was it censorship? three myths about free speech

 By Jess Santacroce
Music Writer, 95 5 The Heat 

The cancellation of the late-night tv show “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” brought censorship to the news and to social media and all its memes. On September 17, 2025, Kimmel spoke out against the behavior of President Donald Trump following the murder of right-wing content creator and non-profit owner Charlie Kirk. Kimmel’s remarks suggested that Trump’s mourning for Kirk may be insincere, as he was able to shift his focus to the ballroom he’s designing remarkably quickly following Kirk’s passing.
Although not cited as a reason for the show’s cancellation, country singer Margo Price has since become famous as the last musician to play on the show prior to the cancellation, and was reported to have said she was glad she “got the last word” with an anti-fascist song.
Those who support the removal of Kimmel’s show from the air argue that the decision was made by a private corporation, and was not in fact censorship. Others note that the cancellation happened due to pressure from the Trump administration, amounting to government censorship. But what exactly is “censorship?” We all think we know the answer, but there is a lot of misunderstanding surrounding the term, the first amendment, and the concept of “free speech.”
Myth: The first amendment means you get to say anything you want anywhere you want without any unwanted results.

Reality: The first amendment protects you from punishment by the government for what you say, not from the consequences of your actions.
Shortly before the Kimmel cancellation, various content creators on YouTube covered stories of people who were shocked to find themselves fired because of things they posted on TikTok. Most of them did not understand that you could be fired from a job for what you say and do on the air, including the internet, and thought that their firing amounted to censorship. These were not cases of censorship, regardless of how professionally embarrassing they may have been for the person who was fired for their content. Censorship, or denial of your right to free speech ,occurs when the government jails you, fines you, or denies you permits, licenses, or other services because of what you said. None of the people fired for their TikToks were going to jail, paying any fines, or being denied any government services because of their content. As far as the law was concerned, they were still completely free to say whatever they wanted. Their employers had just decided they were not welcome to say it while working for them. This was not censorship, simply the consequences of the individuals’ actions.
In the Kimmel case, Price was definitely not censored in any way. Her song was not cited as a reason for the show’s cancellation. Had ABC independently decided that Kimmel was not welcome to criticize Trump’s reaction to Kirk’s murder on their platform, he would also have experienced no censorship, just the consequences of his actions. Kimmel would have been completely free to go find another network or another platform and say whatever he wanted to say. However, the show’s cancellation is likely due to pressure from Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr.. As the chairman of a portion of the government, Carr would be able to exert influence and pressure to prevent Kimmel from saying what he said no matter where Kimmel went by denying licensing to anyone who would host him. When the government decides that you must be prevented from saying whatever it is that you said, that is censorship.
Myth: People who respond to your social media comments by telling you that you are misinformed, asking you to stop harassing or trolling, or threatening to delete and block you are denying your first amendment right to free speech.
Reality: Musicians monitoring their fan pages and other page managers and owners are not agents of the government, they are private citizens deciding what they will and will now allow in private space.
Several musicians have made statements about both Charlie Kirk’s murder and Jimmy Kimmel’s cancellation, and as is the case when statements are made on social media, the posts get widely mixed reactions, some of which may be distasteful to the original poster. Many choose to deal with these unwanted comments by removing them from their page, or even blocking the person who posted them. A musician or other social media account owner deleting your comments and blocking you from their page is not censoring you. That person does not have the power to put you in jail, make you pay a fine, haul you off to a re-education camp, or deny you licensing or other benefits that you could not get someplace else. A fan who is deleted and blocked from a musician’s page still has the option of going on to another artist’s page and saying the same thing, posting the same thing on their own page, or walking around chanting whatever it was they said out loud if they choose to do so.
This still holds true if a lot of people join in on the calls for you to stop posting whatever it is you’re posting on the page in question. This is not censorship. The page owner is doing the same thing a homeowner or renter is doing when they inform someone that promoting social, political, or spiritual beliefs they do not agree with is unwelcome in their home. All those other people are simply stating that if you came over to their real or virtual “house,” you would not be welcome to talk like that there either. You can still say what you said on your own page, or on another page that welcomes sentiments like yours.
Myth: Criticizing someone who experienced violence is a call to violence, and therefore not protected speech under the first amendment.
Reality: The use of violence as a reaction to anything anyone says violates criminal law and is never justified. Criticizing things that person said before the act of violence was done against them does not in any way suggest there should be an exception to the law.
As arguments about Kimmel rage on over the internet and in other public space, additional people, including some musicians, are further taking sides in an argument over whether or not it is acceptable to criticize Kirk’s words in the wake of his murder. Those who argue that it is not link criticism of Kirk with support or even celebration of what happened to him to end his life. Others point out that their criticism is directed at content Kirk himself created and posted, and has nothing to do with the way that his life ended.
Murder is illegal in the United States. It is also in violation of the teachings of Christianity and nearly every other spiritual or religious belief system. What happened to Charlie Kirk should not have happened to him, and should never happen to anyone. This does not change the fact that his YouTube channel alone is full of content that a lot of Americans, and a lot of Christians, point out is not in line with the law or with the teachings of Jesus. Pointing this out does not mean a person is in any way mocking his murder or denying the impact he had on those who loved him. They are simply doing what Kirk is often celebrated for, arguing against a point someone else made.
On September 22, 2025, multiple news outlets announced that Jimmy Kimmel would return to the air on September 23, 2025. While this instance of censorship was quickly corrected, members of both sides of the political spectrum have noted that it sets a dangerous precedent for comedians, other spoken word artists, and everyone else in the arts and beyond.
Disagreement is not censorship. Criticizing someone is not censorship. Private citizens and private entities refusing to allow content on their privately owned space is not censorship. However, any form of pressure, punishment, or threats from anyone acting as an agent of the government in response to what someone says is censorship, a violation of the first amendment of the United States Constitution, and the denial of the right to free speech.