| ▲ | hypeatei 12 hours ago |
| [flagged] |
|
| ▲ | stogot 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| The “right” isn’t a single voice. Many voices did not cheer it but called it for what it was: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/ted-cruz-fcc-brend... The left is not a single voice. A few dangerous voices cheered assasinations while many decried it for what it was. |
| |
| ▲ | akkad33 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck,... you know what they say | |
| ▲ | hypeatei 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > The “right” isn’t a single voice. I disagree. Trump, IMO, has been a cult-like leader for the GOP since 2016. And he even called for more networks to lose their licenses over "dishonesty" after this incident[0]. Not to mention the multitude of scandals that we've seen like: law firm security clearance revocation as retribution for supporting Trump's opponents, deporting legal residents over their protest against Israel, and various lawsuits he's engaged in as President against media corporations, pollsters, etc.. who disfavour him[1]. > Many voices did not cheer it but called it for what it was "many" is Tucker Carlson and Ted Cruz? To my knowledge, they haven't called out Trump specifically for attacks on the First Amendment, only Brendan Carr. That's fine and dandy, but no one on the right seems willing to take the plunge for some reason on the huge array of issues that cropped up before this FCC threat against ABC. 0: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5514110-trump-ne... 1: https://www.ibanet.org/Trumps-assault-on-the-First-Amendment | | |
| ▲ | tomrod 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think rank and file folks are waking up a bit. Things are hard in the economy and tgey are seeing their moms, aunts, sisters, and daughters get impacted by reductions to women's healthcare. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | nostromo 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Nobody has any principles here my friend. There is a long list of people canceled for making content that displeased the Democrats, and now a few murders too. But yes, apparently everyone hates Disney and wants them to go bankrupt. So finally the left and right agree on one thing. Unfortunately for Kimmel, late night TV is irrelevant dinosaur so he better extract as much money as he can before he inevitably ends up like Colbert. |
| |
| ▲ | SimianSci 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | "long list of people canceled for making content that displeased the Democrats" If we exclude the people advocating violence and discrimination against others due to their immutable characteristics, we find that its not such a "long" list after all. | |
| ▲ | hypeatei 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > long list of people canceled This FCC action was censorship, not cancel culture. | | |
| ▲ | strictnein 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | What, exactly, was the FCC action here? Not comments by people at the FCC, what specific actions did the FCC take? | | |
| ▲ | hypeatei 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/18/media/brendan-carr-jimmy-kimm... When Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr suggested Jimmy Kimmel should be suspended and said, “We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” ABC and its local affiliates were listening.
On Wednesday afternoon, Carr tapped into preexisting MAGA media anger about a Monday night Kimmel monologue and used a right-wing podcaster’s platform to blast Kimmel and pressure ABC’s parent company Disney.
Those are the actions he took as an official at the FCC. | | |
| ▲ | strictnein 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ok, so no actions, just statements. I'm not defending the FCC chairman, he's a complete idiot, but we should at least be accurate, right? | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > so no actions, just statements This is mind-numbing goal-post reconstruction. If they'd issued an order, it wouldn't be final until it reached SCOTUS! Most regulatory interaction happens informally. A regulator tells a regulated entity to do something, and they do it. Public statements by the FCC commissioner are significant enough to make it into court cases as evidence of the Commision's intent. | | |
| ▲ | strictnein 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's not "goal post reconstruction". Someone said the FCC took actions. I thought I might have missed them actually _doing_ something, so I was asking about it. The response was to highlight the statements they said. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | The point is the FCC Chair making public statements threatening specific regulatory actions against a regulated entity is an action. You're trying to hold the word action to a higher standard than a judge would. The Rubicon was crossed. | | |
| ▲ | strictnein 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | > You're certainly very sure of what I was thinking, but you are again wrong Nope. You're confusing regulatory actions, broadly, with official actions. The FCC didn't take any official action. The FCC Chair absolutely conveyed a credible threat of official action in response to specific political speech; that constitutes a regulatory action. Like, the SEC announcing they're going to launch an investigation is a regulatory action. The Fed Chair saying they believe the job market is cooling is a regulatory action. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | zeven7 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | They literally said the easy way or the hard way. What do you think the hard way is? |
|
| |
| ▲ | shadowgovt 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Comments by government officials aren't protected free speech because government officials control policy. There have been market panics ended by the right words at the right time. It's a different kind of speech entirely from criticism of the government by those without direct political power. |
| |
| ▲ | nostromo 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Reuter's reported that Disney did this to protect the company’s interest and was not due to the FCC. https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/disney-says-j... | | |
| ▲ | shadowgovt 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | Protect the company from what? What is the quote you're referencing here? | | |
| ▲ | nostromo 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The decision was guided by what was in the entertainment company's best interest, rather than external pressure from station owners or the FCC, the sources said. | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | bayarearefugee 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > There is a long list of people canceled for making content that displeased the Democrats, and now a few murders too. The list I keep seeing from people on the right is Rosanne Barr and Tim Allen... who were "cancelled" in 2018 and 2017 respectively. My memory is bad, so.. who was the wokie leftist President in office in 2017 and 2018 again? | | |
| ▲ | jkubicek 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | We shouldn’t need to clarify this, but Tim Allen and Roseanne Bar were not threatened by high-ranking government officials, right? These are two completely different situations. If conservatives want to vote with their dollars and boycott Disney, that’s something I wholeheartedly support. If they want to use their power as federal officials to silence voices they disagree with, that’s unacceptable. |
|
|
