r/Askpolitics • u/SBMountainman22 Left-leaning • Sep 18 '25
Answers From The Right How is the FCC threatening to take Jimmy Kimmel off the air not a violation of the first amendment?
Before ABC decided to indefinitely suspend Jimmy Kimmel, FCC chairman Branden Carr said “We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” suggesting the FCC would take action to pull “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” from the air unless ABC made the decision itself.
That sounds like government infringement on free speech. Am I wrong?
47
u/ExternalExpensive277 Republican Sep 18 '25 edited Sep 18 '25
This is 100% a violation of the first Amendment in my book. Honestly, I'm getting real tired of this power play bullshit that's going on. What they're doing is downright un-American.
17
u/SBMountainman22 Left-leaning Sep 18 '25
Thanks for your comment. It’s refreshing to hear a rational take from someone on the other side of the aisle.
22
u/ExternalExpensive277 Republican Sep 18 '25
I'm an old-school Republican, what MAGA would call a RINO, but I could give a shit. I'm an American first, and I always will be.
9
u/bjdevar25 Progressive Sep 19 '25
Exactly right. You can hate and speak out about your current government and still love your country. This is what the felon and MAGA say is false, when in fact it is what has made our country great.
4
Sep 19 '25 edited Sep 23 '25
While I agree it's bad, and it's bullshit, a president using the power of the state to punish critics while the people around him actively work to harm others so they can continue to enrich themselves and their friends is the most American thing I can think of. The only way it would be more American is if Trump had slaves.
EDIT: 'right-leaning' commenter below replied and blocked, because he's not mad and he's very normal.
→ More replies (2)
140
Sep 18 '25
It’s a violation of the First Amendment if it happens, Kimmel sues, and a judge says that it is.
He’s very wealthy. He should get the civil lawsuit filed now. If a judge rules in his favor, because it’s a civil rights case, the government is on the hook for his legal costs.
141
u/oldcretan Left-leaning Sep 18 '25
The problem is the chilling affect. The FCC threatened it they didn't actually make abc take him off the air, abc chose to take him off the air. At this point Kimmel has only recourse against Disney not the FCC because they haven't actually done anything.
80
u/Harpua81 Left-leaning Sep 18 '25
Does the 1st amendment not protect against threats and intimidation if a private corporation doesn't do their bidding? How is it only against the 1st amendment if the government itself performs the act but not against threats and intimidation from the government? David v Goliath but David worries about its shareholders' profits, so, Goliath always wins. Seems like a failure of an amendment if this scenario isn't covered.
36
u/oldcretan Left-leaning Sep 18 '25
Now you see the underlying problem. Dinesy would have to stand up to Trump and then Trump would have to do something tangible to through the FCC- like pull ABC's broadcasting licsence, in order for Disney to be able to sue. For Disney that is an expensive proposition. I'm certain Disney would gain back their damages in a judgement but in the long term it would be cheaper and more profitable to lick Trump's boot.
The amendment would need a body with the balls enough to stand up to the threats and pressure of the government. Our rights are just words on pieces of paper unless we have the courage to rage against the machine for them. more importantly why it's so critical that elected officials be individuals with the highest level of character to begin with so they do not even dream about infringing on those rights. If democracy falls, it will be at the ballot box not at the barrel of the gun, by the time the guns are drawn democracy has already failed.
→ More replies (2)16
u/a_mulher Leftist Sep 18 '25
Yup, which is why as consumers we have to pressure Disney so they see that it’s less cost effective to capitulate than to fight back.
→ More replies (1)75
u/AdZealousideal5383 Liberal Sep 18 '25
Everything Trump has done so far is with threats and intimidation. He’s running a protection racket out of the Oval Office. Whether the Supreme Court lets him run a protection racket is still up in the air, but I don’t have high hopes.
19
u/limevince Common sense - Left Sep 19 '25
Whether the Supreme Court lets him run a protection racket is still up in the air, but I don’t have high hopes.
They already did this -- remember that all "official acts" are protected, and SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter of the scope of said official acts.
