The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"Trump's FCC Head Went Too Far When He Threatened Disney over Jimmy Kimmel's Charlie Kirk-Related Comments"
From Paul Mirengoff (Ringside at the Reckoning); much worth reading. Mirengoff and his coauthor Bill Otis are my go-to people for hardheaded, pragmatic, but principled conservative views. They tend to be somewhat more conservative than I am, but I always find their work interesting (and well-written). An excerpt:
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….
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….
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.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Jimmy Kimmel went out there and said the same bald faced lie that many Democrat Supremacist commenters have been saying around here.
It was incredibly irresponsible and dangerous. He put people's lives at risk.
---
Meanwhile, when the government was using it's power to directly influence banks and debank dozens of conservatives, I don't recall any media time being spent on it.
Today, both sides are playing by the same set of rules... and it's only one, whoever wields the sword, sets the rules.
Up until Trump 2.0, the Democrat Supremacists wielded the sword, and now the pendulum has swung back to the good guys and the Democrat Supremacists and the Permanent Loser Establishment Conservatives are squealing like little baby piglets.
I don’t think that’s right. Unless you live in a world of alternative facts.
Even if everything he says were true, that is still no reason to suspend the guarantees of the Constitution.
You mean the guarantees Democrats have shredded and shat on for years now?
No one did this shot before.
You being mad at Democrats doesn’t actually justify anything.
“No one did this sh[i]t before.”
I see you haven’t made it to the posts about how NRA v. Vullo applies to this case.
Ok, let's try this:
Fact 1:
Jimmy Kimmel said "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..."
Fact 2:
FCC Regulations state:
https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public-and-broadcasting#JOURNALISM
Do you agree with these two facts?
LexAquila, I don't think the word "foreseeable" means what you think it means.
It was foreseeable that Lex would get his feelings hurt.
I asked you a yes or no question about two facts.
If you weren't such a Democrat Supremacist fanatic, maybe you would've caught that.
No, you didn't as me. I hadn't been online when you posted your drivel.
But now that you have asked, the fact that Jimmy Kimmel stated the words that you attribute to him is true. His antecedent comment is a statement of his opinion. I have no doubt that he in fact held and holds that opinion. Opinions, btw, are incapable of being true or false.
As to what you characterize as "fact 2," I don't doubt that the language you quoted appears somewhere in FCC Regulations (even though you don't provide a citation -- a failure which is bad form).
I strongly dispute that the regulations, even if accurately quoted, apply to this situation. The monologue was delivered on live television. (The title of the show -- Jimmy Kimmel Live! -- should have given you a clue.) No station licensee could possibly have known that the information was "false" Mr. Kimmel could have solemnly asserted on live television, "The earth is flat," and the FCC regulation you site would have been inapplicable.
Your comment above, LexAquila, indicates that your understanding of both "directly caus[ing] substantial public harm" and foreseeability is pathetic.
Fact 1 is generally true. It is possible that not every MAGA member shared that belief but posted comments online support Kimmel's statement.
Fact 2 is true insofar as it is a FCC regulation but I don't see how the regulation is applicable in this case.
Mike Adamson 1 hour ago
Fact 1 is generally true. It is possible that not every MAGA member shared that belief but posted comments online support Kimmel's statement."
Fact number 1 was known to be likely false within hours of the shooting based on the writing in the shell casings which was 25-30 hours before the shooter was apprehended.
Fact number 1 was confirmed to be false and well known to be false when the shooter was identified approx 34 hours after the shooting.
Another commenter fails to note the show title: "Jimmy Kimmel Live!"
your comment is not relevant to the facts in this case (other than the title to the show which is not relevant)
Fact 1 was not known as false at the time.
As for Fact 2... even if Kimmel was willfully wrong about Fact 1 it's also true that Fox News promoted a fantastic number of lies regarding the 2020 election, lies for which they paid a settlement of $787 million.
I'm not sure how you justify pulling Kimmel but let Fox off after a months long campaign of misinformation on the 2020 election alone.
Come on. "New lows," "desperately trying," and "anything other" all clearly communicate that it was a certainty that the shooter was "one of them."
So even if someone wanted to pretend that on Monday night it was still up in the air whether the guy banging the transvestite furry might somehow end up being a right-winger, it was certainly "known as false" that he definitely was.
Is this going to be your "standard" going forward, or is it just for this "special" situation?
I'm really not sure what sort of two-faced gotcha you think you're flagging here. Can you please elaborate?
And as I just noted in the open thread, Kimmel's contract was up in a matter of months and was almost certainly not going to be renewed. I suspect there wasn't any measurable upside in keeping him on and trying to manage the PR nightmare after he dropped this IDGAF-laced grenade in their laps.
