On the heels of Nexstar Media Group and Sinclair announcing they would preempt Jimmy Kimmel Live!, ABC made the determination to pull the program “indefinitely” on Wednesday evening.

I didn’t know what to expect from the reactions of that bombshell news. But I didn’t expect…whatever this has been.

I’ve seen dozens upon dozens of political commentators champion the decision by ABC. And, genuinely, I don’t understand it.

Why in the hell would anyone ever cheer someone being yanked off the air at the request of the federal government?

And if you disagree with me — or Jimmy Kimmel — I know what you’re saying right now. “He doesn’t have a right to a late-night show. He wasn’t pulled off the air by the government; he was pulled off the air by ABC. His First Amendment rights haven’t been violated.”

And my response to that is: are you trying to convince me of that, or are you trying to convince yourself of that?

ABC decided to pull the show after Nexstar Media Group and Sinclair made their announcements. For brevity, let’s say ABC was already in discussions, and it was merely a coincidence that Nexstar and Sinclair were also preparing to announce they were pre-empting the show.

All of those decisions were made after FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said, “We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel, or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead,” while appearing on a podcast hosted by Benny Johnson.

That isn’t even a thinly-veiled threat. It is absolutely, unequivocally, a point-blank “You’re going to do what we want you to do, or else,” statement by the chairman of the FCC.

Kimmel’s crime? Jumping to a conclusion about who shot Charlie Kirk. He didn’t mock Kirk. He didn’t have crass or crude things to say about the Turning Point USA founder in his opening monologue on Monday. What set of Brendan Carr? Jimmy Kimmel said the person who shot Kirk was politically aligned with him.

Kimmel claimed that the reaction from “the MAGA gang” was an attempt to “characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them.” If you didn’t immediately jump to conclusions about the motives behind who shot Kirk, you’d know that there were legitimate questions on whether or not Tyler Robinson’s motive was that Kirk wasn’t conservative enough, and not the other way around.

That’s a big enough crime to demand someone be pulled from the air? Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that Kimmel really was attempting to spread “malicious lies” about the shooter, and defame MAGA supporters. Is that reason enough for the federal government to call for someone to be pulled off that air? Furthermore, do we really want to anoint the FCC as the chief arbiter of what is and isn’t factual?

Now, it certainly appears as if Robinson was not a follower of far-right political commentator Nick Fuentes, and isn’t a member of his legion of “Groyper” followers. But, if you actually cared about how and why what happened to Charlie Kirk happened, and weren’t — as Kimmel pointed out — “trying to score cheap political points,” it wasn’t as cut-and-dry as people are making it out to be.

Even then, you still might not believe that it was government pressure that led to Kimmel’s suspension. That Sinclair and Nexstar simply saw their moral compasses pointing toward pulling the show.

I’d be inclined to believe that if both companies weren’t in a position where they need government approval to complete mergers and acquisitions. Now, who handles that approval process? The FCC. And who’s the chairman of the FCC? Oh, just the guy who said “it’s time for them to step up and say this garbage isn’t something that we think serves the needs of our local communities.”

Those dots aren’t very hard to connect. And yet, I’ve seen so many applaud the move.

Do we really want to be in a situation where an unelected bureaucrat is deciding what is and isn’t acceptable discourse? Is that really the precedent anyone wants to set? Because I certainly don’t.

I had my faith restored earlier this week by the reaction from so many conservative news/talk radio hosts who pushed back against the comments by Attorney General Pam Bondi when she said that “Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment. It’s a crime. For far too long, we’ve watched the radical left normalize threats, call for assassinations, and cheer on political violence. That era is over.”

And so many, justifiably so, argued that it flew directly in the face of the First Amendment, which is what Charlie Kirk fought so valiantly in favor of.

To then turn around and see those same people applaud the suspension of Jimmy Kimmel felt…either disingenuous, ignorant, or worse.

When those conservative political commentators stated that free speech was under attack in the wake of Kirk’s abhorrent murder. They were right. It is under attack. And we need to defend it at every turn.