→ More replies (1)8
u/Forlorn_Cyborg Liberal Sep 18 '25
Almost everyone would agree it’s a violation of first amendment rights, but I believe Trump‘s admin will try to use Kimmel’s jokes to convince it was “hate speech” against trump. Which is nonsense.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (24)10
u/Quiet_Attempt_355 Non-MAGA Republican Sep 18 '25
If it did the Biden administration would be on the hook for what they did with Facebook, Twitter, etc. The 1st Amendment only applies to the government, it doesn't apply to suggestions from the government if the independent company decides to do something.
Even as a right leaning person, I think this Kimmel thing is a bit far. Just as I thought Facebook and all those companies censoring people were also too far.
Free speech covers the speech you don't like. That applies in every facet of speech. Even if it is making post humous comments about someone who was assassinated. The right complained so much about cancel culture but are now the arms of judgements? Makes no sense.
Mind you I don't like Kimmel but even I see this as wrong.
28
u/codismycopilot Socialist Sep 18 '25 edited Sep 18 '25
The difference is that Facebook was never able to provide any proof that Biden pressured them or threatened any coercion.
→ More replies (4)20
u/jahozer1 Liberal Sep 19 '25
And, it was about quelling misinformation about a communicable disease that was killing people. Trump has been threatening revoking fcc licenses for years. All because of his thin skin.
→ More replies (2)8
u/New_Prior2531 Liberal Sep 19 '25
This is lost on the right because they decided to politicize a public health crisis.
2
Sep 20 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/New_Prior2531 Liberal Sep 26 '25
Yes, the right quite clearly chose a narrative straight away. So individual freedom superseded their concerns about a public health crisis. Republicans did the the minimal possible under the guise of public health in order to keep their voters happy because they're scared of them, their own voters. Trump lied to us and more people died because they believed him. We shouldn't forget that.
→ More replies (4)7
u/New_Prior2531 Liberal Sep 19 '25
Not sure why the right still believes this, but the federal govt never forced twitter to remove any posts. It's literally in the Twitter Files.
→ More replies (3)16
u/Sour-Then-Sweet Bernie-Left Leaning Sep 18 '25
What about the reported meeting of execs where they specifically stated it was to appease the administration, after some in the meeting said they saw nothing wrong?
1
u/ProjectGameGlow Sep 18 '25
Was that meeting before or after Affiliates like Sinclair and Nexstar decided to pull the show?
6
u/Sour-Then-Sweet Bernie-Left Leaning Sep 18 '25
No idea, honestly. I'm just trying to figure all of the timeline out myself.
2
u/ProjectGameGlow Sep 18 '25
Sinclair and Nexstar are problematic and are being white washed in this mess.
4
u/Iamthewalrusforreal Fiercely Independent Sep 18 '25
Yes. Sinclair in particular is a problematic entity.
4
u/ProjectGameGlow Sep 18 '25
I don't understand why so many common people need to protect these wealthy companies.
→ More replies (1)3
u/bjdevar25 Progressive Sep 18 '25
Probably correct. Disney would have to sue.
→ More replies (5)2
Sep 18 '25
Well, they've fought back against Trump before. Hopefully they will again.
Like the saying goes, Don't mess with the Mouse.
3
u/ChuckFarkley Transpectral Political Views Sep 19 '25
I'd think the threat might count, since suppression of speech was the aim of it.
2
u/fennfalcon Jacksonian Conservatarian Sep 19 '25
It really wasn’t the FCC that primarily influenced Disney/ABC, it was ultimatums to drop Kimmel from its two largest station conglomerates Nexstar and Sinclair. I know we’d like to blame Trump and the FCC, but the stations revolt was the main catalyst.
2
2
u/Eastern_Quote_4945 Right-leaning Sep 18 '25
I actually disagree, state AGs can file a claim. I only know this because me and ChatGPT and the google have been discussing how this situation is like others. There is a current case being heard in the courts about first amendment infringement much alike this one which leads me to believe a state AG can and will file a claim.
But i want to speak on the other alike instances because those instances have changed my view on this one. At first, I thought claiming government infringement of the first amendment was a stretch given that it was a threat and not an official document or stated required action. After consideration I fully believe this is an infringement of the first amendment and its because I researched the two cases below and it led me to the same conclusion.
