ABC yanks Jimmy Kimmel’s show ‘indefinitely’ after threat from FCC chair

Government pressure and free speech

• Central concern: the FCC chair publicly threatened ABC affiliates’ broadcast licenses unless “action” was taken against Kimmel, widely seen as direct government retaliation for protected political speech.
• Commenters stress the First Amendment constrains government, not private boycotts; using licensing power to coerce content decisions is labeled censorship and “fascism 101.”
• Some note that in COVID and “laptop” controversies, Democratic officials also leaned on platforms, but others counter those involved misinformation and never rose to explicit licensing threats.
• A few argue the FCC has a mandate around “false information,” but most see Kimmel’s monologue as opinion and satire, nowhere near that bar.

ABC, affiliates, and corporate cowardice

• ABC/Disney is criticized for folding “before they had to,” helping normalize government intimidation of media.
• Nexstar and Sinclair’s refusals to air the show, and Nexstar’s pending $6.2B Tegna acquisition needing FCC approval, are cited as clear incentives to comply.
• Some suggest ABC wanted to drop a declining, aging-format late-night show anyway and seized an excuse; others say that doesn’t lessen the danger of setting this precedent.

What Kimmel actually said, and the shooter’s politics

• Users link the monologue: Kimmel mocked the “MAGA gang” for scrambling to insist the shooter wasn’t “one of them” and juxtaposed that with Trump focusing on his new White House ballroom and golf instead of Kirk’s murder.
• Debate centers on whether he insinuated the killer was MAGA or merely highlighted right-wing spin; several note his wording was a classic “line skate” that didn’t assert membership directly.
• Discussion of the shooter’s background (conservative family, pro-LGBT leanings, online culture references) ends with consensus that motives and ideology remain murky.

Cancel culture, hypocrisy, and “both sides”

• Long back-and-forth over “who invented cancel culture”: Dixie Chicks, McCarthyism, Satanic Panic and other right-wing examples are contrasted with recent left-driven deplatforming.
• Many argue there’s a categorical difference: left “cancellation” via consumer choice and social pressure vs. right “cancellation” via state power, licenses, and threats.
• Others insist both camps opportunistically weaponize free-speech rhetoric, abandoning principle when it’s their enemies speaking.

Broader fears: polarization and authoritarian drift

• Multiple comments frame this as another step in a “Reichstag fire”/“Horst Wessel” style martyr politics, and part of a larger Gleichschaltung-like consolidation of media.
• Users describe growing inability to tolerate “political others,” with sharp disagreement over whether some views (e.g., dehumanizing minorities) are legitimate “opinions” at all.
• Many foresee further crackdowns on comedians, streamers, and independent media—and urge boycotts, lawsuits, and louder resistance rather than “complying in advance.”