On Sept. 17, viewers were shocked when ABC decided to “indefinitely” remove “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” from its network. This came in the wake of comments the talk show host made about Tyler Robinson, the suspect in Charlie Kirk’s assassination, on his previous broadcast. Soon after, many began labeling this cancellation as a violation of freedom of speech under the First Amendment, sparking debate as one of the first high-profile cases of job loss tied to opinions on Kirk’s assassination.
The comments in question that Kimmel made regarding Tyler Robinson raised eyebrows because they lacked factual evidence. Specifically, in his monologue, he said, “We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it.” However, nothing so far has clearly tied Robinson to having involvement in the MAGA movement, or either party for that matter, thus debunking his claim.
Even so, Kimmel still had the right to say this. It may not have been true, but the backlash he faced in the aftermath amounted to cancellation without justification. If anything, it was out of fear on the part of Bob Iger, Disney’s CEO.
As a private company and ABC’s parent, Disney was legally within its rights to take the show off the air. But this would prove very unpopular for the talents who had wanted to work with the corporation. In protest against Iger, many of them began considering withdrawing projects with the company, according to a report from the Wall Street Journal. This put the pressure on him to bring the show back, and Kimmel returned to late-night television on Sept. 23.
In the opening monologue of this episode, Kimmel made his message clear: He said he never intended to hurt anyone with his words about the suspected killer of Charlie Kirk, but he believed that the cancellation of his show was a violation of civil norms. He then condemned President Trump for threatening comedians and the press. Consequently, Trump fired back in a post from Truth Social that read, “Let Jimmy Kimmel rot in his ratings.”
Today, across the country, we are seeing several “Jimmy Kimmel moments,” with people losing their jobs and being cancelled for comments they’ve made on Charlie Kirk’s assassination. The primary question is whether companies are exhibiting greater tolerance for employee speech or merely responding to reputational risk. In many cases, however, I believe they are wrong for firing employees who have expressed nonviolent opinions online.
A recent New York Times article reported that more than 145 people have been fired for remarks made in conversations and on social media. Some of these posts have been harsher than others, particularly those that celebrated Kirk’s death and labeled him as a “Nazi.” Now, I’m not saying that’s right by any means, and these people have rightly been condemned by their companies. But in other cases, people’s words have been misconstrued, which has unfairly cost them their livelihoods.
Notably, the article brings up a woman named Hannah Molitor, who had been working at an early childhood nonprofit in Milwaukee and posted on her Facebook: “What happened to Charlie Kirk is horrible and no person should ever lose their life to gun violence.” She then added: “However just realize that one side of the aisle is actively fighting to bring an end to unnecessary deaths by gun violence and it was not the side Charlie was on. Yes I am making his death political, no I do not care. If all you do is spew hate, you’re bound to get some in return.”
She said she did not intend her comment to be interpreted as “Kirk getting what he deserved,” and later realized that some could have read it that way. For this reason, I don’t think it’s right that these words led to her termination, especially since she clarified her understanding of the horror of Kirk’s death.
If there’s anything I’ve taken away from all of this, it’s that in today’s America, you can speak your mind but must know that there’s a risk involved in it. That’s the major problem here. I believe that you can work for a company while also maintaining your individuality, as long as your views aren’t inciting or celebrating violence. Sadly, with the Charlie Kirk case, the division has grown greater as many politicians and pundits on the far right have labeled several criticisms against the man as “hate speech,” according to CBS. In a way, it’s reminiscent of the vitriol we experienced during the Black Lives Matter movement in 2020, when those on both sides had differing viewpoints, thus creating a “cancel culture” that couldn’t be cured.
Looking back to Sept. 10, the day that Kirk was killed, I remember feeling a sense of doom for our country because I realized the ramifications—the division, the violence and the hatred—that would result from this tragic event. To this day, I feel the same way, and I am worried about what the future will hold if all we face for voicing our opinions is retribution and scorn from those who disagree with us. If this is the case, we will never be able to come together to uphold this fundamental right.
