Of Jason Bailey

Few political texts are as widely misunderstood, misinterpreted and false as the first amending constitution of the United States.

For years, every time a public personality faced reactions and consequences for social media postings, public comments or even private statements that offend people, self -proclaimed defenders of freedom of speech insisted that the rights of the first amendment to their compatriots were infringed.

Their argument was incorrect because the intense reaction to bad behavior – which results in, for example, a private company to interrupt its relations with a controversial personality – it concerns the market and not the government.

But I have good news for defenders of freedom of speech and the abolition of the culture of cancellation: a clear case of a real violation of the first amending Constitution – the federal government limits the freedom of the speech of a person and his employer – is currently unfolding. This person is Jimmy Kimmel, whose evening show has been suspended indefinitely by the ABC program, following threats by Federal Communications Committee Brendan Car.

These threats were caused by comments made by Kimmel at his inaugural monologue at “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” Monday night. “We have reached new low levels over the weekend,” he said, “with the Maga gang desperately trying to characterize this child who murdered Charlie Kerk as anything other than one of them and do everything he can to gain political benefits.”

Whatever your opinion on the accuracy of Kimimel’s comments, he had every right to do so. It should also be noted that his comments were in no way disrespectful to KERK himself, for whom the presenter had expressed his condolences after his death last week. But Kar obviously disagreed. While on the podcast of the right Influencer Benny Johnson on Wednesday, Kar openly threatened ABC with FCC research and retaliation, using the cliché language of a bad gangster movie.

“We can do it in the easy or difficult way,” Kar said in an ironic style. “These companies can find ways to change their behavior and take steps for Kimmel, otherwise the FCC will have an extra job ahead of it.”

He also proposed “these licensed broadcasters to react” because “they are at risk of being fined or revoked by the FCC”. The message could not be clearer – nor the signs that it was realized. Within a few hours, Nexstar, the largest US television owner in the US, announced that she will “prevent” a possible “Jimmy Kimmel Live! “In the near future.”

Sinclair Broadcasting, a owner of local subsidiaries, known for her conservative local news articles, quickly followed her example, leading ABC executives to stop Kimmel’s broadcast, at least for the time being.

Following the incident with Steven Colbert in July, this means that two evening shows – both openly critical of President Donald Trump and his government – have been removed from large television networks in less than 90 days. But what makes the Kimmel case different, and much more creepy than the dismissal of Colbert, is the immediacy and obvious intervention of the federal government.

The motives and power games behind the cancellation of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert were unclear, buried in backstage agreements and compromises, allowing CBS to insist that the expiration of the broadcast was not due to the anti-Trump views of Colbert, but on economic issues.

There is no opacity here. The head of FCC threatened with fines and recalled licenses to individual broadcasting and the ABC network, if Kimmel continued to broadcast. Within a few hours – in a move that can only be described as cowardly and unmistakable – the network and broadcasting agencies accepted the challenge and silenced it.

As soon as all the sides agreed, the FCC chief joined forces with the president to celebrate their victory. And why not do it? They had achieved what was probably the real goal: to cut from the air another voice against Trump. The fact that this happens in the name of KERK – a man who himself who cheered the removal of Kimmel in the last week that he was a warrior of freedom of speech – is a higher degree hypocrisy.

What is common to the cancellations of Kimmel and Colbert’s broadcasts are the obvious conflicts of interest. The Late Show with Stephen Colbert was canceled two days after the meeting of Skydance CEO, David Elison, and his lawyer with Car and a FCC lawyer to discuss the forthcoming merger of the company with Paramount, his parent company.

This happened shortly after the network agreement for $ 16 million for a strikingly unfounded lawsuit that President Trump had filed against CBS News. Similarly, ABC gave Trub $ 15 million to settle its own insignificant lawsuit last year – and, what to say, Nexstar, the first company that succumbed to KAR’s pressure, is in the middle of a merger that will require FCC approval.

They are all shockingly corrupt, even for this government’s data. Following Kimmel’s removal, Car told Fox News’s Sean Hanti that the FCC would impose “the obligation of public interest”, but what we really see is an outbreak of the intimidation of critical voices, which shows no signs of retreat. Recently, it was reported that Trump said that television broadcasts “are not allowed” to criticize him and suggested that the stations licenses be revoked if they did.

The president ran with the promise of revenge and keeps this promise, so it can be difficult for his supporters to resist participating in his joy for “Owning the Libs”. However, Americans of all political beliefs have to think about what is at stake in Kimmel’s silence – and what we are in danger of losing – if such a blatant and undoubtedly unconstitutional behavior is not only allowed but also encouraged.

* Jason Bailey is a critic and a cinema historian. He is the author of the recent book “Gandolfini: Jim, Tony, and the Life of a Legend”.