Jimmy Kimmel with Rob Lowe, before being removed from the air
When Charlie Kirk was killed, the conversation was, rightly, about free speech and the ability to express views without coming under threat. There was similar outcry, this time mostly from the left, following Jimmy Kimmel’s removal from the air by ABC. I’m not for one second implying that a handsomely paid comedian being pulled “indefinitely” (the host is set to return) is equivalent to someone being shot whilst debating. It absolutely isn’t. However, both incidents highlight the growing threat to free speech.
At the time of the Kirk shooting, I wrote:
Opinions don’t justify murder. Stating that someone should not be shot in the neck doesn’t need any caveats.
It is also bizarre to have to write that comedians should be allowed to tell jokes, even ones that some, including the US President, find distasteful, on television. The repercussions of doing so should not be threats from state organisations. Yet here we are. (Worth saying, the joke is hardly egregious. The New York Post has a good breakdown of what happened.) No doubt Kimmel will be cheered to the rafters as he delivers his opening monologue on Tuesday. The bullies who wanted to end his career have made him something of a martyr.
Jimmy Kimmel Hooked
Disney, too, deserve criticism. We do not know what private conversations between the company, affiliate networks and administration officials took place. However, Disney initially capitulated, pulling Kimmel instead of going into battle for him publicly. They are far from the only media company to do so in response to a Trumpian temper tantrum might damage their business.
Before Jimmy Kimmel’s return was confirmed, we started to see the potential fallout. Per The Hollywood Reporter, some musicians refused to play at the premiere of the upcoming movie Lilith Fair this weekend. If more and more talent had decided to make a point, things would have got very embarrassing indeed for the House of Mouse.
Americans often like to criticise Britain for our free speech laws, or perceived lack thereof. To some extent they have a point. Equally, there is more than a whiff of hypocrisy about it at a time when the chair of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which issues broadcast licenses, can go on a podcast and dish out threats like a mafia boss.
Yes, there are, and should be, red lines. I’ve often made it clear in this newsletter when I think they have been crossed. In an excellent essay in the Colombia Journalism Review today, Jon Allsop wrote:
There is not really such a thing as purely free speech, and that there are perfectly good reasons why governments, private actors, or some combination thereof might want to regulate it—to curb black-is-white misinformation or defamation, for instance, or to ensure competition within media markets.
That said, we must be very wary as to why, when and how those curbs occur. Whichever side of the Atlantic you are on, it’s clearly a perilous moment in out media culture.
About the Author
