DISNEY AND JIMMY KIMMEL'S FIRST AMENDMENT FARCE
- lhpgop
- Sep 23, 2025
- 6 min read
IT'S IMPORTANT TO START WITH THE FACTS AGREED UPON, SO HERE IS THE CONTROVERSIAL STATEMENTS BY JIMMY KIMMEL.
What Kimmel Actually Said
From the reporting:
In his September 15, 2025 opening monologue, Kimmel said:
“We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it.” Al Jazeera+3Wikipedia+3The Guardian+3
He also mocked Donald Trump’s reaction, especially a moment when Trump, during a press/query segment, pointed out White House construction (a new ballroom), as part of his response when asked how he was doing after Kirk’s death. Kimmel compared Trump’s reaction to someone going through grief stages, saying:
“Yes, he’s at the fourth stage of grief, construction.” The Independent+1And later:“This is not how an adult grieves the murder of someone he called a friend. This is how a four-year-old mourns a goldfish.” The Independent
The First Amendment Farce: Disney, Jimmy Kimmel, and the Manipulation of Truth
On September 23, 2025, ABC and Disney announced the reinstatement of Jimmy Kimmel Live! after a short hiatus sparked by a storm of controversy. Kimmel had gone on air and delivered patently untrue statements about the man responsible for the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Affiliate broadcasters, led by Sinclair, balked at the reckless rhetoric and pulled the plug. Yet after several days of aggressive lobbying from Hollywood elites and sympathetic press outlets, Disney caved to pressure and placed Kimmel back in his chair. They did so under the banner of the First Amendment.
But here lies the problem: the Kimmel affair was never a simple free-speech issue. His words were not just misinformed comedy. They echoed the behavior of the man who, at the scene of the Kirk assassination, pretended to be the shooter — deliberately wasting police resources and giving the real killer valuable time to escape. Kimmel’s broadcast, repeating and magnifying falsehoods, did the same at a national level: it clouded the public narrative and threatened to slow the search for a fugitive assassin.
Free Speech vs. False Reports
The First Amendment protects a wide range of expression, even speech that is offensive or inaccurate. But it has never shielded speech integral to a crime. Just as a false 911 call is not “protected speech,” knowingly disseminating false information that obstructs an investigation is not mere comedy or commentary.
Disney’s legal shield is the familiar refrain: “We may not like what he said, but the Constitution protects it.” That sounds noble, but it is a distortion. Free speech does not protect someone who, with a platform of millions, deliberately spreads misinformation in a way that could hinder the pursuit of a murderer. That is not art, and it is not satire. It is interference.
Corporate Cowardice and Political Theater
Sinclair affiliates acted responsibly in refusing to air Kimmel’s show after the falsehoods. They recognized their own liability and their duty to the truth. Disney, on the other hand, has chosen to wrap itself in constitutional cloth while bowing to pressure from its Hollywood peers and the chattering class in the press. This is not principle — it is politics.
The decision reveals a cynical calculation: that the public will accept “First Amendment” as an all-purpose shield, and that prosecutors will not take the politically risky step of treating Kimmel’s conduct as obstruction. But that calculation does not erase the real damage: law enforcement efforts were muddied, the truth was blurred, and the killer of Charlie Kirk was handed a fog of cover.
What Charges Could Apply?
It is worth stating plainly: if intent could be proven, Kimmel’s actions might meet the elements of:
Obstruction of justice — knowingly impeding a law enforcement investigation;
Providing false information — akin to filing a false police report, but via broadcast;
Civil defamation — if an innocent party was named or implicated.
These are not far-fetched hypotheticals. They are real categories of liability that ordinary citizens face every day for lesser acts.
A Dangerous Precedent
The reinstatement of Kimmel’s show signals something dangerous. It tells America that if you are powerful enough, wealthy enough, and politically aligned with the cultural left, you can disguise even the most damaging falsehoods as “free speech.” Meanwhile, ordinary citizens are fined, arrested, or sued for far less.
