FCC Chairman Threatens ABC’s License Over Kimmel’s Joke About Charlie Kirk Shooting
A heated controversy erupted when FCC Chairman Brendan Carr threatened to revoke ABC’s broadcasting license over a joke made by late-night host Jimmy Kimmel about the alleged shooter of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Carr, in an interview with right-wing YouTuber Benny Johnson, accused Kimmel of deliberately spreading misinformation by suggesting the shooter, Tyler Robinson, was motivated by right-wing ideology. Johnson amplified this accusation on social media, asserting Kimmel “explicitly stated that MAGA killed Charlie Kirk,” a claim demonstrably false based on Kimmel’s actual monologue.
The controversy stems from the intense political polarization surrounding the Kirk shooting and the subsequent attempts to link the incident to various political narratives. While some right-wing figures focused on alleged symbolism on the shooter’s gun casings, suggesting ties to “trans ideology,” others within the Trump administration used the event as a pretext for advocating crackdowns on left-leaning groups. Kimmel’s joke directly addressed the right wing’s attempts to distance the shooter from their political movement. Kimmel’s words, “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,” were interpreted by some as an accusation that the shooter was undeniably a MAGA supporter, rather than commentary on their attempts to deflect responsibility.
Carr’s threat against ABC ignited a firestorm of debate about free speech and the role of the FCC. He argued that Kimmel’s joke constituted an intentional misleading of the American public on a crucial matter and hinted that ABC could face consequences if they failed to take action against Kimmel. “These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead,” Carr warned, emphasizing the broadcaster’s obligation to operate in the public interest.
Legal experts and free speech advocates, however, strongly contested Carr’s position. Ari Cohn, lead counsel for tech policy at FIRE, emphasized the FCC’s lack of authority to police the content of late-night talk shows and highlighted the First Amendment protection for speculation on current events, even if those speculations prove incorrect. FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez echoed this sentiment on social media, decrying the use of a tragic event to justify censorship and emphasizing the importance of protecting free speech, even for those who criticize or satirize the government.
The incident underscores the increasingly charged political climate where even comedians are not immune from intense scrutiny and potential repercussions for their commentary. This is not an isolated incident but part of a broader trend where television personalities have faced backlash or termination for expressing views critical of Kirk or sympathetic to the alleged shooter. MSNBC commentator Matthew Dowd was fired for mentioning Kirk’s “hateful words” following the shooting, while ABC correspondent Matt Gutman faced calls for his termination for characterizing purported texts between Robinson and his partner as “touching.”
The controversy involving Kimmel, Carr, and the FCC raises serious questions about the boundaries of free speech in a highly polarized society and the potential for regulatory bodies to be used as tools for political censorship. While Carr doubled down on his criticisms of Kimmel following the initial reporting, the future implications of this incident for media personalities and broadcasters remain to be seen. The incident exemplifies the escalating tension surrounding free speech and the potential chilling effect on public discourse as individuals fear repercussions for expressing controversial opinions, even in the form of humor or commentary.