The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"Trump's FCC Head Went Too Far When He Threatened Disney over Jimmy Kimmel's Charlie Kirk-Related Comments"
From Paul Mirengoff (Ringside at the Reckoning); much worth reading. Mirengoff and his coauthor Bill Otis are my go-to people for hardheaded, pragmatic, but principled conservative views. They tend to be somewhat more conservative than I am, but I always find their work interesting (and well-written). An excerpt:
ABC pulled Kimmel off the air shortly after Carr's remark. However, the suspension also followed media giants Nexstar and Sinclair saying they would no longer carry Kimmel's show on their affiliates.
Thus, one can argue that Carr's statement did not cause the suspension of Kimmel's show. Maybe it was just Nexstar and Sinclair that caused it. And maybe Nexstar, which like Disney and Sinclair, has business before the FCC (such as seeking approval to acquire Tegna, another media company, in a $6.2 billion dollar deal), wasn't influenced by what Carr said. Maybe Kimmel's weak rating caught up with him.
But even if the decision to suspend Kimmel's show was based purely on market considerations and nothing Carr said, the head of the FCC had no proper business saying what he did. The government shouldn't threaten to use its licensing and other powers for the purpose of coercing TV networks into taking action against hosts who say things the government doesn't like….
For those who genuinely believe in free speech, it follows that television hosts should be free to level such insults — including stupid ones — without the government threatening consequences for their network if the network doesn't take action against the speaker.
In his statement, Carr relied on the obligation of networks "to operate in the public interest." But it is counter to the strong public interest in free speech for the government to make threats against outlets that present speech it doesn't like….
Highly offensive or not, the government shouldn't have threatened consequences for Disney if it didn't take action against Kimmel. If his comments made him too toxic for the network or affiliates to carry him, let market forces work. The government shouldn't put its thumb on the scale. The government should stay out of it.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
Jimmy Kimmel went out there and said the same bald faced lie that many Democrat Supremacist commenters have been saying around here.
It was incredibly irresponsible and dangerous. He put people's lives at risk.
---
Meanwhile, when the government was using it's power to directly influence banks and debank dozens of conservatives, I don't recall any media time being spent on it.
Today, both sides are playing by the same set of rules... and it's only one, whoever wields the sword, sets the rules.
Up until Trump 2.0, the Democrat Supremacists wielded the sword, and now the pendulum has swung back to the good guys and the Democrat Supremacists and the Permanent Loser Establishment Conservatives are squealing like little baby piglets.
I don’t think that’s right. Unless you live in a world of alternative facts.
Even if everything he says were true, that is still no reason to suspend the guarantees of the Constitution.
You mean the guarantees Democrats have shredded and shat on for years now?
No one did this shot before.
You being mad at Democrats doesn’t actually justify anything.
“No one did this sh[i]t before.”
I see you haven’t made it to the posts about how NRA v. Vullo applies to this case.
Bullshit. Elizabeth Warren did exactly this, Biden had agents consulting/approving what could be allowed on social media then there was the enforcement against average people as terrorists for disagreeing with school boards on how to handle confused kids. Then there is the fucking disinformation board you memory hole.
Carr did a bit of over the top jawboning but that's news from 10 years ago for Democrats, you've moved on to weaponzing law enforcement and entrenching ideological allies in the administration apparatus
At least TIP bothers to make an argument that has some link to reality.
"Elizabeth Warren did exactly this,"
When was Elizabeth Warren head of the FCC? Even if we ignore the difference between what a random Senator versus the head of the FCC can do: whose license did she threaten to revoke for speech she didn't like?
"Biden had agents consulting/approving what could be allowed on social media"
Even Zuckerberg, who says that Meta allowed the government to have more influence than he would have wanted in retrospect, doesn't assert that agents had to approve what was allowed on social media. And he also doesn't assert that they threatened Meta in any way.
You're jumping up pretty obscure things, mixing them with stuff that never happened, and pretending that's equal to what's happening here.
I'll just put you down as 'loves authoritarianism, and will lie to himself to rationalize it' and move on.
Ok, let's try this:
Fact 1:
Jimmy Kimmel said "We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them..."
Fact 2:
FCC Regulations state:
https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public-and-broadcasting#JOURNALISM
Do you agree with these two facts?
LexAquila, I don't think the word "foreseeable" means what you think it means.
It was foreseeable that Lex would get his feelings hurt.
I asked you a yes or no question about two facts.
If you weren't such a Democrat Supremacist fanatic, maybe you would've caught that.
No, you didn't as me. I hadn't been online when you posted your drivel.
