When Corporations Run the World, Your Rights Don’t Matter
By LONNIE KING
The suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live! is more than late-night drama. It’s a case study in how corporate self-interest, government pressure, and media power all combine to make your rights optional.
As most everyone knows by now, ABC suspended Jimmy Kimmel Live! “indefinitely” after Kimmel made remarks in relation to the killing of conservative influencer Charlie Kirk.
His monologue accused “the MAGA gang” of trying to “score political points” from the killing. That line, and the fury it unleashed, led to Nexstar (a large group of ABC-affiliated stations) refusing to air the show, threats from FCC regulators, and ultimately the decision by ABC to pull the plug rather than resist the heat.
Corporations protect themselves
The cold reality is that this was not a decision rooted in principle; it was a business calculation.
The FCC, under Trump-aligned leadership, made clear that there would be consequences for networks who aired Kimmel’s comments. Nexstar issued a statement declaring his words “offensive and insensitive,” a move that effectively boxed ABC in.
And when a corporation faces a choice between protecting a comedian’s right to speak or protecting billions in licensing and advertising revenue, there is never really a choice at all.
The bottom line always wins.
And long before this incident occurred, I have maintained that corporations—no matter how much they try to cast themselves as ‘families’—are nothing more than stone-cold institutions that only care about their employees/associates as long as those people are beneficial to the bottom line.
Don’t believe me? Tell your company’s CEO that you’re alone for Thanksgiving and invite yourself to holiday dinner…and see how that works out for you.
That’s the harsh truth: corporations aren’t built to care or to defend rights. They’re built to protect themselves. And when it comes to speech, if the cost gets too high, speech loses.
The government’s leverage
This whole episode also reveals the leverage the government holds when corporations depend on regulatory approval to survive. Even the hint of losing broadcast licenses can bend executives to political pressure.
What looks like a network’s “decision” is often just capitulation to the shadow of government authority.
But, this time around, the heavy-handedness of the current administration wasn’t even close to the shadows. The pronouncements from Washington, DC, sounded mafia threats as much as governmental oversight.
“We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” FCC chairman Brendan Carr said. “These companies can find ways to change conduct … or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”
In other words…
Hey, ABC…that’s a nice set up you’ve got there. It’d be a shame to see it burn to the ground.
When that’s the climate, free speech isn’t a right—it’s a privilege, granted only when it doesn’t anger those in power.
WaPo says it well
Here’s how The Washington Post put it:
“Jimmy Kimmel has been muzzled and taken off the air … This is what authoritarianism looks like right now in this country … This is government censorship.” (Washington Post, Sept. 18, 2025)
That’s a chilling sentence. And the fact that we’re already adjusting to stories like this as if they’re normal may be the most dangerous part.
What makes it worse is how many people I’ve seen—predictably, considering their political leanings—actually celebrating that Kimmel has been pulled off the air. To me, that signals a deep misunderstanding of what it truly means to have the right to free speech.
What would their reaction be if a president, or his regulatory proxy, were threatening Fox News over the content of the shows of Jesse Waters or Greg Gutfield? I’d argue that either one of those guys is more provocative and partisan than any late night TV host. But no one is demanding that they be muzzled.
Let me state this clearly: Charlie Kirk was as provocative as they come, but even he did not deserve to die because of his racist, bigoted, homophobic views on the world. He’s not a national treasure or bastion of virtue, but he damn sure didn’t deserve to be killed simply for being loud and obnoxious with his worldview.
The principle isn’t about liking or agreeing with the words spoken; it’s about defending the right for those words to exist, even if they grate against your own views.
Look, I don’t expect corporations to be civil rights champions—quite the contrary. But when individuals, even ordinary citizens who benefit from the same protections, cheer the silencing of someone they dislike, that’s alarming.
It shows how quickly people are willing to trade away a foundational liberty for the satisfaction of seeing their opponents punished.
A fragile existence
The Kimmel suspension is a reminder of how fragile rights really are when their defense is outsourced to institutions that only care about quarterly returns. Corporations won’t save free speech, because saving it isn’t their business.
But perhaps the greater danger lies in the way ordinary people respond. When the public not only accepts, but celebrates censorship because it happens to someone they dislike, it reveals just how willing we are to discard our own freedoms for the thrill of partisan victory.
That’s when free speech ceases to be a shared principle and becomes nothing more than a tool to be granted or denied depending on who’s in charge.
If we keep heading down that road, we may wake up one day to discover that none of us have much left to say—and no one left willing to listen.
