Jennifer Aniston, Ben Affleck Among 400 Celebrities Condemning Kimmel Suspension as Show Returns
ACLU-backed letter defends free speech as Disney says Jimmy Kimmel Live! will resume after controversy over remarks about Charlie Kirk
A coalition of more than 400 celebrities, led by Jennifer Aniston and Ben Affleck, has joined in condemning ABC’s decision to indefinitely suspend Jimmy Kimmel Live! following his remarks about Charlie Kirk. The American Civil Liberties Union published a letter on Monday urging protection of the constitutional right to free speech and arguing that government threats to punish private companies for speech threaten the core values of a free society.
The letter, signed by Aniston, Affleck and hundreds of colleagues, asserted that “we the people must never accept government threats to our freedom of speech” and that “efforts by leaders to pressure artists, journalists, and companies with retaliation for their speech strike at the heart of what it means to live in a free country.” It also cited concerns about broader consequences, noting that teachers, government employees, law firms, researchers, universities and students are facing direct attacks on freedom of expression. The message emphasized that voices should not be silenced by those in power, regardless of political affiliation, and closed with a call to defend and preserve constitutionally protected rights.
The letter highlighted that more than 400 signatories joined in solidarity, with prominent names such as Selena Gomez, Natalie Portman, Meryl Streep, Tom Hanks, Rosie O’Donnell, Pedro Pascal, Olivia Rodrigo and Jamie Lee Curtis among those listed. The underlying message was that a broad cross-section of public figures believes the suspension set a dangerous precedent for free expression and press freedom in the United States.
Disney General Entertainment Content later announced that Kimmel’s show would return on Tuesday, following a period of production suspension designed to de‑escalate tensions amid a highly charged national moment. In a statement, Disney said: “Last Wednesday, we made the decision to suspend production on the show to avoid further inflaming a tense situation at an emotional moment for our country. It is a decision we made because we felt some of the comments were ill-timed and thus insensitive. We have spent the last days having thoughtful conversations with Jimmy, and after those conversations, we reached the decision to return the show on Tuesday.”
The controversy centers on Kimmel’s remarks about Charlie Kirk, who died by gunfire at Utah Valley University on Sept. 10. While Kimmel initially offered condolences to Kirk’s family on social media, he later commented that “the MAGA gang” was trying to characterize the person who killed Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them. ABC ordered Kimmel to apologize and donate to Kirk’s family and Turning Point USA for the suspension to be lifted, though it was not immediately clear whether he would fulfill that request on the subsequent broadcast.
The decision to suspend the show occurred last week, and Kimmel’s absence prompted a broader discourse about the balance between media accountability and free expression in a polarized political climate. The ACLU’s letter frames the issue as a test of constitutional protections rather than a straightforward matter of taste or timing, arguing that retaliatory actions against media or artists for speech threaten the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.
In closing, the letter reiterates an appeal for Americans not to silence voices in the name of civility or safety and to safeguard the rights enshrined in the Constitution. The statement’s signatories stressed that protecting free expression is essential to a functioning democracy, and they urged the country to resist government pressure that could chill speech across industries and disciplines.
The episode has raised questions about how media platforms and public figures navigate political discourse and the boundaries of scrutiny in late-night formats. As Kimmel’s program returns to air, observers will be watching to see how the program addresses the incident and whether the broader conversation about free speech and corporate responsibility continues to unfold in entertainment and journalism circles. The case also underscores how celebrity-backed advocacy can amplify debates over constitutional rights in the public square, particularly when they intersect with national conversations about gun violence, political rhetoric and media accountability.
Ultimately, the issue at hand is not only whether a late-night host crossed a line, but how institutions — networks, sponsors, talent and the public — respond when freedom of expression meets political power. The letters and statements from D.C. and Hollywood suggest that, for many, safeguarding the right to speak—even in controversial or unpopular ways—remains a nonnegotiable facet of a vibrant democracy.
As the industry processes the events of the past week, audiences can expect continued discussion about the responsibilities that accompany public speech and the role of entertainment figures in shaping national conversations around liberty, responsibility and the limits of satire in a charged political environment.