This is the correct answer (above).
If this is what happened, it was a huge miscalculation on Disney's part. Libs only very recently stopped hating Disney. It won't take much for us to remember, and this'll certainly be enough. Now that Andor's over, there's no reason to keep our Disney+ subscriptions, and this is a great reason to cancel en masse.
myself 55 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"Fact 1 was not known as false at the time."
MyS - Not sure what point you are trying to make - That kimmell statement was not known to be false at the time he made it?
If that is what you mean with your comment, then that characterization is absolutely false. It was known within just a few hours (at least 24 hours before he was caught) that the shooter was far left based on writings on the shell casings. It was Confirmed that the shooter was far left when he was apprehended and he was publicaly identified.
The writings on the shell casings are ideologically unintelligible. They betray someone familiar with online memes and gamer culture, but the reference to "fascist, catch" and the "if you read this ur gay lmao" at best offset each other.
How did what Jimmy Kimmel said put lives at risk?
Are you going to maintain consistency claiming that statements like this did not put lives at risk, or are you going to turn around tomorrow and claim that another person's statements did put lives at risk?
thesafesurfer, that is a dodge of DDT1958's question.
How did what Jimmy Kimmel said put lives at risk? Please give the particulars.
As I have said before, I suspect that being challenged to provide facts makes MAGAts break out in hives.
Many people (me included) opposed this kind of thing when the left did it, and continue to oppose it when the right does it.
Are you for it or against it, really?
Wow, sounds like you think there should be some sort of government office to combat disinformation. I wonder if anyone will suggest that.
You mean like that office created under Biden that operated for four years silencing conservatives that none of you people seemed to be concerned about?
Supporting facts, LexAquila?
lmao, read the comment below yours.
How did you get so incredibly ignorant of current events?
How did you get so ignorant that you actually believed there was an office in the Biden administration that operated for four years silencing conservatives?
Yes, I specifically mean the office that Biden launched, and then quickly shut down after conservatives called it a fascist assault on free speech and the Constitution. Although you're a little off on the timeline: it existed for less than four months, between April and August 2022, only operated for one of those months, and didn't actually silence a single person.
But I guess it would be okay now!
What, exactly, is the name of this office?
It “was” called the Disinformation Governance Board.
So they shut it down because of the accusations from the Right?
Was the accusation true or was it false?
It was false that an office under the Biden administration that sought to track foreign governments' propaganda efforts aimed at American citizens was an assault on free speech and the Constitution.
Conversely, it is true that the present administration's overt efforts to punish media companies critical of the president are in fact a direct assault on free speech and the Constitution.
But Carr is principled - the principle being fealty to Trump and MAGA.
I agree, it was dumb and FCC commissioner shouldn't have said it.
But in terms of legal remedies, the standard is would a person of "ordinary firmness" be intimidated by the threatened government action to curtail or change their speech. I don't think that is clear at all given that ABC was pressured by major affiliate owners:
"He also pointed out that local station owners have a lot of power over ABC, since those owners choose whether to carry ABC’s national programming. “It’s time for them to step up,” Carr said.
Two big station group owners, Nexstar and Sinclair, came out publicly and criticized Kimmel after Carr’s interview garnered attention on social media sites. Both station groups told ABC they would preempt Kimmel’s show, which likely led the network to pull the show nationwide."
Kazinski, while the "person of ordinary firmness" standard is objective, not requiring an actual chilling of the targeted entity's speech, it is clearly met here.
An ordinary television network executive is sensitive to the whims of the FCC chairman, especially where the network owns and operates local stations licensed by the FCC. The actions of Nexstar and Sinclair don't mitigate Brendan Carr's culpability. To the contrary, they serve as evidence of an "ordinary" networks lack of firmness in such a situation.
I agree, ABC may have grounds to go to court and complain that the FCC intimidated them, and despite being ordinarily firm, they felt they needed to cave.
That's up to them.
I disagree. This isn't some low-level drug dealer the police are roughing up. This is ABC--they have good lawyers on staff. Those lawyers would have begged the FCC to try to sanction them.
The Murthy case also cuts really hard against them.
clearly!
I agree, it was dumb and FCC commissioner shouldn't have said it.
But
Tepid tut-tutting of the authoritarian regime you still support doesn't mean much.
And deflecting to the networks as though there isn't enough blame to go around is carrying water for the regime.
“ Tepid tut-tutting of the authoritarian regime you still support doesn't mean much.”
