The Kimmel thing

I know — I’m both the latest person to weigh in on this and probably the last one. Such is the nature of our news cycles. Part of the delay is because I wanted time to reflect. Part of it is because I’m just exhausted by the discourse. Not just this topic—all of it.

Let’s start with what Jimmy Kimmel actually said, rather than what people who never watched the footage claim:

"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.”

He went on to play some footage of Trump addressing what had happened and mocked his reaction.

You could argue Kimmel was implying the shooter was MAGA, but what he said was technically accurate. The right did spend the weekend denying the shooter was one of them (as did the left, just as actively). The right turned out to be correct: Tyler Robinson, the alleged killer, grew up in a conservative household but later embraced left-leaning ideology, according to charging documents and his mother. But at the time, the facts weren’t clear and the debate was fierce.

It’s worth noting that, in the same episode, Kimmel called the murder “senseless” and condemned the vile reactions he was seeing. He said he could never understand anyone cheering for it.

On the day Kirk was assassinated, he also said:

“Instead of the angry finger-pointing, can we just for one day agree that it is horrible and monstrous to shoot another human? On behalf of my family, we send love to the Kirks and to all the children, parents and innocents who fall victim to senseless gun violence.”

It’s quite clear that Kimmel was not celebrating Kirk’s death or endorsing political violence. Right or wrong, he was mocking the response.

But nonetheless, his show was suspended.

Now I can already hear the chorus of familiar refrains:

• The left invented the rules, we are just playing by them.

• He deserves it. I don’t care.

• I’m not going to stand up for someone who wouldn’t stand up for others when it happened to them.

• His ratings were in spiralling down and so it was an excuse to cancel his show.

• This is just consequences on his actions.

• The 1st Amendment protects you from government censorship, not from being fired.

• Now the left is crying, but they did it to us for years.

Lets address these.

When Stephen Colbert’s late-night show was canceled, Trump told reporters that Jimmy Fallon and Jimmy Kimmel would be next: “Fallon has no talent. Kimmel has no talent. They’re next. They’re going to be going.”

Was it a prediction—or an instruction? Should a president of a country be publicly targeting individual media figures or comedians?

But let’s put that aside for now.

What makes Kimmel’s case different from just being cancelled due to public outrage is the involvement of the FCC. I’m often asked which is worse—cultural censorship or government-censorship.

My answer: government. Because government can take away your freedom—not just your job or your reputation. But cultural censorship often lays the groundwork for government policy. It’s a stepping-stone.

It’s true that Disney had no obligation to keep Kimmel on the air. But even if you believe they simply took the opportunity to dump a poorly performing show, it doesn’t change the fact that the FCC weighed in. At that point, ratings are irrelevant.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr went on rightwing podcaster Benny Johnson’s show and said he hoped ABC and its affiliates were listening:

“We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” he warned. Adding: “These companies can find ways to change conduct to take action, frankly, on Kimmel…Or, you know, there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

Also consider, exhibit B:

Carr also described Kimmel’s remarks on his show as “the sickest conduct possible.”

Soon after, ABC suspended Kimmel indefinitely, with Nexstar and Sinclair—ABC affiliate owners—citing “problematic comments regarding the murder of Charlie Kirk.”

But even Republican senator Ted Cruz called Carr’s words "dangerous as hell."

On his podcast, Cruz said: “I think it is unbelievably dangerous for government to put itself in the position of saying we’re going to decide what speech we like and what we don’t, and we’re going to threaten to take you off air if we don’t like what you’re saying.”

Meanwhile, Nextar Media Group (parent company of Kimmel’s show) is currently seeking FCC approval for a $6.2B merger with Tegna—which, I think, would best explain why they got rid of Kimmel so quickly and issued an apology.

The left invented the rules, we are just playing by them.

When I hear this, I just hear someone abandoning principle—if they had them to begin with. No one is forced to play tit-for-tat. If you thought it was wrong when they did it, why would you do the same thing?

But that’s how power works.

During the McCarthy era, left-leaning individuals were targeted. Then the pendulum swung and the left used its power. Now the right is using theirs.

And so the cycle continues.

He deserves it. I don’t care.

As for those who think that Kimmel deserved this, that these are just the consequences of his actions, or that he has not stood up for others and therefore doesn’t deserve your defence. And that the left are being hypocrites getting so upset over Kimmel when they’ve used the same tactics for years…

Well, you’re not entirely wrong. Does someone deserve our defense when they’ve cheered on others being targeted? Or remained silent?

I can’t say I feel a surge of energy to defend people who were fine with others being silenced until it happened to them. Not just Kimmel, but many who only discover their love for free speech, seemingly overnight, when it’s their speech being threatened—exactly what some of us have been warning about for years.

Do I really feel bad for them when their turn comes? Not really. Not if I’m honest.

But here’s what I do stand by: the principle.

This is why I wrote this whole Kimmel piece. Not because I like or dislike Kimmel, not because I agree or disagree with him, or any other individual, but because the principle of free expression is bigger than any one person. That’s what really matters. And that’s what I uphold.

And if we don’t defend it consistently, we won’t have it at all.

If you found this story useful, please consider supporting my work by sharing, becoming a paid subscriber, or making a one-off donation via Buy Me a Coffee ☕️.

Also, check out my book: No Apologies: How to Flind and Free your Voice in the Age of Outrage!