Cal Thomas: Jimmy Kimmel and the First Amendment

Editor's note: The following text is a transcript of a podcast story. To listen to the story, click on the arrow beneath the headline above.

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: Today is Thursday, September 25th. Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Myrna Brown.

LINDSAY MAST, HOST: And I’m Lindsay Mast. Well, Jimmy Kimmel returned this week, after lots of speculation about what he’d say. He wasn’t exactly conciliatory:

KIMMEL: Anyway, as I was saying before I was interrupted…

Anyway, as I was saying before I was interrupted:

KIMMEL: I want to thank the people who don't support my show and what I believe, but support my right to share those beliefs anyway.

During his extended monologue he did take a moment to address the comments that led to his suspension.

KIMMEL: You understand that it was never my intention to make light of the murder of a young man … Nor was it my intention to blame any specific group for the actions of what, it was obviously a deeply disturbed individual that was really the opposite of the point I was trying to make. But I understand that to some that felt either ill timed or unclear, or maybe both. And for those who think I did, point a finger, I get why you're upset. If the situation was reversed, there's a good chance I'd have felt the same way.

BROWN: And after a few more minutes of a freedom of speech lecture, he was right back to poking fun at and criticizing the President and his administration:

KIMMEL: He tried, did his best to cancel me instead, he forced millions of people to watch the show that backfired bigly. He might have to release the Epstein files to distract us from this. [LAUGHTER]

Now with commentary, here is syndicated columnist and commentator Cal Thomas.

CAL THOMAS: The “indefinite suspension” of Jimmy Kimmel didn’t last very long. But it sure unleashed a torrent of criticism or praise, depending on which ideological side one stands.

Democrats and the Left engaged in predictable hyperbole. Some called the suspension a violation of the First Amendment. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz may have topped them all.

TIM WALZ: This is North Korea-style stuff. It has no place in America. If he gets away with this, “Katie bar the door” it’s all open, everyone one of those rights is then at risk.

Several points. There is no constitutional or other right for anyone to have a show on a TV network. I was a FOX News Channel contributor for 19 years. For nearly 10 of those I appeared on a news critique panel and for two years I had my own show.

When management decided to cancel both shows—despite pretty good ratings—I didn't complain. It's their network and they get to decide who they want on the air and who they don't. I didn't claim my First Amendment rights were being infringed upon. No one picketed demanding my return.

Kimmel's ratings were terrible and the ABC affiliate stations complained about his claim that Republicans are trying to use the assassination of Charlie Kirk for political gain. Apparently, that was the last straw for management. If all the critics and demonstrators outside Disney had actually watched the show, Kimmel's ratings might have been higher.

I think the reason there has been such an uproar from the Left is the realization that they are losing their monopoly in three areas they have dominated for decades—news, entertainment and academia. Charlie Kirk's appeal to young people was the biggest threat of all, because if leftist professors can no longer indoctrinate the young without being challenged, their political power will be substantially diminished.

Now for the other side of this coin. The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Brendan Carr, made an unveiled threat to remove the licenses of local stations if they don't comply with his view of what constitutes the public interest. On a podcast hosted by conservative Benny Johnson, Carr said this:

BRENDAN CARR: They have a license granted by us at the FCC, and that comes with it an obligation to operate in the public interest. But frankly, when you see stuff like this, I mean we can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action ... on Kimmel or there's going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.

Republican Senator from Texas Ted Cruz was quick to respond:

TED CRUZ: I think it is unbelievably dangerous for government to put itself in the position of saying, 'We're going to decide what speech we like and what we don't, and we're going to threaten to take you out there if we don't like what you're saying.' It might feel good right now to threaten Jimmy Kimmel, but when it is used to silence every conservative in America, we will regret it.

Cruz is right. President Trump is wrong to criticize Kimmel. The president should look at what former presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama said about conservative media which some believed was an attempt to intimidate them and undermine their First Amendment rights.

Pulling the plug on Kimmel doesn't mean the Left is without access to the media to proclaim their views. But the government shouldn’t be the one to define “public interest.” The term is too vague, subjective, and can change with the times.

Let the market decide, which it has in the matter of Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert before him.

I’m Cal Thomas.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.