Kimmel’s Suspension Was Never About the First Amendment
ABC and Disney are too large and too sophisticated to accidentally omit or distort facts about a high-profile murder. Whether in their news division or late-night programming, they carry a well-defined, legal obligation as licensed broadcasters not to falsify or distort the news.
That obligation was not met when Jimmy Kimmel mischaracterized facts about the man accused of murdering Charlie Kirk, the president and founder of Turning Point USA.
When Kimmel returned from suspension on September 23, he tried to transform the debate into a free speech battle, invoking the First Amendment and painting criticism from FCC Chairman Brendan Carr as “un-American censorship.”
That was nonsense from the start.
Put aside the hypocrisy of such a claim from a man who openly advocated for the “cancellation” of many he disagreed with, but here’s the critical truth: this was never a First Amendment matter. Kimmel was disciplined because ABC, an FCC-regulated broadcaster that owns and operates local affiliates and distributes to other affiliate station groups, aired false factual claims about an ongoing high-profile criminal case.
That implicates the FCC’s news distortion rule, not constitutional free speech protections.
The Facts Kimmel and ABC Ignored
On September 15, Kimmel told his audience that Tyler Robinson, charged with Kirk’s assassination, was affiliated with “the MAGA gang.” That was broadcast to millions as fact. The news business moves in seconds now. And by the night Kimmel smeared a large swath of Americans, multiple reliable sources—including FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino (Sept. 12) and Utah Governor Spencer Cox (Sept. 14)—had already confirmed Robinson’s motive was personal, not necessarily political.
And if it was remotely political, Kimmel’s strike zone wouldn’t stand up to booth review.
More tellingly, public records revealed Robinson had broken with his conservative family, advocated pro-LGBTQ positions, and was in a relationship with a transgender partner, Lance Twiggs. Those are documented facts drastically at odds with Kimmel’s “MAGA” narrative. ABC’s news resources had access to the same information, but the company chose to air the distorted characterization anyway.
The FCC Rules That Actually Applied
Under the FCC’s news distortion rule, the standard is clear: a broadcaster cannot deliberately falsify or recklessly misrepresent significant facts in matters of public importance. A political assassination qualifies. And the distortion isn’t permitted in programming that airs as part of a newscast, a sit-com, a late-night show, or Monday Night Football. It simply doesn’t matter.
Enforcement hinges on four criteria—intent to distort, evidence of that intent, knowledge by management, and significance of the event. Kimmel’s broadcast checked all four boxes. His comments, and the resulting aftermath, had nothing to do with free speech or censorship and everything to do with compliance with binding FCC standards that ABC accepted when it obtained its license.
Argue whether the United States should have an FCC if you’d like, but it has one and the rules are explicit.
Kimmel’s half-apology on September 23—“it was never my intention to blame any specific group… but to some, that’s what it sounded like”—is itself an admission. He acknowledged advancing a false characterization while hiding behind the weak shield of “satire.” That is neither comedy nor protected opinion under broadcast law. It is factual distortion that violates FCC rules.
This Was Never About Free Speech
One point must be clear: ABC’s suspension of Kimmel was neither censorship nor a First Amendment violation.
Private corporations cannot censor; they can only hold employees accountable. The way that they do that is to remove them from the air.
The First Amendment protects individuals from government suppression of speech, not from workplace discipline under contracts and licenses.
ABC’s parent company, Disney, acted because its broadcaster transmitted factual distortions during coverage of a murder investigation. It doesn’t matter how sentiment played in social media or in legacy media reporting that sympathized with Kimmel. This falls squarely under the FCC’s jurisdiction.
The broadcaster’s First Amendment rights were never implicated. That’s merely a distraction from why what Kimmel said was wrong and the actual reason he was under fire. The FCC did nothing. ABC suspended Kimmel. Was there pressure from the FCC? Yes, and rightfully so, given the clarity of its mandate that publicly licensed broadcasters not manipulate the news. And no, what Kimmel said could not be considered satire.
Government officials—such as Carr when alluding to enforcement consequences, or President Trump when threatening ABC’s license—should avoid entangling themselves in content decisions.
That’s not appropriate for anyone. Threats from the federal government veer toward inappropriate pressure. It was that rhetoric that created the impetus for Kimmel’s fellow late-night hosts and his defenders to make this matter about the First Amendment AND censorship.
Still, those comments don’t make this a First Amendment test case. The issue at hand was broadcast license compliance, not constitutional censorship.
And, again, Kimmel was suspended by ABC.
Accountability Over Rhetoric
Somehow, late-night TV hosts have become self-ordained news synthesizers for their audiences. Political shots, hot takes, and diatribes that all lean one direction are actually protected speech, if the facts are presented accurately.
President Trump would prefer that Kimmel, Jon Stewart, and Stephen Colbert tone down their steady stream of left-leaning commentary, but there is nothing in the FCC’s rules that calls for balance. If it did mandate balance, gaping holes would exist in the nightly news and most network programming.
Good thing for Jimmy Kimmel, because in the same apology monologue, Kimmel took several shots at conservatives and referred to the political divide in the country as “our side” and “the other side,” saying he is with the people “on the left.” Not necessarily an earth-shattering admission. (If you’re interested in the economics of alienating half your audience through political bias, you may want to read this post as well.)
Still, Kimmel hasn’t slowed down since.
But Americans shouldn’t want balance-focused FCC rules, because we don’t need speech to be muted. In fact, your TV can be muted, the channels can be changed, and the entire set can be unplugged if you don’t like what’s on it. A better option would be to eliminate the FCC altogether. I’m not sure if the FCC is even relevant anymore. Want to DOGE something that seems mostly worthless? Maybe the FCC is the right federal agency to eliminate next.
That said, Kimmel’s emotional tribute to Kirk’s widow on his return to TV might have been heartfelt (who knows—he cried throughout it, yet still had focus to skewer his usual targets), but it cannot erase that ABC misled its audience on a matter of public significance. Under the FCC’s current authority, when licensed broadcasters claim to tell the truth about high-profile crimes, accuracy is not optional. Distortion, even under the guise of comedy, satire, or any other performative attempt at getting a laugh, violates their license obligations.
This is why these lingering concerns about freedom of speech and weakening of First Amendment protections are wrong and misleading. Free speech is unlimited whether on a street corner, on YouTube, or on the stage at Stand Up Live in Phoenix. But ABC doesn’t operate under those rules—it operates under an FCC license that imposes direct responsibilities to the public. That distinction matters.
Where the Real Threat Lies
The real threat is not the FCC enforcing distortion rules—it’s broadcasters blurring the line between accountability and censorship to escape responsibility. When Kimmel invoked the First Amendment, he was attempting to flip the narrative, portraying himself as a victim when he was actually the violator.
The First Amendment protects robust political commentary. It protects satire. It even protects offensive and unpopular jokes. But it does not protect broadcasters who knowingly present false factual claims about an ongoing political assassination while under an FCC license.
Kimmel knows this distinction. ABC executives know this distinction. Disney knows it, too. They just hope viewers don’t.