Brendan Carr, chairperson of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), is under fire. He successfully pressured Disney to suspend late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel indefinitely. This outrage cycle started after Kimmel called out conservative commentator Charlie Kirk on September 17. In his recent appearance on The Benny Show, hosted by known star Benny Johnson, Carr said some things that raised eyebrows. His call for action against Kimmel caused a great deal of alarm about what this would mean for media and discourse in the political arena.
In his statements, Carr accused Kimmel of “appearing to directly mislead the American public.” He congratulated Nexstar on their “courageous” decision to suspend Kimmel’s show. He’d previously called it a only necessary recurring move and even called it a “market correction.” Carr’s remarks are a window into a broader agenda to regulate even the most vital political speech. Most outside observers believe this effort is in the best interest of one person—former President Donald Trump. The fallout from Carr’s actions has been tremendous. As such, Kimmel has become an iconic representation of free speech in America’s oppositional and contentious discourse regarding media censorship and political satire.
Carr doubled down on these views in a CNBC interview September 18. He suggested fundamental changes coming in “the media ecosystem.” His comments reflect a tactical effort to reposition media narratives and focus resources on platforms that oppose conservative viewpoints. According to Carr’s critics, Carr’s actions demonstrate an intolerance for viewpoints that depart from the party line, especially when those views are critical of powerful conservative leaders.
“Free speech is the counterweight – it is the check on government control,” – Brendan Carr
It’s the timing and the specifics of Carr’s comments that are especially notable. By choosing a right-leaning podcast as his platform, Carr signaled his alignment with a particular media bias, further polarizing an already divided public discourse. Indeed some observers pointed out that Carr was so fond of the sound of his own vituperative stringently-exclusivist rhetoric that it occasionally risked unintended self-parody.
Many have interpreted Carr’s pressure on Kimmel as an extension of Trump’s broader campaign against perceived media bias. Trump has in the past floated ideas to federal regulators about stripping licenses from networks that he thinks unfairly cover him. This context raises concerns about the influence of political figures over regulatory bodies and the potential chilling effect on comedians and commentators who engage in political satire.
“That is why censorship is the authoritarian’s dream.” – Brendan Carr
The implications of Carr’s actions are far-reaching. With Kimmel now viewed as a symbol of free speech, his suspension could ignite further debates about the limits of satire and political commentary. People who work in creative fields—and those who care about them—are rightfully alarmed. They worry that these interventions create a perilous precedent, giving political leaders the authority to decide what speech is appropriate.
What makes parsing this muscular yet tentative move even more complicated is the response from political pundits and analysts across the spectrum. Some argue that Carr represents a growing trend among conservative leaders to suppress dissenting voices while raising their own narratives. Tensions are understandably boiling over in the partisan Republican Party. Not surprisingly, some of these factions have doubled down, calling for tougher measures to repress what they define as “leftwing violence” and “hate speech.”
“We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech,” – Pam Bondi