But now that you have asked, the fact that Jimmy Kimmel stated the words that you attribute to him is true. His antecedent comment is a statement of his opinion. I have no doubt that he in fact held and holds that opinion. Opinions, btw, are incapable of being true or false.
As to what you characterize as "fact 2," I don't doubt that the language you quoted appears somewhere in FCC Regulations (even though you don't provide a citation -- a failure which is bad form).
I strongly dispute that the regulations, even if accurately quoted, apply to this situation. The monologue was delivered on live television. (The title of the show -- Jimmy Kimmel Live! -- should have given you a clue.) No station licensee could possibly have known that the information was "false" Mr. Kimmel could have solemnly asserted on live television, "The earth is flat," and the FCC regulation you site would have been inapplicable.
Your comment above, LexAquila, indicates that your understanding of both "directly caus[ing] substantial public harm" and foreseeability is pathetic.
Well that's just too clever for words. Look up "live to tape" and get back with us.
NG: "The title of the show [...] should have given you a clue."
Oops. So that wasn't a clue.
Clueless. But he won't miss a beat. It changes nothing.
Fact 1 is generally true. It is possible that not every MAGA member shared that belief but posted comments online support Kimmel's statement.
Fact 2 is true insofar as it is a FCC regulation but I don't see how the regulation is applicable in this case.
Mike Adamson 1 hour ago
Fact 1 is generally true. It is possible that not every MAGA member shared that belief but posted comments online support Kimmel's statement."
Fact number 1 was known to be likely false within hours of the shooting based on the writing in the shell casings which was 25-30 hours before the shooter was apprehended.
Fact number 1 was confirmed to be false and well known to be false when the shooter was identified approx 34 hours after the shooting.
Another commenter fails to note the show title: "Jimmy Kimmel Live!"
your comment is not relevant to the facts in this case (other than the title to the show which is not relevant)
Fact 1 was not known as false at the time.
As for Fact 2... even if Kimmel was willfully wrong about Fact 1 it's also true that Fox News promoted a fantastic number of lies regarding the 2020 election, lies for which they paid a settlement of $787 million.
I'm not sure how you justify pulling Kimmel but let Fox off after a months long campaign of misinformation on the 2020 election alone.
Come on. "New lows," "desperately trying," and "anything other" all clearly communicate that it was a certainty that the shooter was "one of them."
So even if someone wanted to pretend that on Monday night it was still up in the air whether the guy banging the transvestite furry might somehow end up being a right-winger, it was certainly "known as false" that he definitely was.
Is this going to be your "standard" going forward, or is it just for this "special" situation?
I'm really not sure what sort of two-faced gotcha you think you're flagging here. Can you please elaborate?
And as I just noted in the open thread, Kimmel's contract was up in a matter of months and was almost certainly not going to be renewed. I suspect there wasn't any measurable upside in keeping him on and trying to manage the PR nightmare after he dropped this IDGAF-laced grenade in their laps.
This is the correct answer (above).
If this is what happened, it was a huge miscalculation on Disney's part. Libs only very recently stopped hating Disney. It won't take much for us to remember, and this'll certainly be enough. Now that Andor's over, there's no reason to keep our Disney+ subscriptions, and this is a great reason to cancel en masse.
Your terms are acceptable. Disney pretty much lost the plot at least a decade ago.
myself 55 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"Fact 1 was not known as false at the time."
MyS - Not sure what point you are trying to make - That kimmell statement was not known to be false at the time he made it?
If that is what you mean with your comment, then that characterization is absolutely false. It was known within just a few hours (at least 24 hours before he was caught) that the shooter was far left based on writings on the shell casings. It was Confirmed that the shooter was far left when he was apprehended and he was publicaly identified.
The writings on the shell casings are ideologically unintelligible. They betray someone familiar with online memes and gamer culture, but the reference to "fascist, catch" and the "if you read this ur gay lmao" at best offset each other.
1. The engraving on the shell casings was not known "within just a few hours."
2. Initial reports about writing on shell casings were not actually correct — it was claimed that they referenced transgender ideology, which they did not. (It was also claimed they mentioned fascism, which was true. Initial reports are often unreliable, is the point.)
3. Until the shooter was caught and metaphorically dissected, the engravings wouldn't be dispositive anyway; it could've represented a false flag.
4. He has not been identified as "far left." (I'm not claiming he's not left of center; I'm saying that I haven't seen anything suggesting any "far" ideological positions. Maybe you're trying to claim that being willing to kill ipso facto makes someone "far," but that's not true; it just makes someone violent.)
