ABC’s indefinite suspension of late night “comedian” Jimmy Kimmel sent a shockwave across the media landscape. On Friday, CNN This Morning claimed FCC Chairman Brendan Carr and President Trump’s reactions to the suspension constituted government pressure against First Amendment rights and were seemingly itching for someone to sue them.
The left believed it had found some sort of dystopian pattern now that two late night hosts had been canned this year alone. CNN host Audie Cornish floated the idea of suing (in the vaguest sense possible):
I'm wondering, at some point does somebody sue? And I'm asking because once you have actual government officials out there saying this shakedown language, at some point it feels like someone, even against their employer for being fired, like, help me out. Once the government is involved, it's not vibes, cancel culture from Twitter.
Didn’t know social media cancel culture was based on “vibes.” Great journalism.
Former federal prosecutor Elliot Williams replied: “Yes, and that is the important thing when we speak about the First Amendment. It's not private sector entities firing people for things they say, or for being indecorous, or even insensitive. It's when the government says, ‘We do not like the things you are saying, and on account of the things you're saying, we are taking action against you.’”
Thanks for the civics lesson, Captain Obvious. What exactly did the government say against Kimmel? “The President made the comments about, ‘He was fired because he had low ratings. I wanted this to happen for quite some time.’ Carr said, you know, ‘Use the term public interest.’”
So Trump, Kimmel’s most frequent target, was happy Kimmel, for now, was gone? And Carr, the head of the agency that regulates network television, mentioned the possibility of using FCC authority?
The other main talking point the left had fallen back on was the FCC’s interest in public interest. But apparently, according to Williams, “we're not talking about the public interest here.” He brought up two unsavory programs: MILF Manor and Who’s Your Daddy?.
The lewd and scandalous nature of those shows may be morally repugnant, but they do not disserve the public the way late night comedies had for the past decade. They crossed the political Rubicon when Trump first took office through their insistence to partisanship.
As studied by NewsBusters, 92 percent of Kimmel’s jokes since early 2023 had been about conservatives, and 97 percent of his political guests since late 2022 have been liberals. If Kimmel really wanted to serve the public interest when it came to politics, he would have toned down the jokes at the right’s expense and would have invited some to actually present their case. It didn’t have to be a 50-50 split. But when over nine out of 10 jokes and guests were clearly partisan, something’s got to give.
Williams added: “Once the government’s involved, exactly as you said, Audie, it's a different matter, and it becomes a First Amendment issue.”
Yup. Had the government been directly involved? Not yet. It sounded as if the private sector was making a financially (and politically) prudent measure. If Kimmel hadn’t made that stupid “joke” earlier this week, the case in Kimmel’s favor would be much stronger. It’s only after the suspension that Carr’s and Trump’s comments have suddenly enflamed the left into a fearmongering frenzy over free speech.
Cornish and Williams awkwardly stumbled over each other in an attempt to signal their media allies to take the federal government to court:
CORNISH: No one has sued yet, so I'm just raising this, but—no one has sued yet.
WILLIAMS: But they could—
CORNISH: Okay, we’ll see.
WILLIAMS: Once you’re talking about the First Amendment.
It’s not clear exactly who would be able to sue who over what. Was Kimmel supposed to sue the federal government over his show getting suspended? He couldn’t sue Disney, Nexstar or Sinclair over private business decisions. Nor had the federal government locked up Kimmel for what he said on Monday night.
If Kimmel had made any intelligent decision recently, it would be shutting up for the first time in ever. Law low, Kimmel.
The transcript is below. Click "expand" read:
CNN This Morning
September 19, 2025
6:08:36 a.m. Eastern
(…)
AUDIE CORNISH: I'm wondering, at some point does somebody sue? And I'm asking because once you have actual government officials out there saying this shakedown language, at some point it feels like someone, even against their employer for being fired, like, help me out. Once the government is involved, it's not vibes, cancel culture from Twitter.
ELLIOT WILLIAMS: Yes, and that is the important thing when we speak about the First Amendment. It's not private sector entities firing people for things they say, or for being indecorous, or even insensitive. It's when the government says, “We do not like the things you are saying, and on account of the things you're saying, we are taking action against you.” And it's both the actions of Brendan Carr and the President, prior to Jimmy Kimmel's suspension, and afterward. If you look at their social media, that seems to suggest this wasn't about public interest, this was about not liking Jimmy Kimmel. The President made the comments about, “He was fired because he had low ratings. I wanted this to happen for quite some time.” Carr said, you know, “Use the term public interest.”
But, you know, we're not talking about the public interest here. If we were talking about the public interest, literally shows like MILF Manor would not be available for people to watch. Shows like Who's Your Daddy? which was on Fox, which made an adopted girl, for money, guess who her biological father was? Like, we're being really inconsistent here about what constitutes public interest.
This is about politics and using government to go after speech. Once the government’s involved, exactly as you said, Audie, it's a different matter, and it becomes a First Amendment issue.
CORNISH: No one has sued yet, so I'm just raising this, but—no one has sued yet.
WILLIAMS: But they could—
CORNISH: Okay, we’ll see.
WILLIAMS: Once you’re talking about the First Amendment.
(…)