Whoopi Goldberg, The View address Jimmy Kimmel suspension as debate over free speech intensifies
ABC daytime panel weighs government's role in media suspensions amid broader backlash from late-night dispute
The View addressed Jimmy Kimmel Live!’s suspension on Monday, nearly a week after ABC pulled the late-night program following a controversial monologue about Charlie Kirk’s death and President Trump’s reaction to the 31-year-old’s killing on Sept. 10. The moment marked one of the sharpest public confrontations yet over what is permissible on late-night TV and who gets to decide when a show should pause.
"Did y’all really think we weren’t going to talk about Jimmy Kimmel?" Whoopi Goldberg asked on Monday, opening the discussion with a wink at the show's long history of tackling controversial topics. "I mean, have you watched the show over the last 29 seasons? No one silences us." The remarks came after multiple episodes had sidestepped the topic in the days since Kimmel’s show was placed on pause. Goldberg and her co-hosts explained they had taken a breath to see whether Kimmel would issue a public statement, which has not yet materialized.
ABC previously cited a strong objection from Nexstar Media to Kimmel’s remarks as a catalyst for the pause. The decision to pull the program drew scrutiny from regulators, with FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr threatening to launch an official probe. The suspension has intensified a conversation about the balance between free speech and government or corporate pressure in the media landscape.
"The First Amendment is the first for a reason," Ana Navarro said as she joined the conversation, arguing that government power should not be used to silence dissent. "This is what dictators and authoritarians do." Alyssa Farrah Griffin echoed the sentiment, stating simply, "The First Amendment is the first for a reason." Goldberg added that the show has long discussed freedom of speech and would defend everyone’s right to express themselves, even when voices are unpopular or controversial. "The government cannot apply pressure to force someone to be silenced," she said.
The panel, which typically includes Joy Behar, Sara Haines and Sunny Hostin, also referenced public support from other late-night hosts. Colbert, Meyers and Fallon have publicly defended Kimmel since the suspension was announced, and even as the late-night arena shifts under pressure, the broader conversation about accountability for those in power persisted across the culture beat.
"The government cannot apply pressure to force someone to be silenced," Goldberg reiterated, underscoring the show’s commitment to free expression even in moments of controversy. The discussion touched on broader implications for media self-regulation and the duty of broadcasters to navigate political and social anxieties without yielding to coercive threats.
In addition to the Tuesday-through-Monday debate on air, figures outside the ABC family weighed in. New comments from Howard Stern criticized what he described as a growing tendency to weaponize regulatory and corporate power to silence content. Stern, who has publicly clashed with Disney in the past, argued that government interference in media is a troubling precedent for a country built on free expression.
As the public conversation continues, Kimmel’s absence from the airwaves remains the central question for his audience and industry observers. There is no public timeline for when the host will return, and there has yet to be a formal statement from the comedian or his production team. Meanwhile, The View and other media figures emphasize that the discussion should center on principles of free speech, accountability, and the limits of institutional influence in shaping what the public can see and hear.
The cross-industry dialogue underscores a larger moment for American media: as late-night shows navigate political and cultural fault lines, hosts, producers and regulators alike are wrestling with where to draw lines between criticism, satire, and calls for accountability. The ongoing situation will likely influence how networks, unions and audiences perceive the balance between creative autonomy and the responsibilities that come with influencing a broad, diverse viewership.