5. He certainly had not been identified as far left at the time Kimmel spoke; there were lots of rumors floating around.
Fact 1 isn't even false because it isn't saying that the shooter was a member of the "MAGA gang." Kimmel simply said that the MAGA gang was desperately trying to prove that the shooter wasn't ideologically aligned with them and, in the process, reached new lows. Some false information I saw on that front included claims that the shooter was trans and/or had written pro-trans messages on the bullet casings.
Right. How do you prove such a statement is false? Who is the "MAGA gang" and where do I go to see what that organization's position was in the aftermath of the shooting?
It is simply a political bitch, a whiny statement of opinion that is largely misguided, but it is in no way a false statement.
Kimmel said that although he said more than that.
What is the "false information concerning a crime or catastrophe" though?
How would it "cause[] substantial public harm"?
Fact 1 is true in that he said it. And also true in that what he said is true and still is true. Regardless of whether or not the shooter was MAGA, the MAGA right did indeed work very hard to make sure people would not think he was. I watched most of the people here engage very vigorously in that work well before anybody knew who the shooter was or anything about him. And whether them doing so is a "new low" is a statement of opinion.
Therefore Fact 2 doesn't seem relevant to Fact 1.
How did what Jimmy Kimmel said put lives at risk?
Are you going to maintain consistency claiming that statements like this did not put lives at risk, or are you going to turn around tomorrow and claim that another person's statements did put lives at risk?
thesafesurfer, that is a dodge of DDT1958's question.
How did what Jimmy Kimmel said put lives at risk? Please give the particulars.
As I have said before, I suspect that being challenged to provide facts makes MAGAts break out in hives.
Ah, so THAT'S why you haven't been back to try to support your "Jimmy Kimmel LIVE!!!11!!1one" nonsense -- you're off chugging Benadryl.
No, it is my own question. Are you going to be consistent?
Roseanne Barr – Fired by ABC/Disney and her hit show Roseanne canceled overnight in 2018 after one tweet. Hundreds of cast and crew lost their jobs.
Gina Carano – Fired from The Mandalorian in 2021 for social media posts that didn’t fit the Left’s politics. Dropped by her agency too.
Megyn Kelly – Fired by NBC in 2018, her morning show canceled after comments about Halloween costumes.
Dave Chappelle – Netflix employees staged a walkout and demanded his comedy special be pulled for “transphobia.” The Left tried hard to cancel him.
Joe Rogan – The Left pressured Spotify to drop him, running coordinated campaigns and advertiser boycotts over COVID discussions.
Tucker Carlson – Taken off Fox News in 2023. Liberal activists bragged about advertiser pressure campaigns that helped force him out, costing thousands of downstream jobs.
Parler – Apple, Google, and Amazon colluded in 2021 to wipe the entire platform off the internet. Tens of thousands of small creators and businesses lost income overnight.
J.K. Rowling – Blacklisted from events, attacked by activists, and pressured out of projects for speaking her mind.
Two sets of rules — the Left can lie (Russia hoax, Covington kids smear, Jussie Smollett, etc.) and laugh about it, but the Right gets destroyed.
Accountability only ever goes one way. The Left has spent the last decade perfecting cancel culture, destroying jobs, nuking shows, wiping platforms off the internet, and laughing while people’s lives were ruined. But sure… Jimmy Kimmel smugly lying about a political assassination? Totally fine.
Wow.... you wasted a lot of time writing a bunch of completely irrelevant incidents.
The discussion is not about whether someone got fired for their views.
The discussion is about the President directing the head of the FCC to get a private company to fire someone for criticizing the President.
I mean, that's not really true. They continued the show as the Connors after writing Barr out. (Also, it wasn't "one tweet.")
In any case, I do not see the words "FCC Commissioner" in any of your supposed examples. I do see the words "The Left" a lot, as if there were some such organization. (I do like how you included many instances of people not being cancelled.)
Many people (me included) opposed this kind of thing when the left did it, and continue to oppose it when the right does it.
Are you for it or against it, really?
Wow, sounds like you think there should be some sort of government office to combat disinformation. I wonder if anyone will suggest that.
You mean like that office created under Biden that operated for four years silencing conservatives that none of you people seemed to be concerned about?
Supporting facts, LexAquila?
lmao, read the comment below yours.
How did you get so incredibly ignorant of current events?
How did you get so ignorant that you actually believed there was an office in the Biden administration that operated for four years silencing conservatives?
