Jimmy Kimmel’s TV program was suspended indefinitely by the ABC for comments made on Donald Trump and on the sorceress in relation to the killing of Charlie Kirk. The president did not take the conductor’s words well, and given that he is notoriously one who acts democraticly intervened immediately to “suggest” the cancellation of the program. Since Kimmel is based on a comedian, his program is not properly informative, but it is precisely the sharp comment on the current events. In short, it is a satirical program, which therefore has a duty, almost, to criticize and make fun of the authority. In this case, the terrible statements consisted in accusing the sorceress to exploit Kirk’s murder for political purposes and in criticizing the reaction of Trump, committed to announcing the construction of a new dance hall for the White House. The comedian ironized on the thing by asserting that Trump expresses his condolence as a child would express him for the death of his fish.

Is it acceptable that the government cannot be criticized?

Phrases not particularly offensive, if not for a susceptible and untouchable character like Donald Trump. Which, therefore, uses its power to punish – this is the right word – who dared to criticize it. Being silenced because the president has criticized is something that takes place under an autocratic government, not in democracy: how is it possible then that so many people agree with the action of the president, and consider it right? Not only that: the fun thing is that this story was used to reiterate that Kirk’s ideas had to be freely expressed, because if we limit the freedom of word of one due to the danger of his ideas one tomorrow we could be the one to see ours limited. In fact, who decides what is right and what is wrong? You wanted to censor Kirk, and this has twisted on it: you can also censor.

Words do not all have the same weight

The reasoning clearly makes no sense, because democratic societies have already established limits to personal freedom for some time, which must not harm that of others, and sanction those who incite racial or gender hatred. And it is in fact very easy to explain why Kirk’s words were unacceptable, while Kimmel’s those should not have been sanctioned: Kirk surreptitically spread (but not so much) I hate against weak categories, helping to create a political climate of intolerance and astio. On the contrary, Kimmel is a television conductor who adopts a satirical cut in all the episodes of his program, claiming the right of satire, and who has not said anything dangerous for the cohesion of civil society. His words do not consequently have the legitimacy of violent and illiberal ideas. There is a big difference between expressing dissent and diminishing the rights of entire categories of people.

In addition, Kimmel is precisely a comedian, one who has a TV program; It is certainly able to influence people, because it still has a certain media power, but has no link with politics. In other words: his words have not directed consequences on the action of a government, nor do they aim to propagate and justify the action itself. Kirk was closely connected to Trump, and the sorceress movement is expressly supported and shared by the president. This means that when Kirk went to colleges to “debate” with the students, using miserable rhetorical strategies to appear winner and to protect himself in advance from the accusations of intolerance, he was not only influencing the public, but was carrying on a political program on behalf of the government.

The risk of forgetting what our rights are

So argue that any sanction of one speech is equal to the other is short -sighted and all too convenient. Here we are in front of a retaliation by a government, which has the power to impose on a television broadcaster to cancel a program, due to two jokes. If we do not realize how serious this gesture is, of how dangerous the more and more despotic drift is that governments are taking, we are only letting our rights of human beings and citizens (among which they do not include horrible things about immigrants or women who want to abort) are progressively eroded.