Jimmy Kimmel's latest controversy is a useful test of whether people actually believe in free speech — or only believe in it when the speaker is likable.
Jimmy Kimmel's latest controversy is a useful test of whether people actually believe in free speech, or only believe in it when the speaker is likable.
Kimmel is not likable to many Americans. He is not especially funny to many Americans. His political comedy often feels less like sharp satire and more like partisan contempt delivered with a laugh track. His recent remark about Melania Trump having the glow of an "expectant widow" was ugly, cheap, and needlessly hateful, especially given the country's increasingly unstable political atmosphere. CBS reported that the remark was made during a routine connected to the White House Correspondents' Dinner, days before an armed man tried to enter the Washington ballroom where the Trumps and much of the nation's political leadership had gathered. Donald and Melania Trump later called for ABC to fire him, while Kimmel defended the joke as a "light roast" about the couple's age difference and denied that it was a call to violence. (CBS News)
Kimmel has every right to make a bad joke. The rest of us have every right to say it was a bad joke.
That distinction matters.
Free speech does not mean freedom from criticism. It does not mean freedom from mockery. It does not mean Disney, ABC, advertisers, affiliates, or viewers have to keep rewarding a performer whose act has become stale, bitter, or commercially weak. But it does mean that the government should not punish or pressure broadcasters because a comedian insulted the president or first lady.
That is the line.
There is a temptation in modern politics to treat every controversy as a team sport. If Trump criticizes Kimmel, Kimmel's defenders feel obligated to pretend the joke was brilliant. If Kimmel insults Trump, Trump's defenders feel obligated to treat the joke as incitement.
Both reactions are too convenient.
The joke was not clever. It was not brave. It was not some profound act of truth-telling. It was a mean-spirited line about a wife supposedly glowing at the thought of becoming a widow. Even if Kimmel intended it as a joke about age, marriage, or public awkwardness, the phrasing was cruel. In a country already saturated with political hatred, assassination attempts, and fantasies of public humiliation, it is reasonable for people to find the remark disgusting.
But disgusting is not the same as illegal. Offensive is not the same as incitement. Hateful is not automatically unprotected.
A free society has to preserve those distinctions, especially when emotions are high.
The strongest criticism of Kimmel is not that he should be silenced by the state. The strongest criticism is that he has become exactly what late-night comedy should resist: predictable.
A great comedian punctures power, mocks hypocrisy, surprises the audience, and finds the absurdity in every faction. Kimmel too often gives the impression of performing for one political tribe against another. That may satisfy a shrinking cultural niche, but it is not the same thing as broad comedy.
There is a perfectly fair argument that ABC should look at the numbers, the cost, the brand risk, and the long-term business value of keeping him on the air. Disney owns ABC, and Disney's management has a responsibility to make business decisions in the interests of the company and its shareholders. If Kimmel's salary, ratings, advertiser value, affiliate relationships, or audience fatigue no longer justify the show, ABC would be completely within its rights to cancel it.
That would not be censorship. That would be business.
The ratings picture, however, should be discussed honestly. Some reports have described weak or slipping periods for Kimmel, including a reported August 2025 decline cited by the New York Post. (New York Post)
So the better argument is this: late-night television is a tougher, more fragmented business than it used to be, Kimmel is expensive, polarizing, and creatively exhausted, and ABC should be free to judge whether he is still worth the trouble.
There is a major difference between these two statements:
"ABC should fire Jimmy Kimmel because he is bad for business."
and:
"The president should pressure ABC or Disney to fire Jimmy Kimmel because his speech is dangerous."
The first is a private business judgment. The second is a free speech problem.
President Trump is allowed to criticize Kimmel. He is allowed to call the joke hateful. He is allowed to say he will not watch ABC, that advertisers should reconsider, or that viewers should tune out.
But when the president calls for a broadcaster to fire a comedian who mocked him or his wife, the situation changes. The president is not merely another offended viewer. He leads the executive branch. His administration has regulatory power. Broadcasters operate in a legal and licensing environment shaped by the government. That means presidential pressure carries a weight that ordinary criticism does not.
That does not make Kimmel admirable. It makes the principle important.
The First Amendment is not only for sympathetic speakers. It is most necessary when the speaker, like Jimmy Kimmel or a white supremacist, is obnoxious, partisan, unfair, or offensive. A free speech culture cannot survive if every ugly joke becomes a pretext for political retaliation.
If Disney and ABC decide Kimmel is no longer worth the money, they should cancel him. Not because Melania Trump was offended. Not because President Trump demanded it. Not because the federal government should police jokes. But because television is a business.
ABC should be asking normal business questions:
Is the show profitable?
Is the audience large enough?
Is the audience valuable enough to advertisers?
Is Kimmel's salary justified?
Does the show help or hurt the ABC brand?
Is the controversy worth the return?
Could another format perform better?
Those are legitimate questions. They do not threaten free speech. They are part of the marketplace of speech.
The marketplace can reject Kimmel's lack of comedy. Viewers can leave. Advertisers can walk. Affiliates can complain. Executives can decide the show no longer works.
That is very different from saying the government should treat a comedian's insulting remark as a punishable offense.
Kimmel's defenders should stop pretending that every attack on him is an attack on democracy. His critics should stop pretending that every cruel joke is a prosecutable threat.
The healthier position is simpler:
Jimmy Kimmel's remark was nasty.
His comedy is often overrated.
His political commentary is frequently smug and hateful.
ABC may have good business reasons to move on.
And yet, he still has free speech.
That is not a contradiction. That is the whole point.
Free speech does not require us to admire the speaker. It requires us to resist the urge to turn dislike into suppression. It asks us to answer bad speech with criticism, mockery, counterspeech, boycotts, ratings pressure, and business judgment — not state-backed punishment.
Kimmel deserves criticism. He may even deserve cancellation by his employer for business reasons.
But he should not be fired because political leaders demand it.
In a free society, even bad comedians get to speak. And the rest of us get to change the channel.
Have questions about this topic? Dr. Vale can walk you through the history, legal context, and competing arguments.
