The political right is facing scrutiny for its approach to cancel culture, particularly following the suspension of Jimmy Kimmel's late-night talk show. Kimmel's comments regarding the assassination of Charlie Kirk sparked controversy. His monologue included false claims, suggesting the killer was affiliated with the "MAGA" movement, and many found it lacking in humor. Critics argue that this incident highlights a troubling trend within the right, as it appears to embrace cancel culture similar to the left.

U.S. President Donald Trump expressed approval of Kimmel's suspension, calling it "great news for America." This reaction raises questions about the implications for free speech in a country that values First Amendment protections. Brendan Carr, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, indicated that he may have influenced ABC's decision to suspend Kimmel's show. Carr stated in an interview that he believes Kimmel's remarks were not in the "public interest" and emphasized the need for the FCC to enforce its public interest obligations.

In the wake of Kirk's death, right-leaning commentators have celebrated not only Kimmel's cancellation but also the firing of individuals who made offensive remarks about the incident. Critics argue that the right has turned the act of getting people fired into a sport. While many of the comments made about Kirk are seen as misleading or inflammatory, the response from some on the left has also been criticized for its insensitivity.

The discourse surrounding Kirk's assassination has raised concerns about the importance of free speech. Advocates for open dialogue argue that allowing all voices to be heard, even those with which we disagree, is essential for a healthy society. John Stuart Mill, in his book "On Liberty," warned against the dangers of suppressing ideas, stating that without discussion, opinions can become stagnant and lose their relevance.

The political left has been accused of stifling debate and silencing dissenting voices, leading to a loss of credibility. In contrast, the political right now finds itself in a position of cultural power but risks squandering it through retaliatory actions. While the desire for retribution is understandable, critics caution against the potential consequences of such a path.

There is a clear distinction to be made regarding speech that incites violence or threatens others. Those who promote violence or glorify political assassinations should face consequences for their actions. For instance, a teacher who showed a video of Kirk's murder to young students should be held accountable. However, the challenge remains in determining where to draw the line in enforcing free speech.