Yes, I specifically mean the office that Biden launched, and then quickly shut down after conservatives called it a fascist assault on free speech and the Constitution. Although you're a little off on the timeline: it existed for less than four months, between April and August 2022, only operated for one of those months, and didn't actually silence a single person.
But I guess it would be okay now!
What, exactly, is the name of this office?
It “was” called the Disinformation Governance Board.
So they shut it down because of the accusations from the Right?
Was the accusation true or was it false?
It was false that an office under the Biden administration that sought to track foreign governments' propaganda efforts aimed at American citizens was an assault on free speech and the Constitution.
Conversely, it is true that the present administration's overt efforts to punish media companies critical of the president are in fact a direct assault on free speech and the Constitution.
It was false.
But Carr is principled - the principle being fealty to Trump and MAGA.
I agree, it was dumb and FCC commissioner shouldn't have said it.
But in terms of legal remedies, the standard is would a person of "ordinary firmness" be intimidated by the threatened government action to curtail or change their speech. I don't think that is clear at all given that ABC was pressured by major affiliate owners:
"He also pointed out that local station owners have a lot of power over ABC, since those owners choose whether to carry ABC’s national programming. “It’s time for them to step up,” Carr said.
Two big station group owners, Nexstar and Sinclair, came out publicly and criticized Kimmel after Carr’s interview garnered attention on social media sites. Both station groups told ABC they would preempt Kimmel’s show, which likely led the network to pull the show nationwide."
Kazinski, while the "person of ordinary firmness" standard is objective, not requiring an actual chilling of the targeted entity's speech, it is clearly met here.
An ordinary television network executive is sensitive to the whims of the FCC chairman, especially where the network owns and operates local stations licensed by the FCC. The actions of Nexstar and Sinclair don't mitigate Brendan Carr's culpability. To the contrary, they serve as evidence of an "ordinary" networks lack of firmness in such a situation.
I agree, ABC may have grounds to go to court and complain that the FCC intimidated them, and despite being ordinarily firm, they felt they needed to cave.
That's up to them.
I disagree. This isn't some low-level drug dealer the police are roughing up. This is ABC--they have good lawyers on staff. Those lawyers would have begged the FCC to try to sanction them.
The Murthy case also cuts really hard against them.
It is not ABC. It is the actual station owners. And we know for a fact that those station owners caved to the threats.
clearly!
I agree, it was dumb and FCC commissioner shouldn't have said it.
But
Tepid tut-tutting of the authoritarian regime you still support doesn't mean much.
And deflecting to the networks as though there isn't enough blame to go around is carrying water for the regime.
“ Tepid tut-tutting of the authoritarian regime you still support doesn't mean much.”
Yup. The tut-tutting only counts if you support the authoritarian regime that Sarcastro supports.
Right. It wasn't that long ago Sarcastr0's were out there trying to cancel a 9 year old football fan.
He writes his comments as if the last 15 years didn't exist.
Trump has been pretty blatant in his use of lawfare.
Damn right ABC, Nexstar, and Sinclair were rightfully worried about government reprisal.
Given Trump's prior anti-media proclamations in combination with his rapid move upon reelection to go after his media critics and perceived enemies with executive orders and lawsuits, Carr's statements carry more weight.
The offending monologue is embedded here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ATqJc2MjDY It is not disrespectful at all to the late Mr. Kirk, and Mr. Kimmel's lampooning of President Trump is both spot on and Funny.
Brendan Carr's threats against ABC are despicable. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/17/business/media/abc-jimmy-kimmel.html?campaign_id=190&emc=edit_ufn_20250917&instance_id=162748&nl=from-the-times®i_id=59209117&segment_id=206111&user_id=86ac9094018f7140c62a54a4e93c075f His conduct may well be criminal according to 18 U.S.C. § 242, although he is at no risk of prosecution by Pam Bondi's DOJ.
Disney/ABC's caving to Mr. Carr's threats is craven. I am tempted to cancel my subscription to Hulu.
... but you won't
No, I won't. But I reserve the right to change my mind.
Opinions differ.
"It is not disrespectful at all to the late Mr. Kirk,"
I agree with this portion. Kimmel said not one thing that was disrespectful in this situation. He lampooned Trump and his supporters. We could argue whether his statements were correct or not, but that was purely political commentary. He should not be canceled for that.
Florida used the power of the state to go after Disney. Now the fed is threatening Disney.
Florida did not touch Disney. Florida disbanded the Reedy Creek Improvement District and replaced it with the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District with a different governing structure. The Walt Disney Company was not part of the litigation nor the legislation.
Disney may have had defacto control of Reedy Creek, but it did not have any legal ties to the district and suffered no legal harm.
