Explainer: ABC's Jimmy Kimmel Suspension And Free Speech Rights

ABC TV broadcaster suspended Jimmy Kimmel's late-night talk show indefinitely on Wednesday following his comments about Charlie Kirk's assassination, which drew criticism from the head of the U.S. communications regulator against Disney, ABC's parent company.

Here's an analysis of the free speech implications in this controversy.

KIMMEL'S CONTROVERSIAL REMARKS

During his Monday broadcast of "Jimmy Kimmel Live!", Kimmel implied that Kirk's shooter was a Trump supporter and claimed "the MAGA gang" was attempting to "score political points" from Kirk's assassination. He also criticized Trump's response to a question about Kirk's death, noting Trump diverted to discussing White House ballroom construction.

THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S RESPONSE

Brendan Carr, Federal Communications Commission chairman, stated on conservative commentator Benny Johnson's podcast that Kimmel's comments were part of an effort to mislead Americans. Carr mentioned he was exploring "remedies" and warned, "we can do this the easy way or the hard way."

Shortly after Carr's comments, Kimmel's show was suspended, and Carr expressed satisfaction that broadcasters were "standing up for the interests of their communities." During a Thursday press conference, Trump claimed Kimmel was terminated due to poor ratings, stating, "He was fired for lack of talent."

CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS

The First Amendment protects speech from government interference, including situations where the government pressures third parties to engage in censorship. In a landmark 1963 ruling, the Supreme Court prohibited the government from creating "systems of informal censorship" by pressuring private entities.

Last year, the Supreme Court clarified that plaintiffs must demonstrate the government exceeded permissible persuasion attempts and caused direct harm. In that case, the court declined to limit the Biden administration's encouragement of social media platforms to remove content containing misinformation.

BOUNDARIES OF OFFICIAL CRITICISM

While officials like Trump can legally criticize comedians and entertainers, government authorities cannot use their position to suppress speech. Any legal claims would likely focus on whether Carr was threatening ABC's broadcast license.

Following Carr's comments, Nexstar Media Group announced it would stop airing Kimmel's show across its 32 ABC affiliates. Notably, Nexstar requires FCC approval for its $6.2 billion Tegna acquisition deal, and Carr thanked Nexstar for "doing the right thing." ABC suspended Kimmel's show shortly afterward.

POTENTIAL LEGAL RECOURSE

Kimmel could pursue legal action against the FCC for First Amendment violations, but would face significant challenges. He would need to prove ABC was coerced by Carr and the FCC into removing him from the air—a difficult threshold if ABC denies acting because of Carr's statements.

Alternatively, Kimmel might sue ABC for contract breach or employment law violations, though his ability to litigate could be restricted if he signed an arbitration agreement, which is common in the entertainment industry.

ABC'S EDITORIAL DISCRETION

ABC maintains its own speech rights and cannot be compelled to broadcast content its executives believe would damage the company. For a successful case, Kimmel would need to establish a connection between Carr's comments and ABC's decision to suspend his show.

Even if Kimmel prevailed in court, ABC's First Amendment rights would likely prevent a court from reinstating his show, and potential remedies from the FCC remain unclear.

VIEWER LEGAL STANDING

Viewers would face extreme difficulty bringing a case. They would need to demonstrate that Carr pressured broadcasters to suppress protected speech and that they personally suffered injury from his actions. Legal experts note that courts have narrowly defined who can bring such claims.