In recent days, late-night television and political speech collided after Jimmy Kimmel was temporarily suspended following a contentious monologue about the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. That suspension elicited strong reactions from across the spectrum praise, outrage, concern over precedent. Among those to weigh in was Joe Rogan, who in a widely circulated podcast episode called out conservatives for celebrating the suspension, bluntly stating: “You are crazy for supporting this. Because this will be used on you.”
Rogan’s stance is notable not only because of his influence among many right-leaning listeners but because he frames the issue as a betrayal of free expression: in supporting censorship against someone perceived as ideologically opposed, conservatives risk giving tools to future attackers of speech they care about. His comments echo deeper tensions in American discourse: who controls speech, when does pressure become coercion, and do those who celebrate suppression always realize how quickly the tables can turn?
In this article, I will map out:
-
The chain of events that led to Kimmel’s suspension
-
Rogan’s comments in detail, and why they resonate
-
The logic and risks he highlights
-
Reactions and counterarguments
-
What the episode reveals about power, media, and shifting norms around censorship and expression
The Kimmel Suspension: From Monologue to Media Firestorm
To understand Rogan’s critique, it’s essential to reconstruct the sequence and context of Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension.
Kimmel’s Monologue & Criticism
On September 15, 2025, Jimmy Kimmel opened his monologue by criticizing what he saw as opportunistic narratives from some conservative figures following the shooting of Charlie Kirk. He accused them of trying to portray the suspected killer as someone other than them, stating:
“We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang 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.”
That comment drew swift and harsh pushback from conservative media, politicians, and FCC officials who argued that it was unfair, inflammatory, or irresponsible. FCC Chair Brendan Carr, in particular, publicly warned ABC and Disney of possible regulatory consequences if they did not act.
Major ABC affiliate owners including Nexstar and Sinclair announced they would not air Jimmy Kimmel Live! during the suspension period. On September 17, ABC and Disney suspended the show “indefinitely,” citing the monologue as “ill-timed and insensitive.”
By September 22, Disney announced that the suspension would be lifted and Kimmel would return on September 23. However, Nexstar and Sinclair affirmed their plans to continue preempting the show on their stations, meaning the reach of his return would remain constrained.
Rogan Speaks Out: “You Are Crazy for Supporting This”
Joe Rogan broke his silence after returning from an off-grid hunting trip. On his podcast, he addressed the controversy directly, defending Kimmel’s speech and warning those who celebrated the suspension about what precedent they were endorsing.
Key Points Rogan Made
-
Government should not dictate comedic speech
Rogan asserted: “I definitely don’t think that the government should be involved — ever — in dictating what a comedian can or cannot say in a monologue.” He frames the issue as a core free speech boundary: censorship not by law, but by political pressure that masquerades as regulation. -
Don’t cheer suppression just because it hits your opponent
He addressed conservatives who celebrated Kimmel’s suspension, saying:“If people on the right are like, ‘Yeah, go get ’em’ — oh, my God, you’re crazy. You are crazy for supporting this. Because this will be used on you.”
That warning is Rogan’s central rhetorical thrust: suppression methods rarely stay limited to one side. By supporting censorship roots today, he argues, one may ripen the soil for censorship of allies tomorrow.
-
Critique of pressure via regulatory authority
Rogan flagged the danger of the FCC or governmental actors leveraging regulatory power to push media platforms or broadcasters to police speech. He implied that if regulators can demand compliance on one side, they may demand it later in other contexts. -
Kimmel’s intention vs accuracy
While Rogan defended Kimmel’s right to speak, he acknowledged that the monologue’s factual character might be debatable. He said Kimmel may have been setting up a comedic argument or framing a point rather than asserting a guaranteed fact. But that nuance, Rogan suggested, is precisely why censorship is dangerous comedy uses exaggeration, metaphor, provocation.
The Logic & Risks Rogan’s Warning Highlights
Rogan’s remarks rest on a broader logic about power, censorship, and rhetorical tools. Here’s a deeper unpacking of the risks he signals.
The Precedent Problem
When a powerful actor uses pressure, regulatory threat, or popular outrage to force a broadcaster’s compliance, it signals that certain speech is disfavored but not formally illegal. That soft power is more insidious because it’s less constrained by law, oversight, or judicial review. Celebrating it now against someone you oppose risks normalizing it.
Rogan’s phrasing “this will be used on you” invokes the notion of the banana peel under someone else’s foot. Today’s target may be someone you dislike; tomorrow it may be someone you support. The line between pariah and establishment shifts with regimes and ideology.
The Chilling Effect on Speech
Even if Kimmel’s show returns and the suspension is rescinded, the scare value remains. Comedians, writers, media producers may self-censor to avoid running afoul of regulators or powerful critics. That chilling effect is more lasting than any temporary suspension.
Regulatory Capture & Weaponizing Institutions
Rogan’s critique implicitly points to the danger of capturing or leveraging regulatory institutions (like the FCC) as instruments of ideological enforcement. When regulators say they may penalize broadcasters for a host’s remarks, media platforms are forced into a defensive posture. The question then becomes: who draws the “lines”?
