are crucial. And if we can’t challenge or question higher powers, whether through serious or satirical means, these concepts, and democracy, will fail. Free speech also makes sure that accountability is present, allowing corruption and injustice to be exposed by whistleblowers and journalists. Beyond its civic function, it preserves our individual personal liberty and lets us all think and speak without fear of regulation.

So, how do we protect this fundamental freedom? The most important way is to elect leaders, at both the local and federal levels, who prioritize our civil liberties. This means supporting candidates who show that they care about free speech and do not suppress dissent, even if politically inconvenient.

There is a current ongoing crisis of free expression in America. We cannot continue to allow corporate interests and political powers to decide what we can say and hear; free speech must be defended, as it is our right, our responsibility, and our safeguard against tyranny.

By Holly Hong ‘29