Why did they go after Disney?
"I am tempted to cancel my subscription to Hulu."
That $20 a month will sure show Disney!
All power to the Resistance!
Just to put it into context why Kimmel may have been on a short leash, out of the late night shows Jimmy Kimmel was in 3rd place out late night talk shows.
Second place among 11:35 slotted talk shows, behind the cancelled Steve Colbert.
10:00 PM
Gutfeld! (FNC) 62 First-run episodes 3,289 -9%
11:00 PM
The Daily Show (COM) 38 994 -2%
11:35 PM
Stephen Colbert (CBS) 41 2,417 +1%
Jimmy Kimmel Live! (ABC) 42 1,772 -3%
Jimmy Fallon (NBC) 38 1,188 -2%
May have!
Pathetic.
The causality here is not muddy.
Oh come on, Kazinski. You're being ridiculous
Does anybody imagine that this had anything to do with revenue or ratings, rather than Carr's threats.
Mr. Carr, in an interview on a right-wing podcast on Wednesday, said that Mr. Kimmel’s remarks were part of a “concerted effort to lie to the American people,” and that the F.C.C. was “going to have remedies that we can look at.”
A Trumpist worried about lies. Droll.
“Frankly, when you see stuff like this — I mean, we can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Mr. Carr told the podcast’s host, Benny Johnson. “These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the F.C.C. ahead.”
Can we start using the f-word now?
"Does anybody imagine that this had anything to do with revenue or ratings"
Two major affiliates were pulling the show.
You should try harder not to be an idiot.
First, the affiliates pulled it shortly after Carr's remarks. You think that's a coincidence?
Second, one of them, Nexstar is in the midst of a big merger deal which, guess what, will have to be approved by the FCC. Another amazing coincidence.
Bob, these people are going to use threats, and sometimes act on them, to punish anyone they dislike. That's what they did with Paramount, and that's what they are doing with Kimmel.
Face it. This is who they are. Stop admiring, supporting, and defending them.
You too, Kazinski.
Just wait until you realize every last one of the people involved drank water that day. You think THAT'S a coincidence?
More seriously, I commented elsewhere on how the breathless Nexstar story sort of falls flat when 1) they only have about 10% of the stations, and 2) they're only about 2/3 the size of Sinclair.
Maybe, just maybe, the two actually just decided they were going to try to actually make programming selections more harmonious with the customer bases in the geographic areas they serve rather than just arbitrarily funneling the liturgical dreck from on high? Like they both actually said?
Maybe, just maybe, the two actually just decided they were going to try to actually make programming selections more harmonious with the customer bases in the geographic areas they serve
Maybe they did. Or maybe they were just coincidentally coming to the same conclusion at the same time - just after the Kirk assassination and the threats from Carr, and in the midst of merger negotiations Carr might not approve.
Anything is possible, I guess. I wonder what Thomas Bayes would think.
"We're only going to slash your revenues by 10%, so that couldn't be a factor" says nobody whose IQ hasn't been slashed by 10%.
Um, yes, that's the point. Carr threatened them and they announced they wouldn't air the show.
It can be simultaneously true that the networks kind of do want to kill off traditional latenight and that this was censorship.
It is certainly a lot easier decision to make when a show is costing you tens of millions, and the only reason you haven't replaced it already is you are bereft of any ideas.
Kazinski,
Trump is now threatening to lift licenses from broadcasters who criticize him.
Now tell us again how cancelling Kimmel was a normal business decision.
Don't be a damn fool.
I think that since the liberals have begun to indiscriminately kill conservatives, our sense of humor has been altered. Now we think it’s funny when you lose your job!
Oh fuck off. First, far more murders are committed by the right. Second, the murder here was not indiscriminate, unlike, e.g., Gendron's spree.
"far more murders are committed by the right"
that dumb "study" counted prison murders as "right"
It was rube bait, looks like they caught a rube in you
These people are never skeptical when the narrative creators send a narrative down to them that promotes their tribe, or otherizes everyone else.
There are still people here who think Kirk was assassinated because wasn't "fascist enough".
There are still people here who think a Walz campaign worker that murdered a Democrat politician on the heels of her public struggle session because she voted dared to ONCE with Republicans on an abortion issue did this because he was MAGA. Because that makes sense to them. All the other politicians who voted against abortion were spared, and the one politician who crossed the aisle was murdered when she got there.
That's what they believe is true. They live in an entirely different universe, ungrounded from facts and bound by emotions and lies.
You're going to need really small type to fit that on your gravestone.
