FILE PHOTO: U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts poses during a group portrait at the Supreme Court in Washington, U.S., October 7, 2022. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein/File Photo

During a scathing commentary early Friday morning, September 19, conservative MSNBC host Joe Scarborough attacked the suspension of late-night host Jimmy Kimmel's show as an example of MAGA Republicans practicing the type of "cancel culture" they claim to oppose.

Kimmel argued that Tyler Robinson, the suspect in the fatal shooting of Turning Point USA's Charlie Kirk, was part of MAGA ideology — not a leftist. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr, in response, called for Kimmel to be taken off the air, and Disney suspended his show indefinitely.

In an article published by Salon on September 19, Austin Sarat— a professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College in Massachusetts — offers legal analysis of Carr's actions as FCC chairman. And he stresses that Carr's actions are at odds with the U.S. Supreme Court rulings of the past.

"The tragic assassination of Charlie Kirk is still reverberating across America," Sarat explains. "On September 17, Jimmy Kimmel, the host of ABC's late-night talk show, became the latest casualty in our post-Kirk world. The network announced it was suspending Kimmel indefinitely because of his September 15 monologue."

Sarat notes that President Donald Trump, on his Truth Social platform, responded to the suspension of "Jimmy Kimmel Live" by calling for two other late-night hosts — "Saturday Night Live" alumni Jimmy Fallon and Seth Meyers — to be taken off the air.

"As disturbing as Trump's reaction was," Sarat argues, "what Federal Communications Chairman Brendan Carr said before ABC announced Kimmel's suspension was even worse, and underscored the administration's convoluted view of free speech. The late-night host's comments, Carr said, were 'the sickest conduct possible.' Carr didn't stop there; nor did he honor America's free speech tradition, which says that we should respond to speech we find offensive with more speech."

Sarat continues, "Instead, he threatened to deploy the power of the federal government against Disney, ABC’s parent company, if it didn't do something about Kimmel…. What is, or should be, truly unacceptable in a free society are the kind of threats Carr made. Just last year, a unanimous Supreme Court explained why."

Sarat references a Supreme Court case involving the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS), led by Maria Vullo.

"In a unanimous decision," Sarat notes, "the Court held that 'Vullo was free to criticize the NRA and pursue the conceded violations of New York insurance law. She could not wield her power, however, to threaten enforcement actions against DFS-regulated entities in order to punish or suppress the NRA's gun-promotion advocacy'…. What Carr said clearly would fall within those parameters. But rather than fight back, ABC and its parent company Disney, caved…. No one should be fooled: The kind of attack Carr made on Kimmel, ABC and Disney will soon be coming to a podcast, radio or television station, university or civic group in your neighborhood."

Austin Sarat's full Salon article is available at this link.