By Briana Abraham
Editorial
For as long as I can remember, the American right has cast itself as the champion of free expression, particularly in the post-internet age, loudly defending the First Amendment against perceived threats from the left and “cancel culture.” High-profile Republicans like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Ron DeSantis routinely rail against what they call the “woke mob” attempting to silence conservative voices, often framing themselves as the last bastion against an encroaching authoritarianism. JD Vance, now Trump’s closest ally in Washington, has warned of “Big Tech censorship” and styled himself as a defender of American free speech abroad, while Elise Stefanik repeatedly brands herself as a culture warrior determined to protect conservative voices at home. Together, they portray the Republican Party as the sole guardian of these principles.
With such pronouncements from their leaders, one would expect these self-styled defenders of free speech to be the first to sound the alarm when speech comes under attack — even when the threats arise from within their own ranks. Instead, we see a disturbing silence, or worse, active participation, in the effort to stifle dissenting voices.
Cautionary Tales and the Canary in the Coal Mine
First, let’s recall how attacks on free speech typically unfold. Authoritarians rarely begin with the broadest, most controversial targets; they start small, with “easy” ones. In Russia, Vladimir Putin moved early against independent media and critical voices. One of his early targets was Kukly (Puppets), a satirical puppet show mocking political figures — a relatively low-stakes target that signaled to the rest of the media what could (and would) happen next. Over time, independent outlets were shuttered, journalists jailed, and censorship became systematic.
Similarly, in Viktor Orbán’s Hungary, the erosion of media pluralism followed a predictable path: the defunding and takeover of public broadcasters, the acquisition of independent outlets by government-friendly oligarchs, and laws restricting press freedom under the guise of “protecting national values.” These steps, often wrapped in rhetorical appeals to sovereignty or tradition, dismantled checks on power and muzzled criticism.
These are not exotic abstractions — they are templates, warning signs. Whenever a regime starts targeting comedians, satirists, or seemingly nonthreatening voices, we should recognize that as a probe, not an isolated event. The Jimmy Kimmel Crisis — The United States’s Canary?
In the past week, we’ve seen something chilling in the U.S. that mirrors those authoritarian playbooks. Jimmy Kimmel was abruptly suspended after making critical remarks, immediately following public threats and pressure from FCC Chairman Brendan Carr. Carr warned broadcasters they could “do this the easy way or the hard way” — a not-so-veiled ultimatum now preserved on video (Reuters).
“We can do this the easy way or the hard way… these companies can find ways to change conduct and take action on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.” — Brendan Carr
Arguments that these dismissals were simply about “ratings” collapse under scrutiny. Veteran journalist Terry Moran was suspended and then terminated from ABC News after a single social media post criticizing Trump and Stephen Miller — a move officially framed as a violation of network policy but whose timing suggested political pressure. Soon after, The Late Show with Stephen Colbert on CBS was cancelled, a decision Trump publicly celebrated while warning that other critics in the media would be “next.” The subsequent incident with Kimmel reveals a worrying pattern of narrative control rather than decisions rooted in market rationale.
Following Kimmel’s return to the network, Trump, writing on Truth Social, claimed ABC had reached out to the White House about Kimmel’s cancellation and assured that they had cancelled Kimmel’s show. Which makes the claim about ratings being the cause even more implausible. He then went on to threaten to sue the network — a direct admission of politicized pressure on a private broadcaster (Reuters).
