[flagged]

It's only cancel culture when the left does it.

And this one is infinitely worse than a bunch of internet commenters disagreeing with his comments or private advertisers pulling out. Trump and the FCC directly threatened to pull ABC's license unless they regulated his speech, and ABC caved. The first amendment is dead and people are celebrating on the streets because their favorite political party was the one to kill it.

	▲	bediger4000 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		My word! With all due respect that seems like a legitimate 1st Amendment violation! I assume those freedom of speech absolutists, like the NYT Editorial Board, are all over this one!

▲

refurb 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You were the one arguing “the first amendment doesn’t protect again consequences”.

What changed?

▲

hoten 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The government, via the FFC, used their expansive power to force a private company to censor speech.

I'm not familiar with what you are quoting specifically, but that refrain is typically understood to mean "the first amendment doesn’t protect against consequences ... except from the government".

▲

refurb 11 hours ago | parent [-]

I mean the FCC has rules around the content that can be put on public airwaves. It has been held up in court.

Whether the FCC’s actions are also legal here I don’t know.

But it goes to show the insanity of US politics that one can make an argument yesterday then argue against the same point the next.

But then again, I get the sense it’s all one circus with everyone well aware of what’s going on. It’s basically a performance where the audience knows the performer doesn’t believe it themselves.

▲

hoten 8 hours ago | parent [-]

It's an insincere argument that government censorship is equivalent to public shaming or canceling (or however you want to describe the "left"'s actions here). When the government does it, it's authoritarian. When a group of people do it, it's freedom of expression. There's a discussion to be had about how it may go too far or be extrajudicial (people being fired for non criminal activity), but it's markedly different from the force of the government.

This isn't some even handed application of the FCC's policies against hate speech (if that's how one cares to describe Kimmel's comments) or misinformation (is there even such a policy?).

You don't have to look far to see this is politically motivated: just this week a Fox host suggested that the homeless should just be exterminated. I don't believe the FCC has threatened Fox's broadcast license in an attempt to influence Fox to fire him

	▲	refurb 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Like most arguments online it’s a bunch of people with little to know knowledge of the actual facts filling in whatever details they want with their own opinions then getting hysterical over the hypothetical implications. I for one choose not to participate.

▲

bediger4000 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You right-thinking guys convinced me: cancel culture is bad.

What I don't understand is why it's ok if the FCC commissioner pushed for it. That does seem like a first amendment deal.

	▲	refurb 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The government enforcing laws on the books isn’t cancel culture? I mean if laws weren’t broken, and it was pressure alone because of personal views, then yeah that’s wrong.