Déjà vu has never been less fun.

Last week, late-night host Jimmy Kimmel made a joke during his show’s opening monologue that upset people in the White House, which led to demands that ABC “take a stand” against his “hateful and violent rhetoric.”

There’s a reason this story feels familiar. Last year, late-night host Jimmy Kimmel made a joke during his show’s opening monologue that upset people in the White House, which led to demands that ABC “take action on Kimmel” for his “intentional effort to mislead the American people”.

Back then, the one leading the charge was FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr. Now, it’s First Lady Melania Trump. In both cases, the reactions to Kimmel’s comments occurred in the wake of violence. Last year, it was in response to Charlie Kirk’s assassination at Utah Valley University. This week, it’s about the gunman who opened fire at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner.

The trouble is, Kimmel’s so-called “hateful and violent” remarks — that Melania possesses “a glow like an expectant widow” — were made during his April 23 monologue, two full days before the WHCA. In that context, it’s clear that Kimmel’s quip was a “Trump is really old” joke, and not a “Trump is going to be the subject of an assassination attempt this Saturday” joke. Arguing otherwise would require Kimmel to possess a time machine.

More importantly, however, the government has no authority to police the speech of television networks or their late-night hosts, nor can it flex its institutional power to pressure them to do so. The former is a clear violation of our First Amendment, while the latter is a sneakier manifestation of jawboning, where the government tries to do indirectly what it cannot do directly. Either way, it’s unconstitutional.

Mrs. Trump’s comments about how Kimmel “shouldn’t have the opportunity to enter our homes each evening to spread hate” fit into a broader pattern of anti-free speech efforts by the Trump administration. While discussing the assassination of Charlie Kirk and campus antisemitism on The Katie Miller podcast late last year, then-Attorney General Pam Bondi said the Justice Department would investigate and prosecute incidents of “hate speech” — by which she meant anything said about Charlie Kirk’s death that they didn’t like. Trump echoed this sentiment soon after, threatening an ABC News reporter for having covered him “unfairly”.

Of course, there is no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment, and there can’t be. The Supreme Court has rejected the notion on multiple occasions, and the notion has been debunked time and again. What is considered “hateful” is inescapably subjective, and no one wants to live under anyone else’s conception of it.

The fact that Kimmel has already been pulled off the air once should give us pause. So long as those in the administration believe network executives will cave under pressure, they will continue to engage in jawboning. Here’s hoping Disney and ABC don’t subject us to even more déjà vu.

---

Angel Eduardo is senior writer and editor at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE).

StrangelEdweird

---