Jimmy Kimmel’s New Best Friend Is the Supreme Court

It is important to explain exactly what the problem is here. If ABC fired Kimmel because he wanted to do something different in the 11 PM hour on weeknights, or because he didn’t think Kimmel was particularly funny, or because Kimmel took the last slice of pizza in the Disney cafeteria, it would not be a First Amendment issue. (Kimmel’s contract might provide him with some protections against dismissal, but that would be his problem in those scenarios, not the country’s.)

If ABC’s affiliate stations—the local television networks owned by other companies that carry ABC programming—merely found Kimmel’s comments repugnant and declined to broadcast future episodes in protest of them, that would also not be a First Amendment issue. Boycotting has been a proud American tradition since the colonists refused to buy British tea. More importantly, as a dispute between private companies, the First Amendment simply does not apply. Sinclair, a conservative media outlet that owns the most affiliate stations in the country, also preempted Kimmel’s show and demanded that he apologize to Kirk’s family and make a donation to Turning Point USA.

Even if Carr had merely joined in a chorus of criticism of Kimmel’s remarks, that would not necessarily be a First Amendment issue. Trump himself has made social-media posts for years where he criticizes entertainment figures and late-night comedians. Those posts may have been beneath the dignity that his office used to hold, but they were not First Amendment problems by any stretch of the imagination.