Grace and grit to you! — LK
This is SO good, I've gotta share it!
Related
Randomly Rudimentary Faith Stuff 
When Corporations Run the World, Your Rights Don’t Matter
By LONNIE KING
The suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live! is more than late-night drama. It’s a case study in how corporate self-interest, government pressure, and media power all combine to make your rights optional.
As most everyone knows by now, ABC suspended Jimmy Kimmel Live! “indefinitely” after Kimmel made remarks in relation to the killing of conservative influencer Charlie Kirk.
His monologue accused “the MAGA gang” of trying to “score political points” from the killing. That line, and the fury it unleashed, led to Nexstar (a large group of ABC-affiliated stations) refusing to air the show, threats from FCC regulators, and ultimately the decision by ABC to pull the plug rather than resist the heat.
Corporations protect themselves
The cold reality is that this was not a decision rooted in principle; it was a business calculation.
The FCC, under Trump-aligned leadership, made clear that there would be consequences for networks who aired Kimmel’s comments. Nexstar issued a statement declaring his words “offensive and insensitive,” a move that effectively boxed ABC in.
And when a corporation faces a choice between protecting a comedian’s right to speak or protecting billions in licensing and advertising revenue, there is never really a choice at all.
The bottom line always wins.
And long before this incident occurred, I have maintained that corporations—no matter how much they try to cast themselves as ‘families’—are nothing more than stone-cold institutions that only care about their employees/associates as long as those people are beneficial to the bottom line.
Don’t believe me? Tell your company’s CEO that you’re alone for Thanksgiving and invite yourself to holiday dinner…and see how that works out for you.
That’s the harsh truth: corporations aren’t built to care or to defend rights. They’re built to protect themselves. And when it comes to speech, if the cost gets too high, speech loses.
The government’s leverage
This whole episode also reveals the leverage the government holds when corporations depend on regulatory approval to survive. Even the hint of losing broadcast licenses can bend executives to political pressure.
What looks like a network’s “decision” is often just capitulation to the shadow of government authority.
But, this time around, the heavy-handedness of the current administration wasn’t even close to the shadows. The pronouncements from Washington, DC, sounded mafia threats as much as governmental oversight.
“We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” FCC chairman Brendan Carr said. “These companies can find ways to change conduct … or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”
In other words…
When that’s the climate, free speech isn’t a right—it’s a privilege, granted only when it doesn’t anger those in power.
WaPo says it well
Here’s how The Washington Post put it:
That’s a chilling sentence. And the fact that we’re already adjusting to stories like this as if they’re normal may be the most dangerous part.
What makes it worse is how many people I’ve seen—predictably, considering their political leanings—actually celebrating that Kimmel has been pulled off the air. To me, that signals a deep misunderstanding of what it truly means to have the right to free speech.
What would their reaction be if a president, or his regulatory proxy, were threatening Fox News over the content of the shows of Jesse Waters or Greg Gutfield? I’d argue that either one of those guys is more provocative and partisan than any late night TV host. But no one is demanding that they be muzzled.
Let me state this clearly: Charlie Kirk was as provocative as they come, but even he did not deserve to die because of his racist, bigoted, homophobic views on the world. He’s not a national treasure or bastion of virtue, but he damn sure didn’t deserve to be killed simply for being loud and obnoxious with his worldview.
The principle isn’t about liking or agreeing with the words spoken; it’s about defending the right for those words to exist, even if they grate against your own views.
Look, I don’t expect corporations to be civil rights champions—quite the contrary. But when individuals, even ordinary citizens who benefit from the same protections, cheer the silencing of someone they dislike, that’s alarming.
It shows how quickly people are willing to trade away a foundational liberty for the satisfaction of seeing their opponents punished.
A fragile existence
The Kimmel suspension is a reminder of how fragile rights really are when their defense is outsourced to institutions that only care about quarterly returns. Corporations won’t save free speech, because saving it isn’t their business.
But perhaps the greater danger lies in the way ordinary people respond. When the public not only accepts, but celebrates censorship because it happens to someone they dislike, it reveals just how willing we are to discard our own freedoms for the thrill of partisan victory.
That’s when free speech ceases to be a shared principle and becomes nothing more than a tool to be granted or denied depending on who’s in charge.
If we keep heading down that road, we may wake up one day to discover that none of us have much left to say—and no one left willing to listen.
Grace and grit to you! — LK
This is SO good, I've gotta share it!
Related