In the controversy about Carr and Kimmel, these distinctions are too often overlooked:

(1) Governmental action to restrict speech vs private action to restrict speech.

(2) Speech that does not use public airwaves and speech that does use public airwaves.

Often, both the Left and the Right strenuously attempt to distance themselves from political assailants. So it's hardly notable that many on the Right strenuously and (if the suspect is indeed the shooter) correctly denied that the alleged shooter was from the Right. So Kimmel's comment was pretty much pointless. Basically true, but pointless. Unless the intent was to sneakily influence people to think that the alleged shooter is not indeed Left leaning:

It is sneaky, dishonest argument from many on the Left to conflate the alleged shooter's own views with those he was raised with, as perhaps we were supposed to glean from Kimmel's comment that the alleged shooter was at root from the Right. The alleged shooter was, it seems, raised in a Right leaning family but he himself, it seems, leans Left. The fact that he was raised in a Right leaning family doesn't cancel that he himself leans Left. Indeed, reversing Kimmel's own point, some on the Left will do anything they can to make it seem that the alleged shooter is not Left leaning.

And Kimmel's comment was not comedy or even humour. There was no punchline or even irony to it. (The comedy was only in the next paragraph in which Kimmel pointed out that Trump, without a trace of self-awareness, segued his answer about grief over Kirk by pointing out how nicely the new White House construction is coming along.) I don't always mind a comedian getting serious during an act, but I am annoyed when comedians claim that their act, even including the non-comedic parts, should have a dispensation from responsiblity for its content just because it's "just a joke".

But it is ludicrous pearl clutching to claim that what Kimmel said disrespected Kirk or is even remotely in the same universe as "hate speech" (oh come on!). Much of the Right seized on the assassination to try to put the kibosh on virtually any criticism of Kirk by claiming it is "hate speech". That's so ridiculous. It was claimed that the Left and Democrats (virtually always, the claims are couched as if there is a monolithic The Left and The Democrats) were celebrating Kirk's death, as if, en bloc, the Left and Democrats were doing any such thing. Who, other than some crackpots on Internet forums and, as rare exceptions, a TV commentor or two, said anything that could remotely be construed as celebration of Kirk's death? I'd like to know what Democrat in national or state office said anything that could remotely be construed as celebtration of Kirk's death. I really would like someone making the claim to give examples with exact quotes. The Right is a wily adaptive creature - turning woke right back as a cudgel against the woke and woke-friendly themselves. Well played, even if crudely and transparently dishonest.

And Vance and Trump, for example, look ridiculous faulting the Left for claiming that Kirk's commentary included vile ideas, when we consider that Vance and Trump propogated the unconscionable lie - endangering local immigrants (legal) in that Ohio town - that immigrants were eating stolen pets, and even as, when it was made clear to Vance that the claim was a canard, he said it's okay for him still to advance it if it is effective in highlighting that immigration is a problem. Seriously, from a candidate for vice president?!

On the other hand, many on the Left are liable to do similarly if the situation is reversed. Thus the mindless, interminable tu quoque loop. Right and Left are both hypocritical and each is hypocritical for saying the other is hypocritical, ad infinitum ...

And especially ridiculously disingenuous and hypocritcal is the argument that Kimmel or anyone should be restricted from the airwaves on account of making untrue claims. First, as mentioned, the claim was, at face value, basically true (even if underneath it was suggesting an untruth). But more importantly, the airwaves are flooded with falsehoods and lies. Falsehoods and lies are the proverbial water we fish swim in. The President of the United States is himself the apex predator liar of those waters. And then all the way down to the most pathetic radio talk show host at the smallest, most hapless radio station in the smallest, most pitiable radio market in the U.S. If we censored the airwaves on the basis of truth, we'd have dead air across the dials and the proverbial after hours TV test pattern around the clock.

Meanwhile, what a juvenile mind the President of the United States has. He harped about Kimmel's ratings and the El Presidente's estimation of Kimmel's talent. As if that adds to the case for kicking Kimmel off the airwaves for speech that clearly should be protected.

But still, most crucially, the President of the United States, along with his team and many of his millions of supporters, took arguably the most salient philosophical and policy minded leap in American history across the cherished line that the government should back far away from imposition of censoring speech. And then the dishonest, hypocritical rationalizations for that.

Right vs Left and Left vs Right. It gets dramatically worse even from just one news cycle to the next. There is no hope for honest, rational national discourse.

I believe that currently Trump has a very easy way to end the Russian-Ukrainian war and ensure the victory of western democracies. He should make a public proposal to Putin on YouTube: Ukraine will voluntarily cede some territories to Russia, for example Balakliia and Izium, if Putin agrees to hold a referendum in Russia with the following points:
1) Unblocking YouTube
2) Unblocking messengers
3) Cancellation of 280 articles of the Criminal Code
4) Signing a peace treaty with Ukraine.
In the future, a 5th point could be added to these four: the return of 2013 territories to Ukraine in exchange for the lifting of sanctions against Russia. firstly, as we suppose, this point should not be declared, because in Russia there is the 280.1 article of the Criminal Code which prohibits public statements with suggestions to give somebody a Russian territory (this will prevent spreading the proposal by the Ukrainian supporters in Russia). On the other hand, the 5th point is important for calming Ukrainian patriots.
The gist of the idea is that Russia essentially consists of three peoples: an apolitical majority and two minorities - democracts and anti-democratic “vatniks”. Authoritarianism in Russia is based on widespread "sectarianism": everyone only makes friends with people who think like them. "Vatniks" talk only with other vatniks, and they believe they are the majority. If the referendum is held, most Russians will probably vote for all points, and the vatniks will experience cognitive dissonance; they will realize they are a minority, and their views will start changing. If Putin refuses to hold the referendum, the fact of the refuse will make the Russians change their views too.
The goal of this plan is to force Putin to implement democratization in Russia.