Kimmel, Kirk, and Us

As almost everyone knows by now, Jimmy Kimmel had been “indefinitely suspended” by ABC on September 17, 2025 following his comments about the fatal shooting of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk.  A precise quote of his primary false offensive comment is, “We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.”  

Let’s deconstruct Jimmy Kimmel’s assassin-related comments and then educate him.

First, Kimmel referred to Tyler Robinson as a “kid” despite his being over 22 years old; so, Kimmel needs to learn the following facts:

• Primary elections: 21 states and Washington, D.C. allow 17-year-olds who will turn 18 by the general election to vote in the preceding primary election.
• Local elections: Some towns and cities allow citizens younger than 18 to vote in local elections. Examples include several cities in Maryland where the voting age has been lowered to 16 for municipal contests

• Voter preregistration: Most states, along with Washington, D.C., allow young people to preregister to vote before they are 18. The preregistration age varies by state, but can be as young as 16.
• An American can join the armed forces without parental approval at age 18. If a person is 17 years old, they need the written consent of a parent or legal guardian to enlist. 
• Approximately 61% of the Americans killed during the Vietnam War were 21 years old or younger.

Accordingly, Tyler Robinson was no kid, despite Jimmy Kimmel’s desire to find an excuse for the assassin.

Second, Robinson was in no way MAGA.  In fact, he was virulently, hatefully anti- MAGA. Moreover, Robinson was totally, delusionally opposed to democracy and free speech.  For instance, he justified murdering Charlie Kirk by saying, "There is too much evil and the guy [Charlie Kirk] spreads too much hate." So, an evil, hateful assassin projects his evil, hateful personality characteristics onto his target. And that targeted person was a staunch advocate for democracy and free speech.

Now let’s return to Jimmy Kimmel. On September 23^rd, a mere six days after being put on indefinite suspension, he was almost fully back on the air.  And by September 26, he was fully back. Anyone with two intact cerebral hemispheres is not surprised to know that Kimmel’s television ratings profited enormously from his hateful speech.  Here is a chart showing his audience ratings before and after Kimmel’s slandering Kirk:

Comparative Ratings Table: "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" Before and After Controversy

Period	Total Viewers	18-49 year-olds	Notes
1st qtr 2025	1.77 million	0.48 rating	Pre-controversy baseline
8/1/25	1.1 million	0.35 rating	Summer low
9/15/25	1.1 million	0.13 rating	Day of controversial monologue
9/23/25	6.26 million	0.87 rating	Reinstated with 4X baseline increase

That 400% audience rating increase over baseline is precisely what rewards and keeps the influencer hate going. But perhaps you would argue that free speech is precisely what Charlie Kirk was advocating and that is true.  You,  I, and the people next door should be able to say whatever we want, because what we say will not promote widespread violence or severe retribution. We simply don’t have the platform to distribute our biases across the nation. My professional opinion—for what it’s worth—is described below in a more academic-like style.

The Power of the Microphone: Free Speech in the Age of Influence

In democratic societies, free speech is a cornerstone of liberty—a right enshrined in constitutions, protected by courts, and celebrated in public discourse. But as the digital age has redefined who holds a microphone, the consequences of speech have grown exponentially. There’s a critical difference between a private citizen expressing an opinion and a public figure with millions of followers making irresponsible, derogatory, or violent political statements.

Influence Amplifies Impact

A private citizen might vent frustrations at a dinner table or post a controversial opinion online, reaching a handful of people. But when someone with an enormous platform—be it a celebrity, politician, or elite influencer of any kind—uses their voice to spread inflammatory rhetoric, the stakes change. Their words can ripple across society, shaping public sentiment, fueling division, and even inciting violence.

Free Speech vs. Public Safety

The First Amendment protects speech from government censorship—but it doesn’t shield speakers from accountability. Courts have long held that speech inciting imminent lawless action is not protected (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969). The challenge today is that “imminence” is harder to define when viral posts can reach millions in seconds, and when coded language or dog whistles can mobilize groups without explicit calls to violence.