This hypocrisy undermines public faith not only in the media, but in the First Amendment itself. The right to speak freely is sacred. But when it is weaponized to shield obstruction and misinformation, it ceases to be a principle and becomes a tool of manipulation.
Conclusion
The Kimmel controversy is not about protecting edgy comedy. It is about whether free speech can be stretched so far that it covers even the deliberate sabotage of truth and justice. By reinstating Jimmy Kimmel under the guise of constitutional principle, Disney has revealed not courage, but cowardice. They have chosen politics over integrity, spectacle over responsibility, and theater over truth.
In doing so, they have not defended the First Amendment — they have debased it.
Disney’s Gamble: Backing Jimmy Kimmel Against Its Own Viewers
Disney’s decision to reinstate Jimmy Kimmel Live! after his false and inflammatory remarks about the Charlie Kirk assassination is not just a cultural flashpoint. It is a business disaster in the making. By siding with Kimmel over affiliates and a significant swath of its own audience, Disney has put itself on a collision course with its subscribers, partners, and shareholders.
1. Subscriber Revolt: “Cutting the Cord” on Disney
Reports already suggest a surge in subscription cancellations for Disney’s streaming services and channels. For years, Disney has relied on its direct-to-consumer arm (Disney+, ESPN+, Hulu) to offset declining cable revenues. But now, political and cultural controversies are driving away families who once saw Disney as a neutral brand for entertainment.
Kimmel’s reinstatement has only accelerated that erosion. Parents do not want their household streaming dollars underwriting a comedian who distorts the facts of a political assassination. The cancellations are not just symbolic — they hit directly at Disney’s bottom line in a sector that was supposed to be the company’s growth engine.
2. Affiliate Pushback: A Network Without a Network
Disney can put Kimmel back on air, but it cannot force affiliates to carry him. Sinclair and other broadcasters have signaled their refusal to air the show, citing reputational risk and public outcry. This fractures the very model that has kept late-night programming viable.
In practice, this means Kimmel may be “back on ABC” in name only. If swaths of the country cannot see the show, ratings drop, advertising revenue collapses, and the program becomes a money-loser. Disney’s defense of Kimmel, then, is not just legally dubious — it is commercially suicidal.
3. Shareholder Patience: Wearing Thin
Disney shareholders have already endured years of declining returns. The Star Wars sequel trilogy alienated its core fan base, Lightyear flopped under the weight of ideological messaging, and Disney+ continues to bleed cash despite constant promises of a turnaround.
Now the Kimmel fiasco adds another costly distraction. By clinging to a “woke” agenda, Disney’s management is gambling shareholder equity on political theater. At what point will institutional investors or activist funds step in to demand accountability? When will the board of directors face the question: how many billions must be burned before ideology yields to fiduciary duty?
4. The Risk of a Brand Collapse
Disney’s greatest asset has always been its brand — the idea of a family-friendly, all-American cultural touchstone. But that brand has been steadily undermined, and now risks being recast as a symbol of corporate arrogance and left-wing politics. Once lost, brand trust is nearly impossible to rebuild.
If audiences continue to abandon the company, affiliates cut programming, and shareholders revolt, Disney could find itself not just in a financial slump but in an existential crisis: the company that built its empire on Steamboat Williereduced to a cautionary tale of what happens when politics eclipse entertainment.
Conclusion
By backing Jimmy Kimmel against affiliates and a broad swath of the viewing public, Disney has transformed a PR embarrassment into a full-scale business liability. The company faces subscriber revolt, affiliate boycotts, and shareholder impatience — all of which threaten to accelerate its financial decline.
The choice before Disney is stark: either recommit to entertainment over ideology, or continue gambling with shareholder money until the markets themselves enforce discipline. The magic kingdom can survive creative missteps. It cannot survive sustained corporate suicide.
FOR A MORE IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF THE INNER WORKINGS OF DISNEY'S SINKING SHIP, YOU CAN CHECK OUT THE VIDEOS OF OVERLORD DVD ON YOUTUBE
Comments