Late night television host Jimmy Kimmel returned to airwaves on Tuesday, September 23, after a brief suspension.
Disney stopped production of Jimmy Kimmel Live! last week after Kimmel claimed Charlie Kirk’s assassin was one of the “MAGA gang,” which is untrue. Two ABC affiliates, Nexstar and Sinclair, subsequently refused to air Kimmel’s show.
Neither affiliate broadcast Kimmel’s return, citing ongoing discussions with ABC and Disney.
Kimmel’s brief retirement from late night TV is part of a larger national discussion about free speech, hate speech, cancel culture and censorship in the wake of Kirk’s assassination.
Some, including Kimmel, believe the federal government illegally censored him for saying speech it doesn’t like. They argue Nexstar dropped Kimmel to secure the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) approval on an upcoming merger.
FCC Chair Brendon Carr denies getting involved. He and others blame the host’s brief ouster on his show’s poor ratings.
Believers greatly benefit from free speech protections, which allow us to spread the Gospel, practice Christianity and raise families according to the Bible’s instruction. But supporting free speech doesn’t require Christians to support evil speech.
Here are some tips to help identify and differentiate between free speech, “hate speech,” censorship and “cancel culture.”
The First Amendment gives Americans the right to say almost anything they want. It also protects citizens from being forced to speak what they don’t believe.
While broad, the First Amendment does not protect every kind of speech. It does not protect obscenity or speech inciting “imminent lawless action.” Governments can further pass laws curtailing free speech if they prove the law serves a legitimate government interest and limits speech as little as possible.
Recently, local, state and federal governments have tried censoring “misinformation” and “hate speech,” two notoriously nebulous concepts with no consistent legal definition.
Both terms can be weaponized against citizens. Critics frequently tried to prevent Charlie Kirk from speaking at college campuses on the grounds he spread “hate speech.” The Biden administration censored those who claimed COVID-19 leaked from a Chinese viral laboratory for spreading misinformation. The story later proved true.
There’s no direct evidence suggesting the FCC pressured Nexstar to drop Jimmy Kimmel. If it did, however, it should not have. Federal agencies shouldn’t pressure private companies to censor unfavorable speech.
Kimmel’s right to free speech, however, does not exempt him from professional expectations of speech. Entertainment companies closely regulate what talent says on air and on social media. If the controversial host finally fell afoul of Disney’s publication standards, his brief suspension would not constitute a First Amendment violation. No one is constitutionally entitled to a television show.
Similarly, the First Amendment does not immunize Americans from the consequences of their speech.
Social standards of conduct and speech enable people to live in community by incentivizing prosocial behavior and punishing antisocial behavior. Those who say vile things can — and should — face social consequences for doing so.
“Cancel culture” is a disordering of social standards in which a person faces unfair or disproportionate social consequences for their behavior.
“Cancel culture,” like “hate speech” and “misinformation,” is notoriously vague. There will always be some ambiguity about whether a person “deserves” to face social consequences. That being said, I argue “cancellations” fall into three broad categories.
Cancelling those who speak the truth.
Conservative pundit Matt Walsh argues a “cancel culture” punishes people for speaking objective truth, like arguing there are only two sexes.
Cancel culture driven by the government.
The government engages in cancel culture by artificially limiting the speech and reach of citizens. This occurred when the Biden administration pressured Twitter and Facebook to remove and limit posts that questioned government narratives about COVID-19.
Person-specific cancel culture.
Person-driven cancelations occur when a person or group determines someone “deserves” to be canceled before finding evidence to support their conclusion. The cancelers inspire social outrage by digging through the cancel-ees online footprint to find objectionable content or dirty laundry, often from years ago.
Genuine social consequences, unlike “cancel culture,” aren’t person-specific or driven by the government. They are organic reactions to real antisocial behaviors. A good example is those who have been fired from their jobs for celebrating Charlie Kirk’s death.
One of humanity’s longest standing norms is the value of human life. It is prosocial to protect human life and antisocial to take it or celebrate its end.
This norm has eroded in recent years, as evidenced by the normalization of abortion and vigilante violence. But those who celebrated Kirk’s death erroneously assumed this expectation had dissolved entirely.
The First Amendment absolutely protects speech praising Charlie Kirk’s death. But the First Amendment also protects other Americans’ right to call out this vile behavior — and report it to the posters’ respective workplaces.
Proverbs 12:18 reads, “There is one whose rash words are like sword thrusts, but the tongue of the wise brings healing” (ESV). Believers have an obligation to use their speech wisely. The Daily Citizen invites you to use biblical discernment to determine when and how to speak truth online and in person.
When in doubt, always remember — it’s never a good idea to celebrate someone’s death on the internet.
Additional Articles and Resources
‘I Forgive Him’: Three of the Most Impactful Moments from Charlie Kirk’s Memorial
VP Vance: ‘The Most Important Truth’ Charlie Kirk Told is Jesus is Lord
Charlie Kirk: Man of Faith, Family and Fidelity
Transgender Ideology is Inherently Destructive
California State Officials Worked With Big Tech to Censor 2020 Election Posts
Department of Homeland Security Launches Disinformation Governance Board
Government ‘Disinformation’ Board ‘Paused’ After Public Mockery