Alliance Fragility & the Politics of Speech
Rogan’s remarks also confront a kind of tribal logic: using censorship when it hits your opponent is intuitive in polarized times. But that logic undermines the freedom to dissent within one’s own sphere. Relationships to speech cannot safely be transactional.
By calling out “supporting suppression” among his own or sympathetic audience, Rogan extends his critique inward to caution his own side against shortsighted gains that undermine foundational principles.
Reactions & Counterarguments
Rogan’s criticisms have prompted responses, both supportive and skeptical. Understanding these pushes the conversation deeper.
Support & Amplification
Many commentators, especially those concerned with free speech and censorship, have echoed Rogan’s warnings. Some see his critique as especially significant because he leans right himself, lending credibility to his counsel among voices who might otherwise be unsympathetic.
Other public voices, including late-night peers and free speech advocates, raised alarm at threats to media independence, drawing connections between the Kimmel case and wider patterns of pressure on speech.
Pushback & Critique
Several counterarguments or notes of caution appear in public discourse:
-
Limits to absolute free speech claims: Critics argue that even comedians must exercise responsibility, particularly when addressing politicized tragedies. Some say broadcasters and networks reserve rights to discipline hosts for reputational risk or corporate standards.
-
Regulation vs consequence: Some conservatives celebrated the suspension not as government censorship but as corporate choice or reputational response. They argue that private broadcasters have the right to enforce standards independently of government mandates.
-
Sensitivities around harm: Others argue that when speech potentially mischaracterizes serious events (like political violence), platforms have a duty to moderate exaggerated or misleading assertions.
-
Power asymmetries: Some caution that comparing a late-night host to broader threats of censorship may underplay structural power differences. Not everyone faces censorship risk equally; elite voices often have more protection, so warnings can feel abstract to marginalized voices.
Broader Implications: Speech, Power & Norm Shifts
This episode is not merely about Rogan or Kimmel it highlights evolving fault lines in media, censorship, and institutional leverage.
Speech Freedom in the Age of Platform Power
Television, streaming platforms, and broadcast networks now operate under regulatory, political, and ownership pressure. The balance of speech control is shifting not just through content moderation but via institutional, political leverage.
When regulators or political actors can threaten broadcast licensing or oversight, they gain leverage over platforms to moderate speech indirectly. That soft coercion is harder to litigate.
Norms of Suppression & Resistance
Rogan’s invocation of “you’ll regret supporting suppression” suggests that norms about when and to whom suppression is acceptable are unstable. Today’s righteous suppression may slip into broader suppression if norms shift.
This dynamic prompts renewed scrutiny of fairness, consistency, and procedural guardrails for speech enforcement in public and private domains.
The Role of Media Figures as Speech Guardians
Rogan stepping into this role a media figure calling out his own audience is telling. In polarized times, figures with cross-ideological credibility may become unexpected defenders of free speech. That adds complexity to how audiences interpret political loyalty vs principle.
The Cat & Mouse of Censorship
As political pressure over speech increases, the tactics shift from overt bans to incremental pressure: overreach threats, media boycotts, platform pressure, regulatory signaling. This Kimmel case is one iteration of that evolving game. Rogan’s warning suggests that each played-out suppression provides new weapons for future battles.
What to Watch: Signals & Future Flashpoints
To track how seriously Rogan’s warning compels change, these indicators merit attention:
-
Whether conservative voices speak out
Does any conservative commentator or political figure publicly confront or backpedal from celebrating Kimmel’s suspension? -
Regulatory & legal follow-through
Will the FCC or other agencies pursue punishments or investigations, or will regulatory threats recede? How will broadcasters respond in future speech controversies? -
Media & platform behavior
Will networks, platforms, or affiliates become more reticent to host controversial voices or conversely, more cautious about suspensions? -
Self-censorship rising
Does the fear of reprisal lead comedians, talk show hosts, or media commentators to tone down critical speech? Changes in content volume, boldness, or framing may reveal chilling effects. -
New precedents of selective suppression
Future cases where suppression is applied asymmetrically especially to those within the same political base will test whether Rogan’s warning becomes lived reality.
A Caution from the Center of the Culture Wars
Joe Rogan’s critique that conservatives who cheered Kimmel’s suspension are sowing seeds of suppression they may one day reap is not just rhetorical flourish. It arises from a deeper logic about how power to silence is rarely applied only where one approves. In polarized, media-saturated times, signaling support for content suppression even against ideological opponents weakens the guardrails around speech.
The Kimmel suspension was a spark. Rogan’s warning, delivered from within a constituency sympathetic to those critics, pulls the lens back: suppressing speech should never feel safe for any side. If we accept suppression selectively, we gradually erode the principle that speech should be defended even for statements we dislike.
This episode looks like a flash in the politics of talk shows and media control but it may mark a broader shift in how speech, power, and political pressure interact in the public square. Rogan’s admonition is a reminder: The tools used against others today may turn toward you tomorrow.
