By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In response to Jimmy Kimmel’s show being suspended, Fox News host Brian Kilmeade discussed the situation on “The Ingraham Angle.” Kilmeade noted that Kimmel’s comments about the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk were deemed “too far” by television executives, leading to the show’s preemption. This commentary followed Kilmeade’s own recent controversy, where he suggested “lethal injection” for individuals with mental illness who refuse assistance, sparking significant backlash and calls for his termination. The show’s suspension came after Kimmel’s remarks about the suspect in Kirk’s killing, which were described as “offensive and insensitive.”
Read the original article here
Jimmy Kimmel went ‘way too far’ for TV execs, according to a Fox News host who called for the execution of homeless people. This statement is the crux of a particularly infuriating double standard. The core issue boils down to a question of what constitutes acceptable behavior, especially in the realm of public discourse. When a comedian makes a joke, even a potentially pointed one, he apparently crosses a line that justifies… what, exactly? We’re not even told what Kimmel *actually* said that was so egregious. The focus is always on the perceived offense, not the actual words. Yet, the very people complaining about the joke seem to be perfectly fine with – or even actively promoting – rhetoric that incites violence.
The key here is the hypocrisy. A Fox News host, a platform known for its often inflammatory commentary, is alleged to have called for the execution of homeless people. Let’s let that sink in. This is not a misunderstanding or a slip of the tongue. This is a direct call for violence against a vulnerable population. This should be the end of their career, let alone continue to have a platform. And yet, this person has a job while Kimmel, who dared to make a joke, faces scrutiny, even though the words themselves were considered relatively harmless.
This is where the narrative manipulation is most evident. The people who are accusing Kimmel of going too far seem more concerned with appeasing a certain political faction than with upholding any consistent standard of decency. They seem to be banking on the public’s short attention span and willingness to accept their distorted version of reality. They know they’re being dishonest, but they’re counting on the “stupidity” of the American people to swallow their untruths.
The implication is that the execs themselves, fearing the administration, pressured Kimmel. And the fact that the federal government is threatening a TV channel for saying something they didn’t like demonstrates how truly unconstitutional this whole scenario is. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, even speech that some people find offensive. The government should not be involved in censoring speech, no matter how uncomfortable it makes them. The constant attacks and criticisms coming from the right are not about upholding any sort of moral code; it’s about maintaining and gaining power.
What is missing from the discussion are the actual words that Kimmel used, which should tell the truth. When the actual context is avoided, it’s likely that the words used weren’t all that offensive and what’s really happening is simple appeasement. It is also clear that the right plays the blame game and the rhetoric game. And as we’ve seen time and again, they have little to no regard for truth, decorum, or, frankly, human life. It is also incredibly clear that there are no consequences when those on the right use their platform to incite hatred and violence. There is a huge difference between making a joke and calling for mass murder.
It’s a clear example of the double standard that has become so prevalent in today’s political climate. The joke, however “offensive,” is still just a joke. The host of Fox News openly calling for the execution of homeless people is anything but.
This situation highlights the dangers of unchecked power and the importance of holding those in positions of influence accountable for their words and actions. It is a warning about the erosion of free speech when political agendas take precedence over ethical considerations. The blatant hypocrisy and selective outrage demonstrate that the primary goal is not to uphold standards but to silence dissent and control the narrative. It’s a clear sign of how far some will go to protect their own power. The fact that this Fox News host is still employed, and that the government is getting involved is just wrong.