ABC announced the suspension of the popular late-night talk show ‘Jimmy Kimmel Live!’ after host Jimmy Kimmel made comments that poked fun at President Donald Trump’s treatment of Charlie Kirk’s assassination on Sept. 18. Kimmel compared Trump’s response to Kirk’s murder to “how a four-year-old grieves a goldfish,” stating that MAGA politicians were “desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them.”
These comments garnered outrage from right-wing politicians, who characterized Kimmel as biased and insensitive for making an insulting joke so soon after Kirk’s assasination, pulling him off the air on Sept. 17. Disney, ABC’s parent company, faced increased pressure to remove “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” from the air, which outraged some Americans, claiming that Kimmel’s freedom of speech was being obstructed.
After discussions between Disney executives and Kimmel, ABC announced his show’s reinstatement on Sept. 23 after being off the air for a week. Kimmel expressed his gratitude to those who supported him during his broadcast suspension, as well as to Disney for permitting him to continue his show. Once he returned on air, Kimmel apologized for his comments regarding Kirk’s death, mentioning that he “never intended to make light of the murder of a young man.” However, Kimmel also emphasized that his situation was an example of the government’s involvement in free speech in the media, saying that “the president of the United States made it very clear he wants to see me and the hundreds of people who work here fired from their jobs because our leader celebrates Americans losing their livelihoods because he can’t take a joke.”
Kennedy Middle School literature teacher Peter Kampp believes that “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” is a show that gives a comedic view on serious topics, which could explain why this situation left many Republicans feeling offended that Kimmel made fun of their core beliefs.
“Comedians have a role in our society to point out problems in government, and it’s been that way throughout the modern era,” Kampp said. “It’s a long tradition where comedians write political cartoons mocking the people in charge so I think that should be certainly allowed.”
This case relates to Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC of 1969, where the Federal Communications Commission’s fairness doctrine required broadcasters to cover controversial issues and to ensure fair coverage for all sides. The Court’s decision was based on the idea that since there are a limited number of broadcast frequencies, this was a public trust, and the public’s right to receive diverse viewpoints was more important than the rights of the broadcasters. This allowed the government to regulate broadcast content in a way that would be unconstitutional for print media or an individual’s free speech. Senior Sherbaz Ali Khan says the First Amendment demands no government interference — that people are free to say what they want and believe what they want, whether it is an opposing view or not.
“The beauty of free speech is that it’s up to interpretation,” Ali Khan said. “There were some posts after Charlie Kirk’s assassination which praised the event — that is hate speech, but at the same time, it’s also free speech.”
One widespread response to the removal of the show was the boycotting of Disney+. Approximately 3 million Americans canceled their Disney+ subscriptions in support of Kimmel. U.S. Government teacher Ben Recktenwald believes that while the First Amendment still stands, de facto censorship from the government is becoming increasingly common despite it, and the temporary removal of “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” is just one example.
“The pattern we’re getting is that everyone’s rights are being violated all over the place,” Recktenwald said. “For the most part, speech and press are supposed to be free and open, and it feels like that’s getting even worse these days because it indicates that significant number of the public is okay with political violence, which I would argue probably also that there are people who should be silenced and not be allowed to speak. I absolutely believe in free speech, but then clearly anybody who says something [Trump] doesn’t like are gonna get shut down, or he’s gonna try to get them.”
However, senior Maxim Gutnik views Kimmel’s commentary on Trump and Kirk as disrespectful and offensive, and was upset to hear he was back on air. He was especially irritated that Kimmel didn’t fully address what he felt was lying about Charlie Kirk and the guy who assassinated him in his apology.
“I was a bit disappointed,” Gutnik said. “I thought, in my personal opinion, he should’ve stayed in suspension for a little bit longer. It was very quick how he got back.”
Kampp feels as if left-wing views are being censored by the government, while Gutnik believes that companies are the ones who interfere with the public’s freedom of speech. In Kimmel’s situation, Kampp believes that pressure from the FCC led to Kimmel’s suspension.
“Anyone who disagrees with the current administration — they’re being fired,” Kampp said. “It’s just more evidence that we have a current government out of control, taking away people’s rights.”
Clashing views like these put ABC in a sticky situation. With pressure from both Democrats and Republicans influencing its decisions, ABC’s pressure shifts over to its owners Sinclair and Nexstar, who regulate whether or not ABC can broadcast “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” Brendan Carr, chair of broadcast regulator at the FCC, threatened to revoke ABC’s broadcast licence after Kimmel’s comments. Disney then said that they were going to temporarily suspend the show to reduce the chances of inflaming a tense situation. Recktenwald believes that Disney felt threatened by the FCC to pull “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” off the air, despite Disney claiming it to be an economic decision.
“There’s a lot of people who think their rights are being violated, but that’s not the government censoring you, that’s a business,” Recktenwald said. “You don’t like that — take it up with the business. But in the case of the FCC, and the President basically saying, ‘get this guy off the air’ — that is government censorship.”
In contrast to Recktenwald’s thoughts on the government deciding whether Kimmel’s comments on the media should be viewed or not, Gurnik believes companies are the ones who interfere with the public’s freedom of speech, not the government. He believes that while the government does have a say on free speech if it gets too violent, most of it lies to the companies and their policies.
“If companies don’t see what you said as agreeable, they have a right to take you down,” Gutnik said. “But the organization has to basically feel all the backlash from that comment the person made. So in a sense, the company does control what the person can say.”
Despite the debate over whether Kimmel got pulled off due to the company or the government, Kampp believes that even though people are free to say what they think, the concept of “freedom of speech” creates a great division between what should and shouldn’t be said online, and it gets increasingly more complicated to resolve.Ali Khan thinks that freedom of speech helps others recognize how they can live up to what they stand for and practice their freedom when they are shut down, and at the end of the day, entertainers like Kimmel should have the right to voice their opinions.
“You have that constitutional right to speak up whatever you want,” Ali Khan said. “If any administration, Democrat or Republican, tries to infringe on or hinder that, it basically removes what America stands for as a nation.”