Social media companies have grappled with this dilemma. Platforms like Twitter (now X), Facebook, and YouTube have suspended or banned accounts of high-profile individuals for violating policies on hate speech and incitement. These decisions often spark debates about censorship, bias, and the boundaries of free expression.

Responsibility Comes with Reach

With great reach comes great responsibility. Public figures—especially those in politics or media—must recognize that their words carry weight. A single tweet or soundbite can validate extremist views, undermine democratic institutions, or provoke unrest. The difference between a private citizen and a public figure isn’t just scale—it’s influence. And influence, when wielded recklessly, can be dangerous.

Navigating the Future

As society continues to wrestle with the balance between free speech and public safety, one principle remains clear: speech is not just a right—it’s a responsibility. The louder the microphone, the greater the duty to use it wisely.  Free speech promulgated and disseminated by biased, controlling elites is not free; it exacts profound costs by destroying democracy, safety, and civility. Jimmie Kimmel successfully parlayed punishment into profit.  He no doubt now has taught millions of others to do the same—a master class in how to divide and destroy America. Our children, China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran are watching and learning !

 

Assassinating Free Speech

To set this blog’s context, consider a 2025  pupil study from the non-partisan Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE).   As it does each year, the foundation surveyed 68,000+ students from250+ colleges. And their report was as follows:

Acceptance of Violence =  34%  of students say using violence to stop someone from speaking on campus is acceptable.

Acceptance of Shouting Down Speakers = 72% of students say shouting down a speaker on campus is acceptable.

Self-Censoring with Fellow Students on Campus = 24% of students say they often self-censor with other students on campus.

Self-Censoring in Classroom Discussions = 28% of students say they often self-censor during classroom discussions.

Low Trust in School Administration = 27% of students say it is very or extremely likely their school administration would defend a speaker's rights to express their views.

Mental health professionals, anthropologists, and biologists suggest that it is language that separates human beings most definitively from animals.  When animals experience fear, they attack, freeze, or flee. Some American universities are passively allowing their students to do the same. Thus, in a sense,  universities are reducing students to the level of animals. To me, that’s the biggest lesson from the recent university assassination of Charlie Kirk.

As almost all Americans have heard, Charlie Kirk was fatally shot during a public event at Utah Valley University on September 10, around 12:10 p.m. MDT. He was hosting a "Prove Me Wrong" segment as part of his American Comeback Tour when the attack occurred. A bullet struck him in the neck, leading to his death later that day.  Kirk was assassinated while speaking to an audience and was encouraging them to step to the microphone to comment and question.  Thus, he was living and promoting freedom of speech and expression at the very moment that he was murdered.

If you or someone  you know hear about Charlie Kirk's assassination and immediately think or say, "Yes, but what about the Democrats who have been shot or killed, I have a few questions:  "Where is your humanity??  Is life in America your political game of win or lose?  Have you no empathy for his wife and children?  Is your mental processing so constrained and impoverished that you are unwilling and/or incapable of thinking about long-term consequences for America, for you, and for those whom you love?

Regardless of your politics, you might accept the following likely realities regarding Kirk’s death:

The Loss of a Brilliant, Energetic Young Leader

At just 31 years old, Charlie Kirk epitomized charisma, drive, and youthful energy. As the founder of Turning Point USA, he skillfully mobilized a generation to engage with conservative principles. His death represents not just personal loss, but the abrupt silencing of a once-bright voice in political youth activism. WHAT DOES SILENCING FREE SPEECH DO TO AMERICA?

Devastation for Family and Loved Ones

The emotional toll on his wife, Erika, and their two children is crushing. Beyond the political impact, the family has lost a husband and father—his passing a personal tragedy beyond public perception. The ripple extends to friends, colleagues, and supporters who mourn both the man and his family’s loss.  WHAT WILL THE MURDER DO TO OUR SOCIAL/POLITICAL CLIMATE?

