By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following controversial comments made by Jimmy Kimmel after the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, ABC indefinitely suspended *Jimmy Kimmel Live!*. Nexstar, a major ABC affiliate owner, cited Kimmel’s remarks as offensive and not reflective of community values, with Sinclair Inc. also pulling the show from its stations. The decision sparked both boycott calls against ABC and Disney, as well as praise, including from former President Donald Trump. This action raises questions about free speech, the influence of station groups, and potential regulatory pressure, with the FCC chairman’s comments drawing concerns from civil-liberties groups and prompting calls for formal complaints.
Read the original article here
Disney, ABC Hit With Boycott Calls After Jimmy Kimmel Live! Pulled From Air
The news that “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” was pulled from the airwaves has ignited a firestorm of reactions, primarily focusing on Disney and ABC, its parent company. The immediate response, echoed across various online platforms, is a resounding call for boycotts. The sentiment is clear: people are taking action by canceling their subscriptions to Disney+, Hulu, and other Disney-owned services. The intensity of the feeling is evident in the sheer number of cancellations, with many users reporting difficulties, such as system outages, adding to their frustration.
The motivations behind these boycott calls are multifaceted, but the core revolves around perceived censorship and the suppression of free speech. Many feel that Disney and ABC have caved under pressure, choosing to silence a comedian rather than uphold the principles of open dialogue. The specific details behind the show’s removal, coupled with the political climate, have intensified the outrage. The perception that the decision was politically motivated and a direct response to outside forces is driving the calls for financial retribution. This perceived capitulation is a key point of contention, with many expressing a firm stance against any company that they believe bows to what they see as authoritarianism.
The breadth of the boycott extends beyond just Disney+ and Hulu. It encompasses the entire Disney empire, including theme parks, movies (Marvel, Star Wars), and even ESPN. There’s a palpable sense of betrayal, with many former fans vowing to abandon all Disney-related products and services. The call for boycott is not only about individual subscriptions; it’s a demand for all talent who work for ABC and Disney to refuse to work until the situation is resolved. The impact on the creative side is viewed as one of the most powerful ways to get the message across.
The underlying current here is a profound disillusionment with media outlets that are perceived as abandoning their role as watchdogs and becoming complicit in controlling the narrative. The focus extends to “independent media” and others perceived to be willing to “kiss the ring” of those in power, especially with the use of the removal as a censorship attempt, creating further disdain. The boycott is seen as a way to send a clear message: that consumers are willing to take a stand against what they perceive as injustices, and, more importantly, censorship.
Many people are not only canceling their subscriptions, but also sharing the reasons behind their actions. These explanations often highlight the importance of freedom of speech and a refusal to support companies that compromise those values. Some are taking the additional step of contacting sponsors to tell them they will not spend money on any of the products being advertised. The collective message is “Hit them where it hurts: the bottom line.”
The calls for boycott are coming from diverse demographics and geographical locations. People from the United States, Canada, and even Australia are participating in the movement, demonstrating the power of the message and the shared concerns about free speech. The sense of outrage transcends geographical boundaries, indicating a deep-seated desire to protect the principles of free expression.
There is recognition that Disney and ABC are massive corporations, and a boycott might not sway them directly. However, many participants are actively trying to make this boycott hurt. Some recommend sending letters or leaving a comment to tell why they cancelled. Some are choosing alternative options. This highlights the importance of showing where their money goes, and a willingness to go to any length necessary.
The debate has also raised questions about the role of technology in our lives and the potential for alternatives. Some have even begun to advocate for a return to the “high seas,” suggesting that piracy might be a viable alternative to subscription-based services. The discussion further highlights an underlying concern regarding the cost of these subscriptions, which is seen as being one factor contributing to a user’s willingness to cancel.
The boycott is not seen by everyone as feasible or possible. Some express feelings of exhaustion and disillusionment, acknowledging the complexity of modern life and our dependence on technology. Despite these reservations, the overall message is clear: people are unhappy with the current state of affairs and willing to make sacrifices to protect their values. The very action of canceling a subscription becomes more than just a financial decision; it’s an act of defiance, an assertion of individual autonomy, and a statement about the importance of free speech in a democratic society.