How do you feel about Disney’s decision to pull Jimmy Kimmel’s TV show indefinitely following recent on-air comments about the Kirk assassination?

Support (27%) – "There are rumors Kimmel was on thin ice regardless and this was the thing that made the decision-makers' move pretty easy, which I tend to agree with. What Kimmel said was certainly not on the level of most of the atrocities we've heard within the past week, but it was pointed, uninformed and unhelpful, which our country has shown multiple times we don't have a tolerance for anymore. Also, you lose the opportunity to share certain comments when your opinion is representing a media giant like ABC, and he should have used a bit more discretion given the sensitivity of the topic and the fact that he's been in the business for a while. I don't have a ton of sympathy for people who make a conscious choice to put hateful, untrue comments out into the world and then get upset about the consequences of their actions. I don't think he should be prosecuted by any stretch of the imagination, but getting canned was an appropriate reaction by the network for his comments."

• "People on a large platform (especially broadcast TV under licenses) do have to expect scrutiny. If Kimmel made claims that aren’t backed up, or framed things in a way that many believe mislead, then network oversight is justified. Networks have to balance their freedom to allow hosts to express opinions with obligations: to accuracy, to avoid defamation, and to avoid unnecessarily inflaming divisions. If affiliates or viewers felt Kimmel crossed a line, ABC can’t ignore that entirely. In a healthy system, if a broadcaster or speaker is called out, ideally, there's room for response, clarification, and correction. If Kimmel’s remarks were misinterpreted, or if he didn’t have solid evidence, then pushing back is fair."

"As an elementary school teacher, anything that I say or post is subject to my being removed from my job. Yes, I have "free speech," but I also have a responsibility to be a decent human and not make my students or students' families feel that I am trying to influence student perspectives. I would absolutely expect to lose my position had I posted some of the horrific things people have posted since Charlie Kirk died. While I don't think the government should influence that, I do think the companies who are firing people have every right to do so when the employee's comments and posts will lose them money. What I find interesting is that the party of cancel culture doesn't seem to like it when they get canceled."

Oppose (66%) – "I believe that public companies have the right to control the public message and image of what is said by their employees, so I don’t oppose this on the grounds of Jimmy Kimmel’s rights. I do however think that the FCC involvement and threats could represent a 1st amendment rights violation. Further, I think that the comments are being blown out of proportion, as having seen the video and read a transcript it seems that the claims that he was “celebrating” Charlie Kirk’s murder don’t seem to line up with what he said. He was actually criticizing other people for their reactions to Kirk’s murder, not Kirk himself or talking positively about his killing."

• "Aside from my worry that law and order in the US seems to be losing ground slowly but steadily, I think President Trump is shooting himself in the foot with this action. Sensible Republicans have already noted that setting such a precedent, which suggests that using government power to curb political opponents is suddenly mainstream, can easily backfire after the next elections"

"Primarily, because there was nothing inflammatory or hateful said by Kimmel, he didn’t incite violence or celebrate the killing of Kirk. He simply mocked the President and his supporters. But secondly and more importantly, the very ideals of Kirk of free and open debate, which are enshrined in the first amendment of the constitution, (with some limitations), which entitled Kimmel to mock the President was infringed by canceling Kimmel's show (which didn’t trigger those guardrails against limits in hate speech. ) blatant government censorship, Trump had called for the company to drop Kimmel, and they did. These are not republican values"

• "The freedom of speech is what makes America great. You don’t have to be afraid to speak your own mind, to hold beliefs contrary to the majority, or to speak out against the government for fear of repercussions and retaliation. There shouldn’t be any! That’s the point! And every step this administration takes to undermine that freedom, the closer we get to the downfall of our democracy. And I do mean total upheaval. If you don’t like what Kimmel says, don’t watch him. End of story."

"I do not support Disney’s decision to pull Kimmel; however I also understand that the threats made to them could impact more than just one show. It is a sad state when our government uses threat as a way to get what they want."

• "While I completely understand- and even support -people receiving consequences for things they say, and believe that does not infringe on the First Amendment, the cancelation of Jimmy Kimmel's show was not that. This is a campaign by the government to silence somebody who didn't even say anything terrible- it was a statement of fact. This complete blocking of Kimmel, pushed by government officials, is exactly what the First Amendment was supposed to prevent."

Unsure/other (7%) – "From what I’ve read the firing was a financial decision more than a free speech decision. Everyone can go back and forth on this I definitely have to watch my public speech even when I am not at my job, because of my profession and the expectation of decency. I can debate respectfully in a one on one or small group. He can probably find a place that he can freely express his views on a pod cast or create his own new letter."