Kimmel, Kirk and the free speech divide in the U.S.

On Sept. 17, ABC pulled Jimmy Kimmel off the air after comments Kimmel made regarding the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. (Credit: Randy Holmes/ABC)

When Jimmy Kimmel returned to late-night television after a suspension linked to comments about conservative activist Charlie Kirk, his ratings jumped from one million to six million viewers. 

But the bigger story wasn’t comedy, it was free speech. 

U.S. President Donald Trump threatened the American Broadcasting Company over Jimmy Kimmel's return and hinted at potential lawsuits to silence the late-night host.

Critics said the threats showed his administration’s willingness to pressure media outlets– a troubling sign for democracy. 

Tom Bateman, political science professor at St. Thomas University, called the situation a “contradiction.” 

“The United States has always been known to be a robust protector of free speech and Republicans historically have been protectors of free speech,” said Bateman. “This is a turnabout for them.” 

He said the backlash, including from conservatives like Sen. Ted Cruz, shows the move may have backfired. 

“The debate over free speech is increasingly folded into political polarization and each side now says the other side should be silenced,” he said. “That’s idiotic.” 

Laura Levick, who also teaches political science at STU, said satire has traditionally been spared from political interference. 

“Historically, it’s been shielded because it’s obviously exaggerated and for comedic effect,” she said. “But Trump is not someone who can take criticism, especially comedic criticism, with humility.” 

Levick said the administration used the controversy as a political tool. 

“This was a chance to shift the Overton Window,” she said. “It was an attempt to reframe criticism of people like Charlie Kirk as somehow offensive, even dangerous. It mirrors the same cancel culture logic the right has long railed against.” 

Kirk, best known for his work with Turning Point USA, built his profile as a conservative youth organizer on college campuses. His sharp style often drew praise from supporters and anger from critics. 

Levick said his influence reflects how debates are increasingly shaped by social media clips rather than sustained dialogue.

“Very few people are watching [the] whole debates. They’re just clipping talking points that reinforce what they already believe,” she said. 

Compared with the U.S., Canada faces subtler risks to free expression. 

Bateman warned that expanding hate speech laws may “create a larger blanket over the range of acceptable opinion,” while Levick pointed to a different concern —shrinking media diversity. 

“The bigger risk is the consolidation of media ownership,” she said. “We’re no longer getting quality independent local news, and that problem is magnified in New Brunswick.” 

Both agreed on that debates over free expression are increasingly entangled in partisanship, leaving little room for principled discussion. 

“Things are very emotional,” said Bateman. “When people act on emotion, they threaten deeper principles that would otherwise withstand temporary fits of passion.” 

For Levick, the lesson is not just about Kimmel or Kirk, but about how fragile democratic conversation has become. 

“The challenge isn’t just protecting free speech on paper,” she said. “It’s making sure we still have spaces where people can argue, disagree, and actually listen to each other.”