Chilling Effect on Student Gatherings

The violent targeting of a speaker on campus could push some organizers and attendees toward caution, even fear. Upcoming gatherings—especially large events or rallies—might now contend with heightened security concerns and hesitancy, potentially curbing in-person engagement. GIVEN KIRK’S UNPRECEDENTED SUCCESS REGARDING CONSERVATIVE YOUTH, WILL MORE  DERANGED CONSERVATIVE HATERS BE ENCOURAGED TO CONSIDER ASSASSINATION TO ACHIEVE THEIR ENDS?

Suppression of Bold Voices

Charlie Kirk was unapologetically outspoken. His death may lead others with similar boldness to reconsider stepping into the public arena. The fear is that the political arena will grow more timid, less open to outspoken individuals challenging prevailing narratives. WILL THE ASSASSINATION SUCCEED IN DISSUADING YOUNG CONSERVATIVES FROM SPEAKING OUT?

Loss of a Communicator to Youth

Few reached young conservatives as directly as Kirk did. His ability to connect—via campus events, podcasts, social media, and media appearances—created a bridge between political messaging and youth culture. His absence leaves a void in channels that blend youthful energy with political persuasion. WILL THE ASSASSINATION FURTHER PREVENT RATIONAL DISCUSSION BETWEEN YOUNG CONSERVATIVES AND LIBERALS/PROGRESSIVES?

Discouragement of Fearless Expression

In classrooms or campuses, the notion that dissenting or non-mainstream conservative voices might be heard is now marred by tragedy. Students may feel discouraged from speaking against dominant campus opinions, fearing repercussions—whether subtle or stark. WILL CAMPUSES BECOME EVEN MORE BALKANIZED THAN THEY ALREADY ARE?

Reflection on the Political Atmosphere

While it's crucial not to equate cause and effect simplistically, the incident does underscore the toxicity of polarizing rhetoric in American political discourse. Some observers may ask whether the current climate—full of extreme labels, conspiracies, and demonization—facilitates tragedies like this. Voices from across the spectrum have warned about the need to reject political violence.

Deepening Anxiety Among Teens and College Students

Youth—especially college students—now face more than academic concerns: they’re confronting the possibility that expressing political ideas is dangerous. The psychological weight of that reality could inhibit open debate and intellectual risk-taking on campuses, shifting the atmosphere from one of engagement to one of caution and conformity.

Unfortunately. Charlie Kirk was courageous to a fault. His final days were marked by growing danger. According to Pastor Rob McCoy, a close friend and spiritual mentor, Kirk had been receiving death threats regularly—hundreds, McCoy claimed. Yet Kirk never flinched. “Every day he faced death threats from evil,” McCoy said, “and he was never afraid of that.”

Are you and I courageous enough to take a stand against the partisan,  violent malignancy infecting our youth and ourselves?

Is Your Intelligence Becoming Artificial?

You probably have heard that our brains make up only about 2% of the body’s total weight, yet consume roughly 20% of our energy (Raichle & Gusnard, 2002). That disproportionate energy demand hints at the immense processing power locked inside the human mind—and why our species has always been strategic in managing mental and physical effort. I emphasized those strategies in my Don’t Rest in Peace book (McCusker, 2016).

From an evolutionary perspective, early humans were constantly , unconsciously calculating efficiency.  Accordingly, anthropologists and evolutionary biologists argue that our ancestors often sought foods and resources that offered the greatest nutritional return for the least effort (Kaplan et al., 2000). That logic of minimizing effort while maximizing reward didn’t end with the Stone Age. Modern humans extended it into the way we manage our time, as well as energy.

Enter artificial intelligence. Many of us embrace AI because it saves time, reduces mental strain, and increases efficiency. Just as our ancestors preferred calorie-rich foods to fuel their bodies and brains, we are now drawn to digital tools that fuel productivity with minimal effort. Yet this evolutionary impulse raises an important question: when should we rely on AI, and when should we rely on our own cognition?

