Trump's FCC head went too far when he threatened Disney over Jimmy Kimmel's Charlie Kirk-related comments.

ABC has pulled Jimmy Kimmel’s show off the air “indefinitely.” The decision follows Kimmel’s comments earlier this week regarding the reaction of “the MAGA gang” and of Donald Trump to the assassination of Charlie Kirk. It also follows a statement by the Trump-appointed head of the FCC threatening consequences for Disney, owner of ABC, if it refused to take action against Kimmel.

There is debate over whether the FCC Chairman’s threat caused ABC to take Kimmel off the air. In my view, though, it’s beyond legitimate dispute that the threat should not have been made, in any case.

Let’s start with Kimmel’s comments. He stated:

The MAGA gang [is] 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.

It was clear at the time Kimmel made this statement that the assassin, in fact, was not part of “the MAGA gang.” Otherwise, he would not have written “hey fascist, catch” on one of the bullet casings.

Accordingly, there was nothing “desperate” about MAGA supporters and others characterizing Kirk as a radical leftist. For Kimmel to say otherwise — and to imply that the shooter was, indeed, part of the MAGA gang — was stupid and insulting.

Kimmel went on to insult Trump. He claimed that Trump didn’t feel grief over Kirk’s assassination because when asked how he was taking his friend’s death, Trump replied he was taking it well, and then pointed to ongoing construction work on the White House ballroom.

This comment was also stupid. The fact that Trump rejected an invitation from the media to show his grief publicly — which is not his style — doesn’t mean he hasn’t grieved. It probably just means Trump wanted to show that he’s bearing up well and is focused on moving forward with his projects.

But here’s what Kimmel did not do. He did not laud Kirk’s assassination and he did not attack Kirk.

Nonetheless, FCC Chair Brendan Carr responded to Kimmel’s monologue by threatening Disney. Carr stated:

This [Kimmel’s statement] is a very, very serious issue right now for Disney. We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead. . . .

They have a license granted by us at the FCC, and that comes with it an obligation to operate in the public interest.

Carr could not have been much more clear. If there isn’t action against Kimmel, Disney will face adverse consequences at the FCC.

ABC pulled Kimmel off the air shortly after Carr’s remark. However, the suspension also followed media giants Nexstar and Sinclair saying they would no longer carry Kimmel’s show on their affiliates.

Thus, one can argue that Carr’s statement did not cause the suspension of Kimmel’s show. Maybe it was just Nexstar and Sinclair that caused it. And maybe Nexstar, which like Disney and Sinclair, has business before the FCC (such as seeking approval to acquire Tegna, another media company, in a $6.2 billion dollar deal), wasn’t influenced by what Carr said. Maybe Kimmel’s weak rating caught up with him.

But even if the decision to suspend Kimmel’s show was based purely on market considerations and nothing Carr said, the head of the FCC had no proper business saying what he did. The government shouldn’t threaten to use its licensing and other powers for the purpose of coercing TV networks into taking action against hosts who say things the government doesn’t like.

Again, Kimmel did not laud Kirk’s assassination or even criticize Kirk. All he did was insult “the MAGA gang” and Trump.

For those who genuinely believe in free speech, it follows that television hosts should be free to level such insults — including stupid ones — without the government threatening consequences for their network if the network doesn’t take action against the speaker.

In his statement, Carr relied on the obligation of networks “to operate in the public interest.” But it is counter to the strong public interest in free speech for the government to make threats against outlets that present speech it doesn’t like.

Carr understands this. In 2019, he tweeted:

Should the government censor speech it doesn’t like? Of course not. The FCC does not have a roving mandate to police speech in the name of the ‘public interest.’

Carr was right. Indeed, his 2019 statement is consistent with this statement on the FCC’s website:

Pursuant to [its] legal mandates, the FCC has long held that ‘the public interest is best served by permitting free expression of views.’ Rather than suppress speech, communications law and policy seeks to encourage responsive ‘counter-speech’ from others. Following this principle ensures that the most diverse and opposing opinions will be expressed, even though some views or expressions may be highly offensive.

Were Kimmel’s statements offensive? Yes. Were they “highly offensive?” I don’t think so.

It doesn’t matter. Highly offensive or not, the government shouldn’t have threatened consequences for Disney if it didn’t take action against Kimmel. If his comments made him too toxic for the network or affiliates to carry him, let market forces work. The government shouldn’t put its thumb on the scale. The government should stay out of it.

It’s statements like Carr’s that lend plausibility to the view that the Trump administration has authoritarian tendencies and is hostile to free speech, a central element of American democracy.