In a country where free speech is enshrined in our Constitution and has been fiercely protected for almost 250 years, we have reached an impasse that will redefine the meaning of the First Amendment for generations to come. 

With the sudden cancellation—and recent reinstallation—of “Jimmy Kimmel Live” at the hands of Federal Communications Commission chairman Brendan Carr, the government has begun its crusade against left-leaning organizations. This effort to suppress speech that Carr, and by extension President Donald Trump, deems inappropriate or insensitive comes in retaliation against “radical left-wing” groups who purportedly celebrated Charlie Kirk’s death. 

What is considered inappropriate or insensitive? Is it making fun of the president? Is it questioning his cabinet? These are the questions that we now have to ask ourselves each time we speak in public. 

The actions taken by the FCC and the White House are in clear violation of the First Amendment. The First Amendment is sacred to everyone living in the United States, as it guarantees everyone the right to speak freely—as long as it is not a call to violence—without fear of persecution from the government. This right is paramount to a functioning democracy. Without it, we risk authoritarian leaders seizing control and stifling necessary dissent.

When looking at the monologue that caused the suspension of Kimmel’s show, questions arise concerning the reasoning behind the decision made by Disney executives. During last Monday’s monologue, Jimmy Kimmel said of Kirk’s killer:

“The MAGA Gang [is] desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.”

If you are as confused as I am about why this angered so many conservatives, you are not alone. Kimmel was not demeaning Kirk or mocking his death in any way. He was speaking about his killer. What is more troubling is that before the network pulled Kimmel’s show off the air, Carr went on popular conservative influencer Benny Johnson’s podcast to address steps that the FCC would take if Disney did not take action against the Late Night host:

“This is a very, very serious issue right now for Disney. We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel, or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

Over the weekend, hundreds of celebrities—including stars like Meryl Streep, Pedro Pascal, Selena Gomez, Ryan Reynolds, Olivia Rodrigo and Ariana Grande—co-signed a letter authored by the American Civil Liberties Union criticizing this administration’s efforts to silence free speech, which quickly garnered attention across the political spectrum. 

Then on Monday, in a surprising reversal, Disney—and, by extension, ABC—released a statement saying that in light of “thoughtful conversations with Jimmy . . . we reached the decision to return the show on Tuesday.” Even with this sudden change of heart, local TV stations Sinclair and Nexstar said that they would not air Kimmel’s show. Sinclair and Nexstar own about 20% of the country’s local TV stations, which means that millions of Americans weren’t able to watch the return of the show. 

The FCC’s brazen display of partisan loyalty to the White House is terrifying for anyone who understands the devolution of a democracy into that of an authoritarian regime. The censorship of the media is the hallmark of a dictatorship, because without criticism and the freedom to vocalize dissent, a democracy crumbles. 

We have seen this form of censorship before. During the Cold War, the Second Red Scare reigned supreme over the minds of many Americans who lived in perpetual fear of the consequences of speaking out against the actions of the government. To accuse someone of being a communist sympathizer could risk a number of consequences, such as getting fired from your job, losing your career, or industry blacklisting. We are now once again chained to the whims of McCarthyism. 

This time, however, it may only get worse. If we continue down this path of self-censorship for self-preservation, this administration will not stop its efforts to crush any and all opposition. Instead, it will become emboldened to push the boundaries of legality and threaten anyone it deems a threat to its power. 

Let me be very clear about this: Kirk did not deserve to be assassinated. I had many gripes with him and agreed with nothing that he ever argued for. In fact, I still believe that he was one of the reasons why our politics have become so divided. However, that does not mean I wanted him to be dead. As divisive as his beliefs were, they were protected under the First Amendment, and as such, he was entitled to his opinions. Yet in the same breath, I will not be mourning him. I will mourn for his children who have lost a father, and I will mourn for his wife who has lost her husband. We must put an end to political violence and any attacks on free speech, as there is no room for it in a healthy democracy.

At this point in time, none of us know what is going to happen to our country. For a long time, we have considered the Nixon administration’s corruption as the worst it can get. Apparently not—it can get worse, and it is. Even Watergate pales in comparison to the levels of corruption that are currently taking place in this administration. 

But all I know is this: Boston has long been the epicenter of revolutionary ideas for centuries, and it is the foundation of what the United States of America has represented since 1776, when we formally declared our independence from the United Kingdom. We the people have an obligation to make our voices heard, and to fight against the erosion of our rights. This is not the end of our republic.