Yup. The tut-tutting only counts if you support the authoritarian regime that Sarcastro supports.
Right. It wasn't that long ago Sarcastr0's were out there trying to cancel a 9 year old football fan.
He writes his comments as if the last 15 years didn't exist.
Trump has been pretty blatant in his use of lawfare.
Damn right ABC, Nexstar, and Sinclair were rightfully worried about government reprisal.
Given Trump's prior anti-media proclamations in combination with his rapid move upon reelection to go after his media critics and perceived enemies with executive orders and lawsuits, Carr's statements carry more weight.
The offending monologue is embedded here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ATqJc2MjDY It is not disrespectful at all to the late Mr. Kirk, and Mr. Kimmel's lampooning of President Trump is both spot on and Funny.
Brendan Carr's threats against ABC are despicable. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/17/business/media/abc-jimmy-kimmel.html?campaign_id=190&emc=edit_ufn_20250917&instance_id=162748&nl=from-the-times®i_id=59209117&segment_id=206111&user_id=86ac9094018f7140c62a54a4e93c075f His conduct may well be criminal according to 18 U.S.C. § 242, although he is at no risk of prosecution by Pam Bondi's DOJ.
Disney/ABC's caving to Mr. Carr's threats is craven. I am tempted to cancel my subscription to Hulu.
... but you won't
No, I won't. But I reserve the right to change my mind.
Opinions differ.
"It is not disrespectful at all to the late Mr. Kirk,"
I agree with this portion. Kimmel said not one thing that was disrespectful in this situation. He lampooned Trump and his supporters. We could argue whether his statements were correct or not, but that was purely political commentary. He should not be canceled for that.
Florida used the power of the state to go after Disney. Now the fed is threatening Disney.
Florida did not touch Disney. Florida disbanded the Reedy Creek Improvement District and replaced it with the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District with a different governing structure. The Walt Disney Company was not part of the litigation nor the legislation.
Disney may have had defacto control of Reedy Creek, but it did not have any legal ties to the district and suffered no legal harm.
"I am tempted to cancel my subscription to Hulu."
That $20 a month will sure show Disney!
All power to the Resistance!
Just to put it into context why Kimmel may have been on a short leash, out of the late night shows Jimmy Kimmel was in 3rd place out late night talk shows.
Second place among 11:35 slotted talk shows, behind the cancelled Steve Colbert.
10:00 PM
Gutfeld! (FNC) 62 First-run episodes 3,289 -9%
11:00 PM
The Daily Show (COM) 38 994 -2%
11:35 PM
Stephen Colbert (CBS) 41 2,417 +1%
Jimmy Kimmel Live! (ABC) 42 1,772 -3%
Jimmy Fallon (NBC) 38 1,188 -2%
May have!
Pathetic.
The causality here is not muddy.
Oh come on, Kazinski. You're being ridiculous
Does anybody imagine that this had anything to do with revenue or ratings, rather than Carr's threats.
Mr. Carr, in an interview on a right-wing podcast on Wednesday, said that Mr. Kimmel’s remarks were part of a “concerted effort to lie to the American people,” and that the F.C.C. was “going to have remedies that we can look at.”
A Trumpist worried about lies. Droll.
“Frankly, when you see stuff like this — I mean, we can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Mr. Carr told the podcast’s host, Benny Johnson. “These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the F.C.C. ahead.”
Can we start using the f-word now?
"Does anybody imagine that this had anything to do with revenue or ratings"
Two major affiliates were pulling the show.
I think that since the liberals have begun to indiscriminately kill conservatives, our sense of humor has been altered. Now we think it’s funny when you lose your job!
Oh fuck off. First, far more murders are committed by the right. Second, the murder here was not indiscriminate, unlike, e.g., Gendron's spree.
"far more murders are committed by the right"
that dumb "study" counted prison murders as "right"
It was rube bait, looks like they caught a rube in you
These people are never skeptical when the narrative creators send a narrative down to them that promotes their tribe, or otherizes everyone else.
There are still people here who think Kirk was assassinated because wasn't "fascist enough".
There are still people here who think a Walz campaign worker that murdered a Democrat politician on the heels of her public struggle session because she voted dared to ONCE with Republicans on an abortion issue did this because he was MAGA. Because that makes sense to them. All the other politicians who voted against abortion were spared, and the one politician who crossed the aisle was murdered when she got there.
That's what they believe is true. They live in an entirely different universe, ungrounded from facts and bound by emotions and lies.
You're going to need really small type to fit that on your gravestone.
“Walz campaign worker.”
Blatantly false. He was appointed to a volunteer bipartisan workforce advisory board.
