| ▲ | Sparkle-san 13 hours ago |
| > The ABC late-night host’s remarks constituted “the sickest conduct possible,” FCC chair Brendan Carr told right-wing podcaster Benny Johnson on Wednesday. Carr suggested his FCC could move to revoke ABC affiliate licenses as a way to force Disney to punish Kimmel. Regardless of what Kimmel said and if you think it was appropriate or not, we are seeing this administration use this as an opportunity to trample on the free speech rights of everyone they disagree with. If everyone's rights are not protected, then nobody's are. |
|
| ▲ | davesque 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| You don't have to disregard what Kimmel said, because he hardly even said anything. Relevant portion is the first 8 mins of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j3YdxNSzTk What, in the clip, could reasonably be referred to as "the sickest conduct possible?" No one with a healthy, functioning mind could possibly use that language to talk about Kimmel's comments in that clip. |
| |
| ▲ | denuoweb 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | Kimmel didn’t just ‘hardly say anything.’ In his monologue he framed the ‘MAGA gang’ as trying to ‘characterize this kid who killed Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them,’ and he mocked MAGA supporters while implying the shooter’s politics aligned with the right. That’s an asserted narrative, not a verified fact. ABC/Nexstar are within their editorial rights to pull segments that present speculation as fact, and none of that turns on whether his tone was mild. | | |
| ▲ | davesque 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | MAGA did, in fact, do their best over the weekend to cast the shooter as anything other than one of them. Comments made in poor taste? Maybe? Not really? No poorer taste than the president saying on Fox & Friends that he "couldn't care less" about promoting unity after the Kirk shooting. Next point, from NYTimes article covering this: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/17/business/media/abc-jimmy-... "The abrupt decision by the network, which is owned by the Walt Disney Company, came hours after the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Brendan Carr, assailed Mr. Kimmel’s remarks and suggested that his regulatory agency might take action against ABC because of them." So yes, ABC/Nexstar are within their editorial rights to make this decision, but that decision came at an awfully conspicuous time. So what, nothing to see here? | | |
| ▲ | nobody9999 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | >So yes, ABC/Nexstar are within their editorial rights to make this decision, but that decision came at an awfully conspicuous time. So what, nothing to see here? {Paraphrasing for those who don't get it] Brendan Carr: That Kimmel guy sure is a pill. Will no one rid me of this meddlesome comic? Hey ABC, It would be a shame if something bad happened to you guys, wouldn't it? In fact, let's do some investigating to make sure everything is on the up and up, yeah?[0] ABC: How High? [0] Right out of the authoritarians' playbook: "For my friends, everything. For my enemies, the law." | |
| ▲ | typpilol 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. | | |
| ▲ | rezonant 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Free speech doesn't mean freedom from government oppression? What do you think free speech, the right guaranteed by the Constitution, means? | |
| ▲ | Rapzid 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | From the government it does. Except for some "unprotected speech" carve outs, it literally does. |
|
| |
| ▲ | UmGuys 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's called entertainment. He's a comedian. You're opposed to free speech and favor government censorship. News and journalists are supposed to do facts, not literal jesters. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | denuoweb 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| What does free speech have to do with a private broadcaster like Nexstar Media Group determining what it considers appropriate on its ABC-affiliate broadcasts? Jimmy Kimmel’s remarks aired on ABC; Nexstar’s ABC stations are now choosing to preempt his show because they don’t want political polarization or misinformation on their air. Kimmel is free to speak on other platforms. There is no First Amendment issue here. Your claim commits a state-action category error by conflating private editorial discretion with government censorship. |
| |
| ▲ | afavour 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Not quite as simple as that. The FCC chief threatened ABC just today: https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/brendan-carr-abc-fcc-jimmy-... If Nexstar was acting in reaction to what Carr said there’s a First Amendment argument to be made. They also require FCC approval for a merger right now, it’s not difficult to see the quid pro quo potential. The argument would at least be heard by a judge. | | |
| ▲ | denuoweb 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | afavour 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > First Amendment ‘coercion’ requires a concrete threat backed by government power and a causal link to the station’s decision. Yeah. How about this direct quote from Carr? > I mean, look, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct to take action on Kimmel or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead. | |
| ▲ | kelnos 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It is incredible the mental gymnastics you are going through to try to paint this as something other than government censorship. |
|
| |
| ▲ | cosmicgadget 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Can you visualize a Venn diagram that has 'free speech' and 'the First Amendment'? | |
| ▲ | tzs 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >>> The ABC late-night host’s remarks constituted “the sickest conduct possible,” FCC chair Brendan Carr told right-wing podcaster Benny Johnson on Wednesday. Carr suggested his FCC could move to revoke ABC affiliate licenses as a way to force Disney to punish Kimmel Last I checked, the FCC is part of the government. | |
| ▲ | rezonant 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Your post deliberately leaves out the statements from the FCC threatening action, which spooked Nexstar who has business with the FCC. Maybe you weren't aware of this fact despite it being literally the headline shown on the very page you are commenting on: > ABC yanks Jimmy Kimmel’s show ‘indefinitely’ after threat from FCC chair | | |
| ▲ | denuoweb 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Your post deliberately leaves out statements from Sinclair and Nexstar themselves. "In a statement posted online, Sinclair praised the Federal Communications Commission chair, Brendan Carr and called the comic’s remarks “inappropriate and deeply insensitive”." "Inappropriate and deeply insensitive", but I suppose you, and the others here like you, believe it is appropriate and timely to spread misinformation as long as it fuels your narrative. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | chasing0entropy 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| "Free Speech" does not guarantee your employment; it promises you wont be arrested, usually; any combination of words can be interpreted as a threat. |
| |
| ▲ | Sparkle-san 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Pretty sure it's supposed to prevent the FCC commissioner from threatening to pull your license though unless you fire a particular individual though. | |
| ▲ | otterley 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The First Amendment protects people against much more than criminal prosecution. Cases I recommend you read include: Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of New York State Crime Victims Board, 502 U.S. 105 The New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d. 686 (1964) Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d. 789 (1974) |
|