“Walz campaign worker.”
Blatantly false. He was appointed to a volunteer bipartisan workforce advisory board.
Where do you cockroaches come from. We already have enough hayseeds here. Skedaddle!
"Now we think it’s funny when you lose your job!"
True. Gloves are off.
One thing I always associated the right with was compassion for people who lost their jobs.
After I do my morning prayers, I scroll the lists of Democrat Supremacists who lost their jobs and businesses, and then pray again that the list grows and grows.
Justice is righteous.
Who do you pray to?
Well duh, you’re an asshole.
Mirengoff is an inveterate never Trumper. And about as conservative as the governor of Utah. You're certainly guaranteed to get a skewed perspective by relying solely on his views.
And about as conservative as the governor of Utah.
I don't think this means what you think it means.
Exactly. The governor of Utah is quite a bit more conservative than Trump. Rivabot doesn't understand principles, you know.
It is a fair point that anyone having "principled conservative views" would ineluctably be a never Trumper.
Not many actual conservatives would call that guy a "principled conservative".
"Establishment Republican" maybe, but not "principled conservative". There is no conservative principle that says boys can be real authentic girls and should be treated as such in primary schools. None.
Paul Mirengoff did what, now?
If that is the Bill Otis who commented at Sentencing Law and Policy, he is a bit of a character and, at times, a bit off the rails. He does seem to be generally realistic.
A basic thing to remember here is that this is not a one-off. The guy also shot his mouth off about Colbert. He worked on Project 2025, too. The head of the FCC or even simply an ordinary member shouldn't act like a partisan tool.
Just some totally permissible government "jawboning". Murthy v. Missouri, 603 U.S. ___ (2024). The left fought for this and won.
Congratulations.
Except that, as Barrett pointed out in the opinion in that case, they actually didn't, in that the plaintiffs in that case "fail[ed] to link their past social-media restrictions to the defendants’ communications with the platforms." Thus nobody in Murthy v. Missouri had standing for the case even to be heard, despite the best, and seemingly intentional, efforts by the district court to misrepresent the factual record to invent said standing.
I'm just a casual reader/commenter, but it seems absolutely amazing that the aftermath of the murder of a champion of free speech is a campaign by so many to suppress speech. It just doesn't compute. If you don't like what Kimmel said, say something yourself. God knows that a lot of people have. That is the marketplace of ideas. You never win by suppressing speech, it just makes the thing you want to suppress stronger. The amazing thing is this seems to just be basic free speech principles. But seeing so many people going through so many contortions to justify this as somehow not suppressing speech is just ... amazing. "There's ugly speech. There's gross speech. There's evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment." Charlie Kirk
I don't recall any government trying to cancel Kirk's speech.
The crazy thing is that the speech wasn't remotely offensive.
It's more or less indistinguishable from any other late night monologue I've seen.
all of these people claiming to love Charlie Kirk, but who are fine with suppressing anything that could be deemed critical of him, clearly didn't understand or learn anything from Charlie Kirk.
Except Kimmel didn't even criticize Charlie Kirk. He made a general criticism of MAGA, and then he made fun of Trump for obviously not giving a crap about Charlie Kirk.
That was my take. I heard that Kimmel got canned so I rushed to see what he said. When I read it, I was like, "That's it?"
He took a jab a Trump and Trump supporters. He said nothing about Charlie Kirk or anything disrespectful about him.
It’s all part of the charade that Republicans don’t engage in messaging and that the mainstream media is all-powerful and creates the narrative to serve their partisan masters the Democrats. So in the dark days of Bush/Cheney right wingers truly believed Bush was the Dark Knight taking one for Gotham and that history would show Bush as a great leader like Washington and Lincoln and Churchill …but in the present Bush’s one failure was messaging and Fox News and Limbaugh and the right wing blogosphere were the little engines that couldn’t in the context of the all-powerful Democratic managed mainstream media.
Freedom of Speech. Not Freedom From Consequences.
It's the Paradox of Tolerance. In order for us to have a tolerant society, we can't tolerate this stuff.
Freedom of speech under the First Amendment does actually mean Freedom From Consequences, if those consequences are punishment by the government for said speech.
For authoritarians, it's not really about speech; it's about control.
Sadida: Yes to your comment. All of it.
Kamala/Usha
'Camel toe - feet-in-the-air - Harris is just another DEI hire nigger who screwed Willie Brown to get places'
'Usha - feet-in-the-air - Vance is just another black-skinned DEI dot-head noddy who screwed a politician to get ahead.'