Where do you cockroaches come from. We already have enough hayseeds here. Skedaddle!
"Now we think it’s funny when you lose your job!"
True. Gloves are off.
One thing I always associated the right with was compassion for people who lost their jobs.
After I do my morning prayers, I scroll the lists of Democrat Supremacists who lost their jobs and businesses, and then pray again that the list grows and grows.
Justice is righteous.
Who do you pray to?
Well duh, you’re an asshole.
Mirengoff is an inveterate never Trumper. And about as conservative as the governor of Utah. You're certainly guaranteed to get a skewed perspective by relying solely on his views.
And about as conservative as the governor of Utah.
I don't think this means what you think it means.
Exactly. The governor of Utah is quite a bit more conservative than Trump. Rivabot doesn't understand principles, you know.
It is a fair point that anyone having "principled conservative views" would ineluctably be a never Trumper.
Not many actual conservatives would call that guy a "principled conservative".
"Establishment Republican" maybe, but not "principled conservative". There is no conservative principle that says boys can be real authentic girls and should be treated as such in primary schools. None.
Paul Mirengoff did what, now?
If that is the Bill Otis who commented at Sentencing Law and Policy, he is a bit of a character and, at times, a bit off the rails. He does seem to be generally realistic.
A basic thing to remember here is that this is not a one-off. The guy also shot his mouth off about Colbert. He worked on Project 2025, too. The head of the FCC or even simply an ordinary member shouldn't act like a partisan tool.
Just some totally permissible government "jawboning". Murthy v. Missouri, 603 U.S. ___ (2024). The left fought for this and won.
Congratulations.
Except that, as Barrett pointed out in the opinion in that case, they actually didn't, in that the plaintiffs in that case "fail[ed] to link their past social-media restrictions to the defendants’ communications with the platforms." Thus nobody in Murthy v. Missouri had standing for the case even to be heard, despite the best, and seemingly intentional, efforts by the district court to misrepresent the factual record to invent said standing.
I'm just a casual reader/commenter, but it seems absolutely amazing that the aftermath of the murder of a champion of free speech is a campaign by so many to suppress speech. It just doesn't compute. If you don't like what Kimmel said, say something yourself. God knows that a lot of people have. That is the marketplace of ideas. You never win by suppressing speech, it just makes the thing you want to suppress stronger. The amazing thing is this seems to just be basic free speech principles. But seeing so many people going through so many contortions to justify this as somehow not suppressing speech is just ... amazing. "There's ugly speech. There's gross speech. There's evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment." Charlie Kirk
I don't recall any government trying to cancel Kirk's speech.
The crazy thing is that the speech wasn't remotely offensive.
It's more or less indistinguishable from any other late night monologue I've seen.
all of these people claiming to love Charlie Kirk, but who are fine with suppressing anything that could be deemed critical of him, clearly didn't understand or learn anything from Charlie Kirk.
Freedom of Speech. Not Freedom From Consequences.
It's the Paradox of Tolerance. In order for us to have a tolerant society, we can't tolerate this stuff.
Freedom of speech under the First Amendment does actually mean Freedom From Consequences, if those consequences are punishment by the government for said speech.
For authoritarians, it's not really about speech; it's about control.
Kamala/Usha
'Camel toe - feet-in-the-air - Harris is just another DEI hire nigger who screwed Willie Brown to get places'
'Usha - feet-in-the-air - Vance is just another black-skinned DEI dot-head noddy who screwed a politician to get ahead.'
One of these has been said over and over. One hasn't. They both sound pretty ugly. Now de-clutch your pearls juveniles and tell me again how opposed to hate speech you are.
What is the record (if any) of the FCC suspending a broadcaster's license and if so for what reason?
You wanna get rid of Disney?
Be happier to get rid of you.
Disney has been doing a good job of offing itself.
Walt's Cryo head must have exploded by now.
A good bit of Disney's revenue is LGBT. Why wouldn't they stick up for them? Ron tried to cancel them for it. Now a Disney asset (Kimmel) said some mean things, the feds try to cancel them. If only Disney had been doing this in the UK...you'd be outraged.
A more general observation here. Media are far too consolidated.
For a healthy climate of self-expression, the ideal ought to be one media corporation, standing alone, for every publishing operation. For each media outlet, there ought to be one proprietor (or partnership, or association), which owns neither other media, nor businesses unrelated to media.
Media set up that way would not be so vulnerable to government shakedowns. Under the legal protection of the 1A, they could laugh with ordinary humorous firmness at attempts by government to take them down. They could count on courts to redress damage caused by censorship attempts. Governments, in their turn, would have more to risk, and less to gain, by censorship attempts against multiplied and diversified smaller platforms.
