Pedro Pascal, Meryl Streep, Robert De Niro, Olivia Rodrigo and Lin-Manuel Miranda are among 400 more Hollywood figures to sign an open letter from the American Civil Liberties Union condemning ABC and Disney’s suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live! The statement casts the network’s action, which had come in response to political furor over Kimmel’s monologue and public threats by a federal regulator, as a stringent exercise of free speech in entertainment.
The letter contends that government pressure intended to penalize a show for its content crosses a stark constitutional line, and it calls on the public to resist efforts to suppress or intimidate artists, journalists and media companies. The signers range across generations and genres, a surprisingly broad coalition on one front: preserving political speech in prime time.
Why an open letter should resonate outside Hollywood
Not since the 1980s has the letter been animated by as many stars, and it hasn’t seen such pointed language: It warns that soft-pedaling speech could have a chilling effect far beyond a single show, into classrooms, newsrooms, studios and stages. For years, civil liberties groups have argued that when the government pressures private entities to crack down on speech, it teeters near a violation of the First Amendment.
Legal scholars call this “jawboning.” Knight First Amendment Institute has documented how informal government pressure can chill speech even in the absence of a formal order. The Supreme Court refused to permit state intimidation that had chilled distributors into rejecting “objectionable” content, as in Bantam Books v. Sullivan. More recently, high-profile litigation has attacked federal outreach that pressured platforms into taking down controversial posts. And the theme that unites all of these conflicts: state authority cannot be employed as a bludgeon to silence perspectives.
That framing goes a long way toward explaining why this letter has received support from across the political spectrum, as well as professions. Free expression organizations like PEN America and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press have repeatedly noted that political figures who target speech they dislike erode public discourse.
Star power — and corporate risk — behind the signatures
But more than just Pascal and Streep, they include Jennifer Aniston, Tom Hanks, Regina King, Selena Gomez, Jamie Lee Curtis, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Bryan Cranston and Kevin Bacon; alongside fellow late-nighters as well as comedy writers for whom Kimmel’s monologue is no less a part of their own tradition of topical satire. And it is not just a cluster of celebrities; this is the professional consensus of people who make daily editorial decisions about what can be laughed at — and what must be said.
Of note, many signatures have current business ties to Disney or its descendants. Pascal is attached to Marvel’s The Fantastic Four: First Steps and fronts the upcoming Star Wars series The Mandalorian & Grogu. Streep stars opposite Gomez and Martin Short in Only Murders in the Building, while Curtis led this summer’s Freakier Friday. From the ranks of those on the payroll of the company at issue have come some of the most outspoken voices, an illustration of the stakes. And it reflects the solidarity that characterized recent labor action by writers and actors, collective pressure forcing negotiations to change.
The reaction to Kimmel’s suspension was swift. Other late-night hosts spoke out in favour, former Disney chief Michael Eisner slammed the decision, and performers such as Tatiana Maslany and Cynthia Nixon called for a consumer boycott. But while responses may differ, the trend is clear: Politicians punishing entertainment speech is quickly becoming a red line.
How the controversy escalated over Jimmy Kimmel’s show
Republican critics pounced on Kimmel’s monologue about far-right media personality Charlie Kirk, churning a news cycle that ended with threats from Federal Communications Commission chairman Brendan Carr to “punish” ABC. The F.C.C. does not license national networks directly, but it does regulate the public airwaves through its broadcast affiliates and can issue fines for indecency. “To use that power for political speech would have very serious constitutional implications,” civil liberties experts said.
Traditionally, the FCC’s most controversial steps have been with regard to indecency and fleeting expletives — think post–Super Bowl orders — not political-content enforcement. That distinction matters. When regulators conflate party-based discomfort with the regulatory process, they run the risk of accusations of viewpoint discrimination, which even trained First Amendment lawyers avoid like hell (at least in theory).
What to watch next as pressure mounts on ABC and Disney
In a letter, the A.C.L.U. wrote that what was needed instead was “a reaffirmation of the importance of protecting speech.” Disney and ABC are feeling pressure from all directions: relationship with talent, sponsor expectations and public scrutiny. Industry observers are searching for a coherent, principle-abiding answer that preserves the independence of editorial decision-making from political players.
And where does that leave Jimmy Kimmel Live!? The bigger fight over where political power stops and editorial judgment starts won’t stop here. Late-night shows now play a central role in the nation’s civic conversation. Reporters, filmmakers, comedians and teachers — all of these will have good reason to question who’s safe tomorrow if officials can plausibly threaten them today. That, more than any one monologue or other, is why the signatures just keep coming.