One of these has been said over and over. One hasn't. They both sound pretty ugly. Now de-clutch your pearls juveniles and tell me again how opposed to hate speech you are.
Legs Spread Loeffler is the better comparison to Kamala…Loeffler gets hard nips when an American company ships jobs to China and a stock price increases by a penny.
What is the record (if any) of the FCC suspending a broadcaster's license and if so for what reason?
You wanna get rid of Disney?
Be happier to get rid of you.
Disney has been doing a good job of offing itself.
Walt's Cryo head must have exploded by now.
A good bit of Disney's revenue is LGBT. Why wouldn't they stick up for them? Ron tried to cancel them for it. Now a Disney asset (Kimmel) said some mean things, the feds try to cancel them. If only Disney had been doing this in the UK...you'd be outraged.
A more general observation here. Media are far too consolidated.
For a healthy climate of self-expression, the ideal ought to be one media corporation, standing alone, for every publishing operation. For each media outlet, there ought to be one proprietor (or partnership, or association), which owns neither other media, nor businesses unrelated to media.
Media set up that way would not be so vulnerable to government shakedowns. Under the legal protection of the 1A, they could laugh with ordinary humorous firmness at attempts by government to take them down. They could count on courts to redress damage caused by censorship attempts. Governments, in their turn, would have more to risk, and less to gain, by censorship attempts against multiplied and diversified smaller platforms.
Stuff the government can do to mess with entangled businesses of various types are harder to defend against legally than a clear 1A violation of expressive freedom by government. When you have a major media platform owned in common with other types of businesses which depend on government contracts or grants, you have a media platform perched precariously.
A side benefit of reorganizing media on that basis would be a national media ecosystem comprising far more independent voices, all in mutual competition both for business and for audiences of all ideological stripes. That would prove healthier for contributors who would have more options to get their contributions published, although to smaller audiences on average.
The marketplace of ideas would be more broadly stocked, and that kind of competitive striving would function better to propel the best ideas to the most-in-demand platforms. The major downsides of such a reorganization of media business would fall almost entirely on present-day media plutocrats, who have made themselves deserving victims.
"A more general observation here. Media are far too consolidated."
He says on a media site which isn't consolidated.
Anyone can start a podcast or YouTube channel or blog….do normal people still read blogs or is it just the Gateway Pundit that blogs?? I know nobody reads this zombie blog but the freaks that comment here.
So, the government bans swear words, suggestive themes, nudity, and all sorts of stuff from the airwaves. Pretty heavy handed regulation that is quite distinct from speech and publishing generally. And these things are ultimately political decisions, value-laden judgments that plenty of people would disagree with. So, while I don't have a legal or normative opinion on the issue, it seems like an interesting topic and difficult to draw any clear lines.
You cant discern any difference between a swear word and a critique of reactions to Kirk's killing?
Of course I can. But if you can ban someone from saying "shit" then you aren't operating in any sort of fully protected first amendment speech context.
That doesnt seem to get you very far. Banning "shit" and any permissible limitation-of-speech principle it stands for, is a long way from it being permissible to ban political critiques.
Where in the first amendment does it say you can ban profanity?
Profanity is not banned. You used it yourself in this thread. Are the police outside your door?
Watch Netflix or Prime Video. Profanity all around.
What the government does is say that over the air broadcast stations, which are limited, are subject to certain regulations because the public owns the airwaves and they cannot be effectively used if they turn into a free for all. Your specific objection to a profanity regulation was discussed and upheld in the Pacifica case.
So the government can make any law "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" because it is somehow able to prohibit someone from saying the word, "shit". Sure, that makes sense...
No. The theory of the government/FCC is that the broadcast spectrum is a public resource and the government has basically claimed ownership of it. To use it, you must get a license from the government. Even then, your license is not permanent, it has to be renewed periodically, the public can participate in that process and file complaints, and there are all sorts of other restrictions.
Now, it appears you want to talk about the Constitution. Ok. Where in the Constitution did the states delegate a power to the General Government to regulate communications, create the FCC and claim ownership of the airwaves?
"Now, it appears you want to talk about the Constitution. Ok. Where in the Constitution did the states delegate a power to the General Government to regulate communications, create the FCC and claim ownership of the airwaves?"
Let's see now. Are you talking about radio broadcasts and television transmission that stop dead in their tracks at state lines? Broadcast stations that accept advertising only as to products and services confined to the state of origination?
In the end, your entire comment is just flowery English without opinion. It seems like you're struggling to say something...so why don't you?
There's been a lot of really nasty responses to Charlie Kirk's murder. And what really stands out with Kimmel's monologue is how incredibly inoffensive it is.
