CNN’s Jake Tapper on Jimmy Kimmel being suspended:

“It was pretty much the most direct infringement by the government on free speech that I’ve seen in my lifetime.”pic.twitter.com/dZX035lUMl

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) September 23, 2025

WRONG … AGAIN.

An Investigative Analysis

CNN’s Jake Tapper recently declared that ABC’s suspension of Jimmy Kimmel represents “the most direct infringement by the government on free speech” he’s witnessed in his lifetime. This sweeping statement reveals either a troubling amnesia about recent American history or a dangerous inflation of rhetoric that undermines legitimate First Amendment concerns.

The Context: What Actually Happened

Kimmel was indefinitely suspended on Wednesday following comments he made on Monday about the assassination of Charlie Kirk, accusing conservatives of trying to score “political points” off his killing and mocking Trump for mourning his loss “like a 4-year-old mourns the death of a goldfish.” FCC Chair Brendan Carr suggested his FCC could move to revoke ABC affiliate licenses as a way to force Disney to punish Kimmel, saying, “We can do this the easy way or the hard way.”

While Carr’s pressure tactics are concerning and deserve scrutiny, Tapper’s characterization ignores both the legal realities and historical precedent.

The Legal Reality: Corporate Decisions vs. Government Action

The First Amendment simply does not apply to private employers. Disney-owned ABC made a corporate decision to suspend Kimmel’s show. Even if influenced by government pressure, this remains fundamentally different from direct government censorship. At the Concordia Summit in New York on Monday morning, Carr denied he had threatened to pull the licenses of ABC stations if they did not fire Kimmel. He said that “did not happen in any way, shape, or form.”

Moreover, Carr defended his comments, saying Kimmel was not suspended as a result of government pressure. “Jimmy Kimmel is in the situation that he is in because of his ratings, not because of anything that’s happened at the federal government level,” Carr said at a forum in New York.

The Historical Blind Spot: Tapper’s Selective Memory

To claim this represents the most direct government infringement on free speech in his lifetime, Tapper must have forgotten:

The Pentagon Papers (1971): The Nixon administration obtained federal court injunctions to stop The New York Times and Washington Post from publishing classified documents—an actual prior restraint that went to the Supreme Court.

The Fairness Doctrine Era: From 1949-1987, the FCC directly regulated broadcast content, requiring stations to present controversial issues in a “balanced” manner—far more intrusive than current regulatory pressure.

Post-9/11 Censorship: The Bush administration pressured networks to self-censor bin Laden tapes, while the Justice Department pursued journalists over classified leaks. The Obama administration prosecuted more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than all previous presidents combined.

NSA Surveillance Revelations: Edward Snowden’s 2013 disclosures revealed massive government surveillance programs targeting journalists and sources—a direct chilling of First Amendment activities.

Julian Assange Case: The Trump and Biden administrations pursued unprecedented criminal charges against a publisher for journalistic activities, setting dangerous precedents for press freedom.

The Dangerous Precedent of Hyperbole

Even conservative voices have criticized Carr’s actions. Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr warned that the FCC could take action against ABC and Disney over the late-night host’s remarks about Charlie Kirk’s death. Trump defends FCC chair after Sen. Ted Cruz criticizes him, with Cruz calling the threat “unbelievably dangerous.”

However, Tapper’s hyperbolic framing does a disservice to legitimate First Amendment concerns. By declaring this the “most direct” government infringement he’s seen, Tapper diminishes actual instances of government censorship and creates false equivalencies that weaken public understanding of constitutional protections.

The Real Issue: Regulatory Capture, Not Censorship

The more accurate concern here isn’t unprecedented government censorship but familiar regulatory capture—a government official using the threat of regulatory action to influence private corporate decisions. This is troubling and worth scrutinizing, but it’s neither unprecedented nor the most serious First Amendment violation of recent decades.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr suggested that ABC affiliates should pull Kimmel’s show or face action from his agency. But Carr rejected accusations that he was punishing free speech. There is also pushback coming from within the FCC itself.

Conclusion: Proportionality Matters

Jake Tapper, as a seasoned journalist, should understand that precise language matters when discussing constitutional rights. His inflammatory characterization not only ignores decades of actual government censorship but also risks crying wolf when real First Amendment crises emerge.

The Kimmel situation deserves serious analysis and criticism of regulatory overreach. But calling it the most direct government infringement on free speech in decades reveals either stunning historical ignorance or a concerning willingness to sacrifice accuracy for dramatic effect. Neither reflects well on a journalist who has built his reputation on holding others accountable for their words.

In the fight to preserve press freedom and First Amendment protections, hyperbole is not our ally—precision, context, and historical awareness are.