Stuff the government can do to mess with entangled businesses of various types are harder to defend against legally than a clear 1A violation of expressive freedom by government. When you have a major media platform owned in common with other types of businesses which depend on government contracts or grants, you have a media platform perched precariously.
A side benefit of reorganizing media on that basis would be a national media ecosystem comprising far more independent voices, all in mutual competition both for business and for audiences of all ideological stripes. That would prove healthier for contributors who would have more options to get their contributions published, although to smaller audiences on average.
The marketplace of ideas would be more broadly stocked, and that kind of competitive striving would function better to propel the best ideas to the most-in-demand platforms. The major downsides of such a reorganization of media business would fall almost entirely on present-day media plutocrats, who have made themselves deserving victims.
So, the government bans swear words, suggestive themes, nudity, and all sorts of stuff from the airwaves. Pretty heavy handed regulation that is quite distinct from speech and publishing generally. And these things are ultimately political decisions, value-laden judgments that plenty of people would disagree with. So, while I don't have a legal or normative opinion on the issue, it seems like an interesting topic and difficult to draw any clear lines.
You cant discern any difference between a swear word and a critique of reactions to Kirk's killing?
Of course I can. But if you can ban someone from saying "shit" then you aren't operating in any sort of fully protected first amendment speech context.
That doesnt seem to get you very far. Banning "shit" and any permissible limitation-of-speech principle it stands for, is a long way from it being permissible to ban political critiques.
Where in the first amendment does it say you can ban profanity?
So the government can make any law "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" because it is somehow able to prohibit someone from saying the word, "shit". Sure, that makes sense...
No. The theory of the government/FCC is that the broadcast spectrum is a public resource and the government has basically claimed ownership of it. To use it, you must get a license from the government. Even then, your license is not permanent, it has to be renewed periodically, the public can participate in that process and file complaints, and there are all sorts of other restrictions.
Now, it appears you want to talk about the Constitution. Ok. Where in the Constitution did the states delegate a power to the General Government to regulate communications, create the FCC and claim ownership of the airwaves?
In the end, your entire comment is just flowery English without opinion. It seems like you're struggling to say something...so why don't you?
There's been a lot of really nasty responses to Charlie Kirk's murder. And what really stands out with Kimmel's monologue is how incredibly inoffensive it is.
He made a factual claim, which he unwisely thought was true but turned out to be false. And then he made fun of Trump for ineptly pretending to care about Kirk (he help talking about his ballroom). But he didn't even criticize Kirk.
The message the head of the FCC is sending isn't that Kimmel went to far. The message is that if you displease the President then they will find a way to take you off the air.
"Mr. Carr, in an interview on a right-wing podcast on Wednesday, said that Mr. Kimmel’s remarks were part of a “concerted effort to lie to the American people,” and that the F.C.C. was “going to have remedies that we can look at.”
Let's assume for argument that Kimmel is engaged in a "concerted effort to lie to the American people." Is that license for government to act as the Ministry of Truth and silence those who, in its opinion, tell lies?
And before anyone on my side says, "Well, Biden did it." Yes, he did. And we said that was tyranny. Why are we doing it once we get power?
You know the answer. Power corrupts.
"Let's assume for argument that Kimmel is engaged in a "concerted effort to lie to the American people." Is that license for government to act as the Ministry of Truth and silence those who, in its opinion, tell lies?"
Fox and Alex Jones have already been adjudicated in a court of law for lying to the American people. And they got sued into oblivion for it by the public entities who were harmed by it. And that's the way it should be. Separately, did the Biden administration try to shut down Alex Jones and Fox for the same acts? No, they didn't.
Those are discrete acts of libel against identifiable individuals. Vague assertions about what "MAGA" does or does not do is political opinion and cannot be a factual assertion.
People mistake the “Trumpism is fascist” label as just another meaningless pejorative. For good reason too because that’s how it’s used colloquially. But when looking at fascism as an actual historical phenomenon or political theory, it turns out it’s a very useful descriptor and predictor for the Trumpist American right at the moment.
Pretty much everything that has happened since Kirk was killed is entirely unsurprising if you’re operating under the assumption that we are seeing an ascendant fascist movement.
My only question is whether it is fascist or simply authoritarian.
My sense is that if you call it "fascist", you just invite them to bitterly complain that Trump can't be a fascist because he was not actually a card-carrying member of the Fascio rivoluzionario d’ azione internazionalista.
To me, authoritarianism seems too broad of a concept to be analytically useful or predictive.