FAITH SPALDING, Editor-in-Chief:
I write to express my sincere concern for First Amendment rights and press freedom in our turbulent political atmosphere. Last week’s suspension of “The Kimmel Show Live” by ABC News and parent-company Disney is a stark warning for the state of free speech in America, setting off alarm bells about the extent of executive overreach on independent media and press organizations. As we continue with our daily lives and focus on midterm follies, we must acknowledge here, in the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement, that this is anything but business as usual.
On Monday night, talk show host and comedian Jimmy Kimmel performed a routine opening monologue that included remarks about the shock assassination of Turning Point USA CEO Charlie Kirk. Kimmel quipped, “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.”
I want to emphasize that I condemn political violence of any kind, the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk being no exception. Murder is horrific in any aspect of the word, and the socially-accepted desensitization to violence reflected by the wide circulation of videos of Mr. Kirk’s murder is incredibly alarming. Yet Mr. Kimmel’s words did not condone violence; he critiqued the current administration in a harsher fashion, deemed insensitive by those mourning Mr. Kirk’s death. Mr. Kimmel’s monologue fell under the vast category of free speech, a constitutional right that Mr. Kirk himself routinely practiced in his debates on college campuses.
Even so, this was enough to propel ABC’s parent-company, Disney, into crisis mode, resulting in the indefinite suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live! on September 17th. This decision came after Federal Communication Chair Brendan Carr appeared on conservative influencer Benny Johnson’s podcast proclaiming, “we can do this the easy way, or we can do this the hard way…These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.” This comment is representative of blatant federal pressure on independent media, a remark that has free-speech groups like the American Civil Liberties Union deeply concerned. Yet it’s not just free-speech groups condemning Mr. Carr; criticism is coming from across the political spectrum. Republican Senator Ted Cruz remarked, “I like Brendan Carr, but we should not be in this business… we should denounce it.” Senator Cruz continued, “It might feel good right now to threaten Jimmy Kimmel, but when it is used to silence every conservative in America, we will regret it.” Mr. Kimmel thanked Senator Cruz in his emotional first monologue back from suspension Tuesday, expressing, “ … Thank you for telling your followers that our government cannot be allowed to control what we do and do not say on television, and that we have to stand up to it.”
Politicians like Senator Cruz reach out from across the political aisle in critical moments. Senator Cruz’s stance went beyond supporting press freedom, issuing a cautious warning that executive overreach has its consequences. As a journalist, I have always had a deep commitment to free speech, and Charlie Kirk should have had the right to openly practice that commitment without fear of retribution via gun violence. Crucially, my commitment to free speech and press freedom extends to all legal applications of that right. The press and critics of Mr. Kirk must have the chance to write about him or the Trump Administration’s response to his death, however insensitive that may be deemed by some viewers or readers. The foundational right of individuals and groups to air their opinions rests within the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
The First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The writing by our country’s forefathers is clear as day: law may not be made and actions must not be taken that risk “abridging the freedom of speech… or of the press.” This amendment is wide-ranging in the rights it determines; even political statements like flag burning are legal displays of free speech, the precedent determined by a 1990 Supreme Court decision. I truly cannot express how clear this constitutional amendment is. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are one of the first safeguards built into our nation’s Constitution, the document that gave the American government life.
Unfortunately, this liberty is under direct pressure, reaching a crucial breaking point with Mr. Kimmel’s suspension. Mr. Kimmel is also not the first late-night host navigating a rocky landscape; earlier this summer, it was announced that Trump-critic Stephen Colbert and his “The Late Late Show” was being taken off of Paramount’s air after a final season. This decision came as Paramount parent-company CBS needed Chairman Carr to sign off on a July deal to merge with Skydance, led by Trump-ally David Ellison. President Trump responded to the news on Truth Social, posting, “I absolutely love that Colbert’ got fired. His talent was even less than his ratings.” In Q2 of 2024, “The Late Late Show” outpaced “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” and “The Tonight Show starring Jimmy Fallon”, making Mr. Colbert the top late-night broadcaster.
While Mr. Kimmel’s suspension was explicitly due to backlash against free-speech displays and Mr. Colbert’s was not, a new pattern reveals itself: one of intense federal pressure on media conglomerates and TV personalities to reign-in their critique of the current administration. Chairman Carr’s pressure on ABC and Disney is in line with a term known as “jawboning,” when government officials, regulators, or private actors attempt to prohibit free speech. In a paper authored on behalf of Libertarian think-tank Cato Institute, Will Duffield explains, “jawboning is the use of official speech to inappropriately compel private action.” The group also labels the term as ‘censorship by proxy.’
What does this mean for you and me? For starters, the very ability for me to write and release this editorial is at risk when press freedom is threatened at such a level. If the press and media available to American citizens is directly or indirectly regulated by the federal government, what then? We cannot continue to operate by adhering to bulldozing that subverts the sanctity and standards set by the U.S. constitution. Last week’s extraordinary pressure on ABC sets a frightening new precedent: either “change conduct” as Chairman Carr proclaimed, or receive punishment. While Chairman Carr didn’t technically violate the First Amendment because he simply spoke on a podcast, the current administration has galvanized a strategy of federal pressure on media organizations and news coverage without taking action that would provoke immediate legal proceedings, shown by Mr. Kimmel’s suspension.
Last week, when speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One about receiving bad publicity from broadcasters, President Trump even posited, “That’s something that should be talked about for licensing. … All they do is hit Trump”. He continued, “I would think maybe their license should be taken away… that’s up to Brendon Carr”. These remarks illustrate indirect coercion by President Trump and the FCC on press and media outlets to follow White House directives and narratives, threatening the integrity of press and media organizations and the ability to publish content independently. The cornerstone of journalism, free speech, depends on the ability to analyze and criticize national news from a variety of lenses — including criticism of President Trump.
I once again want to emphasize that the U.S. Constitution exists to prevent the executive overreach seen last week from occurring. On a campus like UC Berkeley, the home of the Free Speech Movement, we must remain engaged with the turbulent news cycle, advocating for the foundational rights set out by our nation’s forefathers. We must also continue the legacies of those who fought for free speech on our very campus: my own grandfather marched on Sproul to fight for a future where the freedoms of the constitution were ensured for everyone. Right now, we have anything but this assurance. Instead, press freedom is threatened, the principle of due process is flailing amidst the immigration crackdown, and rights like same-sex marriage are at the judicial chopping block. The path forward thus rests upon the same grassroots advocacy and community solidarity efforts that have long-defined Cal culture. For instance, boycotts DO work — Disney felt the pain last week after mass cancellations of streaming services and park reservations. The blow was exacerbated by Disney stock falling by 3.3% between September 18th and September 23rd, making it clear that customers are standing up against capitulation.
The recent precedent set by the current administration seeks to normalize constitutional subversion and censorship of free speech, and I urge you, the reader, to not “tap out” of engaging with political discourse. While it may feel like it’s not enough, VOTE! Speak up. Ruffle some feathers. We have the right, even if on paper.
In solidarity,
Faith Spalding, Editor-in-Chief
09/27/2025