The answer may lie in a cost-benefit analysis. Using AI comes with obvious gains: speed, convenience, and access to information. But there are also hidden costs. If we allow AI to handle too much of our mental workload, we may weaken our memory, problem-solving skills, and even creativity over time (Mitchum & Kelley, 2023). On the other hand, strategic use of AI—such as delegating repetitive or low-level tasks—can free us to focus on higher-order thinking and creative work.

The gains versus costs issue was empirically studied by Nataliya Kosmyna, et al.(2025) at MIT’s Media Lab, with collaborators from Wellesley College and Massachusetts College of Art and Design. The research deserves our careful attention.  

Let’s begin with the methodology: 54 participants were asked to write SAT-style essays under three different conditions: Brain-only: Write without any external aid; Search engine: Use Google to assist; and LLM (ChatGPT): Use ChatGPT to assist.  This setup obtained across three sessions. In a fourth session, participants switched: those who had used AI changed to writing unaided (LLM-to-Brain), and vice versa (Brain-to-LLM).   

Measurements were as follows: Participants wore EEG headsets to monitor brain activity (cognitive neural connectivity across alpha, beta, theta bands, etc.). Researchers also analyzed the writing for originality, linguistic patterns, and had humans and AI evaluate the essays. Post-task interviews assessed recall and ownership.

Neural engagement assessment found that the brain-only group showed the highest and most widespread neural connectivity, indicating deep cognitive engagement. The search engine group fell in the middle—more engaged than the AI group, but less than brain-only. And The LLM (AI) group had the weakest neural engagement, suggesting cognitive offloading and diminished mental processing. 

Regarding memory and ownership, over 83% of the AI users (LLM group) couldn't quote their own essays, versus only 11% in the other groups. AI user essays appeared more formulaic and less original, and they reported feeling less ownership of the content.

The most surprising research finding was the persistence of  the cognitive effects.  For instance, in the final session, participants who had initially used AI and switched to writing unaided did not recover their earlier neural engagement—they remained under-engaged. By contrast, those who began writing unaided and then used AI (Brain-to-LLM) showed increased neural connectivity, almost matching the search engine group. The researchers coined “cognitive debt” to describe the long-term cost of over-relying on AI.  Thus, while AI could ease immediate effort, it appeared to erode critical thinking, creativity, memory retention, and essay ownership.

I must underscore something obvious: The MIT study involved only 54 subjects. That is hardly a ringing endorsement to its reliability and validity.  Its findings may or may not be replicated in the future. Most important is that the study found exactly what I expected it to find.  Maybe this is just one example of my confirmation bias.  

Regardless, for me, the best way forward is not to use AI as a replacement for human effort, but as a partner. Just as the body regulates how much energy goes to the brain and other systems, we can regulate how much work we give to AI versus how much we keep for ourselves. The challenge is to strike a balance: gaining the efficiency AI provides without losing the unique cognitive strengths that make us human. In this sense, using AI should not merely be an evolutionary continuation of our search for maximum return on minimal effort. We must mindfully balance  not only calories, but our time, attention, and intellectual engagement.

References

Kaplan, H., Hill, K., Lancaster, J., & Hurtado, A. M. (2000). A theory of human life history evolution: Diet, intelligence, and longevity. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 9(4), 156–185. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6505(2000)9:4<156::AID-EVAN5>3.0.CO;2-7

Kosmyna, N., Hauptmann, E., Yuan, Y. T., Situ, J., Liao, X.-H., Beresnitzky, A. V., Braunstein, I., & Maes, P. (2025). Your brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of cognitive debt when using an AI assistant for essay writing task. MIT Media Lab. https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08872 

McCusker, P. J. (2016). Don't Rest in Peace: Activity-Oriented, Integrated Physical and Mental Health (New York: Amazon).

Mitchum, A. L., & Kelley, C. M. (2023). The “Google effect” in the age of artificial intelligence: How reliance on external memory systems may impact learning and cognition. Memory & Cognition, 51(6), 1249–1264. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-023-01485-9

Raichle, M. E., & Gusnard, D. A. (2002). Appraising the brain’s energy budget. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(16), 10237–10239. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.172399499