Kimmel censorship fiasco shows that protests still matter—and can still work

In a landmark decision in 2024, the US Supreme Court reinforced a fundamental tenet of free speech, ruling that the government cannot penalize individuals or organizations for expressing opinions that officials may find disagreeable. This principle is particularly significant for media entities like Ars Technica, which rely on the protection of free expression. Almost a year later, however, instances of government attempts to silence unwelcome voices are alarmingly prevalent. The recent controversy surrounding late-night host Jimmy Kimmel serves as a vivid illustration of this emerging pattern of censorship. Yet, this situation also highlights an important truth: public advocacy can drive meaningful change, even in the absence of judicial intervention. Justice Sonia Sotomayor articulated the essence of this free speech principle last year, recalling a precedent set six decades ago. The Court had previously determined that a government entity's threat to invoke legal repercussions against a third party to suppress unpopular speech constitutes a violation of the First Amendment. This ruling was reiterated, reaffirming that officials cannot coerce private entities to silence views that are not favored by the government. Brendan Carr, the current Chair of the Federal Communications Commission, has long recognized this dynamic. In earlier years, during discussions about perceived censorship of conservative viewpoints on social media, Carr advocated for transparency. He urged that if government officials—regardless of party affiliation—pressure a social media platform to censor protected speech, that action should be disclosed publicly. He also emphasized the need for accountability for officials who exert pressure on companies like Facebook to restrict Americans' freedom of expression. This approach aligns with earlier executive orders that sought to protect free speech against what was described as substantial coercive pressure to moderate or suppress dissenting views.