Jimmy Kimmel’s New Best Friend Is the Supreme Court

It is important to explain exactly what is the problem here. If ABC dismissed Kimmel because he wanted to do something different at 11 p.m. on weekly evenings, or because he did not think that Kimmel was particularly funny, or because Kimmel took the last slice of pizza in Disney cafeteria, it would not be a problem of first amendment. (Kimmel’s contract could provide him with certain protections against dismissal, but that would be his problem in these scenarios, not in the country.)

If ABC’s affiliated stations – local television networks belonging to other companies that have an ABC program – have noted comments from Kimmel repugnant and refused to broadcast future episodes protesting them, it would not be a question of first amendment either. The boycott has been a proud American tradition since the settlers refused to buy British tea. More importantly, in the context of a dispute between private companies, the first amendment simply does not apply. Sinclair, a conservative media which has the most affiliation stations in the country, also pre -empted Kimmel’s program and asked that he apologizes to the Kirk family and make a donation to Turning Point USA.

Even if Carr had just joined a criticism of Kimmel’s remarks, it would not necessarily be a problem of first amendment. Trump himself did publications on social networks for years when he criticizes entertainment characters and late evening actors. These positions may have been under dignity that his office held, but they were not first amendment problems by an effort of imagination.