[flagged]

▲ markoman 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Except that Kimmel's job was speech. He had a microphone -- and depended upon that (supposedly God-given) freedom of speech to perform that job. If he lost that job due to something that right didn't guarantee, then I'd understand. His dismissal's cause had nothing to do with a failure on his part. Instead we now have the government, specifically concerned with his criticisms of it, effectuating this block of Kimmel's speech and thereby ending his job. The government is supposed to guarantee your right to criticize it. What happened here?

▲

sointeresting 11 hours ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

	▲	mrbombastic 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That’s not true

▲ romellem 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Except all indications are the show was pulled because of pressure from the government. The FCC threatening “we can do this the easy way or the hard way” is not constitutional.

▲ sointeresting 11 hours ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲ suzdude 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/tv/disneys-abc-pulls-jim...

Please, don't contribute alt-facts to the conversation.

▲ 3eb7988a1663 11 hours ago | parent [-]

The notable quote

  ...ABC's move comes just hours after Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr threatened to “take action” against Disney and ABC over Kimmel's remarks.
  ...“We at the FCC are going to enforce the public interest obligation,” Carr said. “If there’s broadcasters out there that don’t like it, they can turn their license in to the FCC.”

▲ 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲ StatsBlaster 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The FCC chairman threatened to take action against ABC, only then did ABC take Kimmel off the air. So insteresting and convenient you chose to ignore that.

▲ bediger4000 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Heartily agree, but the 1st Amendment is supposed to protect you from FCC commissioners, and presidents and vice presidents restraining your speech, and that certainly looks like what happened here.

▲

throwacct 11 hours ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲

Bratmon 11 hours ago | parent [-]

So if the government passed a million-dollar fine for criticism of the ruling party, you would find that acceptable?

▲

throwacct 11 hours ago | parent [-]

Any criticism is protected under the 1st Amendment, and that includes what you just posted.

	▲	Bratmon 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		But in this case, the government threatened to yank ABC's broadcast licenses (worth way more than $1m) if they didn't cancel Kimmel for criticizing the regime.

▲ cosmicgadget 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The comment you replied to said "free speech" which is different from the First Amendment.