In the wake of Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension from ABC following his slanderous monologue about the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, liberals have been quick to decry it as a chilling example of right-wing censorship and authoritarianism.
Outlets like the Guardian have framed the move as "censoring you in real time" while the ACLU condemned FCC Chairman Brendan Carr’s criticism, calling it a direct threat to free speech. Democrats in Congress are labeling the suspension a violation of Kimmel’s First Amendment rights as, previously publicly funded, NPR raises questions about free speech in the face of conservative backlash.
COVID-19 Censorship
This outrage reeks of stark hypocrisy when viewed against the Left’s history of leveraging government to pressure social media platforms into censoring dissenting voices -- particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Though controversy exists as to the true extent of the government’s influence on Kimmel’s short hiatus, far from being victims of a right-wing clampdown, progressives have long championed such tactics, only to cry foul when the tables turn.
The Biden administration was directly involved in suppressing contrarian opinions during the pandemic as illustrated when Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg revealed that senior White House officials repeatedly pressured Facebook to “censor” posts about COVID-19, including humor and satire that did not align with official narratives. This was not a subtle suggestion; it was persistent demands that led to direct censorship of content, even when Meta’s teams initially resisted.
This pressure extended beyond the executive branch. Then-House speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) publicly called out social media companies for profiting from COVID-19 misinformation, urging them to crack down and even suggesting advertiser boycotts to force compliance. She threatened to “get tough on platforms,” effectively endorsing government-dictated censorship.
Targeted Individuals
The Left did not just stress censorship of broad opinions but of specific individuals, which unlike Jimmy Kimmel, the left endorsed without reservation of violating their authentic First Amendment rights. This included an article by HuffPost highlighting the “Disinformation Dozen” -- 12 influencers blamed for spreading anti-vaccine misinformation on social media.
No regard was given to the fact that these were not made on public airwaves and that some of their claims, such as rare blood clots and myocarditis, would subsequently be proven correct. Regardless, these claims were no less counter-factual than the claim that Charlie Kirk’s killer was a MAGA supporter.
With cheers from the Left, the HuffPost actively advocated for “decisive action” by Big Tech to eradicate contrarian voices. More troubling, it amplified calls from members of Congress and state attorneys general -- predominantly Democrats at the time -- to outright ban individuals.
The article detailed how these government officials urged platforms to remove accounts. Facebook responded by removing accounts and restricting others, but HuffPost decried this as insufficient, pushing for total deplatforming. This was not journalism; it was a blueprint for ideologic censorship.
Doctors, Scientists Attacked
A study in PMC further documents how scientists and doctors faced suppression for heterodox COVID-19 views, often at the behest of institutional pressures aligned with left-leaning policies potentially impacting the conclusions of the science around COVID-19 itself.
Such actions set a precedent that now haunts the Left’s narrative around Kimmel. The irony is palpable. The same faction now portraying Kimmel’s suspension as authoritarian overreach, fueled by FCC threats, once wielded similar tools against pandemic-policy contrarians.
These hypocrisies have exposed how liberals have beclowned themselves on the issue of censorship. They must confront their role in normalizing both violent and non-violent silencing of opposing views.
In the shadow of the cowardly assassination of Charlie Kirk, many tone-deaf liberals miss the reality that his First Amendment rights were permanently stolen at the tip of an assassin’s bullet. Instead, they elevate the suspension of a fading comedy host above the grotesque murder of a conservative icon who was engaged in open debate.
A true commitment to free speech requires consistency, not convenience, and a return to the open debate that Charlie Kirk championed.
Chad Savage, M.D. is a Heartland Institute policy advisor, Docs 4 Patient Care Foundation policy fellow, and the president of DPC Action.
Image: Public Domain Pictures