The Jimmy Kimmel story hit like a cymbal crash
On the morning of September 17, 2025, I woke with a start, pounded out a column about America’s bipartisan love affair with censorship, and filed it before the coffee cooled.
Hours later, the Jimmy Kimmel story hit like a cymbal crash: ABC pulled “Jimmy Kimmel Live” indefinitely after the F.C.C. chair blasted his monologue about the politics surrounding Charlie Kirk’s killing and publicly hinted at regulatory “remedies.” Affiliates fell in line.
I stared at my draft and thought: good grief, this is exactly the moment I’m writing about—when powerful people decide speech is too risky to tolerate. This isn’t about whether Kimmel is funny. I’m a 2013 “Colbert Report” person.
Taste isn’t the issue—power is. At all levels of government, from officials of both the Democratic and Republican parties, we are seeing the same anti-speech reflex play out.
Pam Bondi, the conservative U.S. attorney general, and Marqueece Harris-Dawson, the liberal president of the Los Angeles City Council, share a dirty secret: they both want speech that’s easy to manage—and they’re willing to treat the Constitution like a dimmer switch to get there. Different jerseys, same play: manage the message.
Bondi’s move is national. She floated the idea that “hate speech” can be prosecuted and suggested the Justice Department might punish a print shop that declines to produce Charlie Kirk vigil posters.
