By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following controversial comments made by Jimmy Kimmel regarding Charlie Kirk, ABC has indefinitely suspended *Jimmy Kimmel Live!*. Former President Donald Trump celebrated the suspension, taking to Truth Social to express his approval and criticize Kimmel’s talent and ratings. The Federal Communications Commission chair, Brendan Carr, condemned Kimmel’s remarks, suggesting they violated the public interest obligations of broadcasters and hinting at potential regulatory action against ABC affiliates. Nexstar, which owns numerous ABC affiliates, was the first to preempt the series, followed by the network’s official indefinite suspension announcement.
Read the original article here
Trump Celebrates After ABC Suspends ‘Jimmy Kimmel Live!’ Over Charlie Kirk Comments. Well, it seems things are heating up, and the reaction is pretty intense. The news that ABC has suspended “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” following comments related to Charlie Kirk has certainly stirred the pot, and it’s clear that the situation has polarized opinions.
The immediate response, at least from some corners, is that this is a significant blow to free speech. The central argument here is that the comments made by Kimmel weren’t even directly about Kirk; they were about the political maneuvering around the tragedy. The claim is that this suspension is a heavy-handed move, especially when viewed through the lens of political power plays, and it is perceived as a form of censorship reminiscent of historical authoritarian regimes.
The role of Nexstar Media Group in this situation is also drawing attention. The fact that the local ABC affiliates, owned by Nexstar, preempted the show before ABC made its decision has raised concerns about the concentration of media ownership and its potential impact on the diversity of voices. Some argue that a single media conglomerate shouldn’t wield so much influence over what people can and can’t see. This raises the question of whether the network is simply bending to external pressure, and whether this is a sign of a deeper problem.
The reaction from those who are critical of the move is one of outrage and a sense of foreboding. There is a strong sentiment that this signals a dangerous trend, a slide towards an environment where dissenting voices are suppressed, and criticism of specific individuals or political ideologies are met with swift and decisive consequences. The idea that this is “fascism” in action is thrown around. The comments aren’t particularly supportive of the action, especially the idea of punishing people for free speech, or bowing to tyranny.
On the other hand, Trump’s reaction is viewed as celebrating the suspension, with some seeing it as a victory in his ongoing efforts to control the media landscape. The claim that this is an attempt to silence any criticism is a recurring theme. His alleged tweet directive last week to target Kimmel in particular underscores the belief that this isn’t merely about the comments, but a broader political strategy.
For many viewers and commentators, the core of the issue lies in the perceived overreach of censorship. They are fearful of a future where public discourse is severely restricted and those in power can silence their critics with impunity. There is a strong sense of disillusionment, with some expressing frustration at the state of the US and its political institutions, which is fueled by the fact that this sort of thing is happening within the first nine months of a presidency.
The proposed solutions range from legal action to public boycotts. The idea of Jimmy Kimmel moving his show to a platform outside of traditional media control, such as YouTube or a podcast, is seen as a potential way to bypass the constraints of the networks. Others have called for people to cancel their subscriptions and boycott Disney and ABC, hitting them where it hurts most—their wallets.
The situation highlights the potential impact of a media environment where political considerations often overshadow free speech principles. This is a complex problem, that involves questions of media ownership, political influence, and the very definition of what constitutes acceptable discourse in the public sphere.