Freedom of speech is protected. That people are celebrating a man's death, and worse yet, justifying it, is evil but still protected. But what's not protected is the consequences of these actions. I don't want to live, work, etc... next to someone who thinks that it's ok to commit acts of violence against others just because we don't share the same views.
But this is protected in this case.
I can unfriend you on Facebook for saying “I’m not sad he’s dead”. (And to be clear, Kimmel didn’t even go that far.) I can kick you out of my birthday party. I can complain to your employer. They can fire you. (They can fire you for having tattoos, or red hair!)
But the government cannot do these things. That is the entire point of the First Amendment. The FCC can not threaten the license of a broadcaster for protected speech, but we are here anyways.
Where do you see that here? The FCC chairman just said that "...broadcasters are entirely different than people that use other forms of communication. They have a license granted by is at the FCC, and that comes with it an obligation to operate in the public interest".
"[g]overnment officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors"[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association_of_...
They absolutely can do it as they've just shown. It's not like they are unable to do it. It's that they shouldn't do it. There's a big difference.
Also, non-normative sexual behavior is more indicative of being a Republican ("I have a wide stance!", etc, etc, etc). Democrats just espouse not beating yourself up over it, whereas Republicans seemingly yearn for the closet.
But that still only includes a subset of views?
I mean what you are saying is right. But these people were perfectly fine with ignoring or sometimes outright endorsing political violence until one of their own was the target. That does not seem extremely hypocritical?