> But what's not protected is the consequences of these actions.

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.

The FCC s/can/should/ not threaten the license of a broadcaster for protected speech, but we are here anyways.

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.

The entire point of the 1st Amendment is to protect the citizens from being thrown in jail or being prosecuted for speaking against the government.

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".

There is no First Amendment right to an FCC broadcast license.