He made a factual claim, which he unwisely thought was true but turned out to be false. And then he made fun of Trump for ineptly pretending to care about Kirk (he help talking about his ballroom). But he didn't even criticize Kirk.
The message the head of the FCC is sending isn't that Kimmel went to far. The message is that if you displease the President then they will find a way to take you off the air.
"Mr. Carr, in an interview on a right-wing podcast on Wednesday, said that Mr. Kimmel’s remarks were part of a “concerted effort to lie to the American people,” and that the F.C.C. was “going to have remedies that we can look at.”
Let's assume for argument that Kimmel is engaged in a "concerted effort to lie to the American people." Is that license for government to act as the Ministry of Truth and silence those who, in its opinion, tell lies?
And before anyone on my side says, "Well, Biden did it." Yes, he did. And we said that was tyranny. Why are we doing it once we get power?
You know the answer. Power corrupts.
"Let's assume for argument that Kimmel is engaged in a "concerted effort to lie to the American people." Is that license for government to act as the Ministry of Truth and silence those who, in its opinion, tell lies?"
Fox and Alex Jones have already been adjudicated in a court of law for lying to the American people. And they got sued into oblivion for it by the public entities who were harmed by it. And that's the way it should be. Separately, did the Biden administration try to shut down Alex Jones and Fox for the same acts? No, they didn't.
Those are discrete acts of libel against identifiable individuals. Vague assertions about what "MAGA" does or does not do is political opinion and cannot be a factual assertion.
People mistake the “Trumpism is fascist” label as just another meaningless pejorative. For good reason too because that’s how it’s used colloquially. But when looking at fascism as an actual historical phenomenon or political theory, it turns out it’s a very useful descriptor and predictor for the Trumpist American right at the moment.
Pretty much everything that has happened since Kirk was killed is entirely unsurprising if you’re operating under the assumption that we are seeing an ascendant fascist movement.
My only question is whether it is fascist or simply authoritarian.
My sense is that if you call it "fascist", you just invite them to bitterly complain that Trump can't be a fascist because he was not actually a card-carrying member of the Fascio rivoluzionario d’ azione internazionalista.
To me, authoritarianism seems too broad of a concept to be analytically useful or predictive.
Welp, the only MAGA-type posters who seem to have been peeled off by this open attack on speech are...wvattorney13.
The head of the FCC openly endorsing government censorshop got one of you to say 'nah, that's bad actually.'
Props to wvattorney13, jeers to all the rest.
Insisting it's not what it looks like in the face of the head of the FCC saying 'it is what it looks like, and I plan to do this more' is such a cowardly and weak attempt to cover for this shit.
If Carr went too far stating on a rightwing podcast excessively biased regulatory aspirations on broadcasters, what is the remedy? A court order he may not speak so from here on out? What of his speech rights? What of the Executives right to market its policies? Maybe the only remedy is still impeachment. And that still seemed terminally naïve to expect from the current GOPs willingness to cover for Trump’s mounting legal violations.
But now Trump has gone so much further with his laughably childish threat on broadcast licenses of any averse to him. His new paranoid standard. This offends the average school child. That suddenly launches impeachment of not only Carr but of Trump as a compelling demand to be made upon every GOP representative to soon face the voters. I was previously resigned to voting for neither criminal party. But right this moment I’m feeling Trump’s brutal casualties to the Constitutions speech and due process planks as more alarming than the Dems’ long inflicted casualties to law enforcement statues.
law enforcement statues?
Like Immigration law. But also federal supremacy of it.
You don't see why having state-by-state immigration laws presents a massive problem?
The Founders even figured that out.
But yeah, if you hate immigration and don't really understand the laws about it, the GOP will welcome you and feed your delusions to make you ever more angry and ignorant.
Sorry. I've calmed down enough to realize voting Dem would let them try to again negate the Second Amendment. So I'm back to refusing to vote for either lawbreaking party, hoping if it were widespread it may give a centrist contender a chance.
Oh, ffs. Dems are split on guns. Have been for a couple of decades now.
If Carr went too far stating on a rightwing podcast excessively biased regulatory aspirations on broadcasters, what is the remedy?
Ken White did a well reasoned thread on the possible "remedy" for this at
https://bsky.app/profile/kenwhite.bsky.social/post/3lz4kpz55xs2v
Worth a read. TL:DR; - there is no effective remedy under the courts.
Basically, if the government violates your right and there is no effective remedy or consequences for that violation, then you don't really have that right. That's where we are, folks.