But there’s a disconnect between what is and isn’t free speech. I wholly understand what the First Amendment actually means and protects. Which is why this is a gigantic issue. The FCC commissioner demanding that something be done with a host he doesn’t like — coming days after the Vice President said that citizens should “call the employers” of those who celebrated the death of Charlie Kirk — are direct attacks on the protections the First Amendment provides.

I can’t be any more definitive than this: beyond a reasonable doubt, Jimmy Kimmel saw his show placed on hiatus not because of ABC, not because of Nexstar Media Group or Sinclair, but because that is what the federal government wanted those entities to do. That is not something anyone should ever willingly accept.

I understand that those companies were put in a hell of a spot by Brendan Carr. I can’t pretend to know what it’s like to run a billion-dollar company, and I have an even greater understanding of the idea behind the phrase “A man with experience is never at the mercy of a man with an opinion. But this is a matter of principle. Not politics.

And on principle, this is bad for business and furthermore, bad for America.

I understand that “free speech isn’t freedom from consequences.” I understand the argument that “the left cheered when (insert person here) was canceled or fired.”

But cheering as Jimmy Kimmel saw his show suspended means you’re just as bad as those you’re critical of. If you think the people who cheered when Roseanne Barr, Gina Carano, or anyone else you felt had been wrongly deemed persona non grata due to their political beliefs, statements, or social media posts were in the wrong, acting similarly doesn’t make you right. It makes you wrong, too. That’s how principles work. And I can’t believe I have to point that out. But here we are.

Free speech is believing that people have the right to be wrong. That they have the right to say whatever they want — obviously within reason — and not face repercussions from the government for it. And in this situation, it is either disingenuous or ignorant to pretend that it is anything other than exactly what happened.

You can argue that Jimmy Kimmel was suspended because his ratings stink. Fair point. But his ratings have stunk for years! For a decade, at least. So, why was action taken now? Again, these aren’t difficult dots to connect.

You can argue that Jimmy Kimmel was suspended because his show was facing an advertiser boycott. Fair point. But which advertisers were boycotting? Advertisers don’t boycott in silence. They do it for show, as a way of corporate virtue signaling. I didn’t see any advertiser boycotts. Did you? No, you didn’t. Because it wasn’t happening.

You can argue that Jimmy Kimmel was suspended because affiliate owners like Nexstar and Sinclair were fed up with the partisan programming being fed to them at 11:35 PM ET. Fair point. But should the chairman of the FCC be the one to make that determination? Furthermore, if the ratings stink, do the local stations really put much priority on what is being fed to them as you approach midnight?

Additionally, I firmly recognize the distinction between a company taking action against an employee for their comments. And I’ll never run that down. Private companies should be able to determine what is and isn’t acceptable to them. That’s where the issue lies here. Because it isn’t ABC making the decision alone. It isn’t Nexstar Media Group or Sinclair making that determination alone.

With all of that said, I struggle to view this as a good thing. Do I like Jimmy Kimmel? No, not especially. I can’t say that I consume his content regularly. And do I support him being categorically incorrect about the shooter of Charlie Kirk? Absolutely not.

But, I truly believe in the quote that is often misattributed to Voltaire, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Because that is free speech. To suggest otherwise, from where I sit, is not disingenuous. It’s not ignorant: it’s worse. It’s un-American.

In the politically charged time and climate in which we find ourselves, it is easy to think about and do what’s best for you, your company, your political party, or whatever other entity you’d like to include in the short term, and what benefits you now.

But living by a firm and steadfast set of principles is hard. Because they can often work against you. Supporting free speech and the First Amendment, in my estimation, hasn’t been, isn’t, and shouldn’t be something we view as hard.

Even if you disagree with everything I’ve written, I hope we can at least agree on that. Because if we can’t, there are much darker times ahead than arguing about whether or not a late-night host does or doesn’t deserve to be on the air.

Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. To stay updated, sign up for our newsletters and get the latest information delivered straight to your inbox.