A Rare Case of Accountability in Broadcasting, But Selective Outrage Reigns

WASHINGTON / September 19 / BPALiveWire - The indefinite suspension of ABC's "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" this week marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing tension between free speech and broadcast responsibility. Triggered by Kimmel's on-air remarks claiming that the man accused of assassinating conservative activist Charlie Kirk was a MAGA Trump supporter—comments the Federal Communications Commission deemed potentially violating its hoax rules—the decision has ignited a firestorm of debate. While critics decry it as censorship, a closer examination through the lens of 47 CFR § 73.1217 reveals a defensible enforcement of longstanding regulations designed to prevent public harm.

Under this FCC provision, broadcasters are barred from airing false information about crimes or catastrophes if they know it's untrue and it foreseeably causes substantial damage—such as diverting law enforcement or endangering public safety. By the time Kimmel made the comments, it was well reported by official authorities that the alleged assassin was in fact left-leaning and in a relationship with a man who wants to be a woman. Kimmel's segment fits this criteria uncomfortably close, according to FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr, who accused the host of misleading viewers amid a volatile political climate. ABC's swift action, pulling the show indefinitely at the behest of station owners like Nexstar, underscores that even late-night satire isn't a blanket shield when it veers into territory that could incite panic or misdirect authorities.

Defenders of the suspension point to a glaring hypocrisy in the free speech outcry from liberal quarters. Where was this indignation when President Donald Trump was deplatformed from X (formerly Twitter) in 2021? That move, framed as necessary to curb incitement, drew scant protests from the same voices now rallying for Kimmel. Similarly, during the COVID-19 pandemic, conservatives faced suppression for questioning vaccine mandates—brave first responders, once lionized as heroes, lost jobs for refusing shots, a clear infringement on their expressive rights under the First Amendment. No widespread liberal clamor for their reinstatement ensued.

The left is crying government overreach in the decision to sideline Kimmel. Yet there was noticeable silence from them about the Biden administration's documented communications with social media platforms to downplay the Hunter Biden laptop story in 2020, as revealed in congressional probes.

Kimmel isn't alone in this spotlight—Tucker Carlson's ouster from Fox News in 2023 followed similar scrutiny over election falsehoods. The common thread? Knowingly disseminating dangerous lies forfeits absolute protection under broadcast law. The FCC, bound by the First Amendment from outright censorship (47 U.S.C. § 326), acts only on ironclad evidence of intent, as in documented distortions. Kimmel's backlash exemplifies selective outrage: Outrage for "our side," silence for the rest.

BPALiveWire always errs on the side of free speech. We also believe that private platforms have the right to curate the speech that they deem appropriate. That goes for mega platforms like ABC and honest brokers like BPALiveWire.

As the FCC weighs formal penalties, the hope is for measured justice. In an era of fractured media, holding all broadcasters to the hoax rule's standard could rebuild a modicum of trust. We dare to dream of the revolutionary and refreshing change that would sweep across the nation if media from the left and right were held to this standard.