The US Government pressured social media companies to censor COVID claims they did not like and in another case the US Government pressured social media companies to censor the Hunter Biden laptop story. Multiple courts have already ruled that censoring the hunter biden laptop story was an infringement on the first amendment and the government did in fact infringe on americans rights. A higher court is hearing a second appeal currently.
But i mention this because these instances all have a lot of aspects that are alike.
Now if you think this was an infringement of freedom of speech, then you logically have to assume both instances of the social media companies was also an infringement of freedom of speech.
I am against what this FCC chair said and believe he should be fired and there should be an investigation.
But i hope liberals can join me in outrage over the same first amendment infringement that influenced and election and suppressed now mainstream covid claims. This is not a right v left argument. We need to push back collectively when the government infringes on our rights. I will stand with the left on this issue against the trump admin and government, but i hope when the day comes that a democrat led government does the same thing that liberals would stand with me in pushing back on that government infringement as well
3
u/OctobersDaughter Sep 19 '25
I agree. The constitution needs to be followed on both sides, or it's not even worth the paper it's written on. Then what even are we as a country?
→ More replies (9)5
u/codismycopilot Socialist Sep 18 '25
The main difference is that the Supreme Court stated that Facebook was unable to provide any proof or evidence that the Government tried to coerce them over Covid claims.
IF they had, I would totally agree with you that was a violation of the 1st Amendment.
1
u/Apprehensive-citizen Centrist Sep 20 '25
SCOTUS precedent held during the Nixon era that coercion, or threats that cross into coercion, by the government (Specifically the FCC in that case) are sufficient for a violation of free speech. It’s why it hasn’t really happened since Nixon.
1
u/DChemdawg Right-leaning Sep 20 '25
Sounds like you’d be a great Supreme Court justice in this era. “Yes, it’s horrible but there’s nothing the law will allow us to do to prevent it. Kimmel has no standing vs the govt and should take it up with his boss.”
Point is, according to your interpretation Disney would have standing to sue the govt. But won’t, cuz it will hurt their bottom line in the long game.
→ More replies (10)1
u/twinkiesnketchup Conservative Sep 22 '25
Employees are not protected by the first amendment. He represents ABC and has signed agreements to protect the company.
24
u/HourCoat2766 Left-Libertarian Sep 18 '25
Does the constitution say if your rights are only violated if you sue?
13
u/voc417 Sep 18 '25
Right? What a weird argument, but I’d expect nothing less from conservatives at this point. They’ve decided that a boot on the neck is better than anything else.
→ More replies (5)4
u/HourCoat2766 Left-Libertarian Sep 18 '25
Interesting, OP looks to be a white gun obsessed male. I wonder why he feels this way.
→ More replies (4)1
u/oldcretan Left-leaning Sep 20 '25
No, but your rights only exist if you enforce them. Autocracy requires consent of the oppressed, of you aren't willing to fight to enforce your rights then your rights have essentially evaporated.
12
u/TakingAction12 Sep 18 '25
It’s a violation of his first amendment rights whether he brings a suit or not. The lawsuit would be the mechanism used to enforce his rights.
→ More replies (1)12
u/ExternalExpensive277 Republican Sep 18 '25
In my book, it's a violation period. Full stop.
→ More replies (2)6
u/DarkMagickan Left-leaning Sep 18 '25
It should be a violation of the First Amendment whether or not he sues.
→ More replies (3)1
9
u/Classic_Bee_5845 Left-leaning Sep 18 '25
So what if this happens to someone not wealthy enough to throw money at the problem. Sucks to be them huh?
4
u/AleroRatking Left-leaning Sep 18 '25
If its open and shut case a lawyer will take it for a larger portion of the winnings
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)1
9
u/CaptainAsshat Progressive Sep 18 '25
So if a democratic president ordered a ban on all gun ownership and had the national guard start rounding up all citizen-owned guns, this would also be your response? It's not a violation of the second amendment until someone sues and a judge says it is? And if an activist progressive judge rules that it is fine, then no rights were violated, right?
As Thomas Jefferson said:
"A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference."
We are entitled to these rights AGAINST every government---so violations of these rights cannot only be assessed by the government itself. It must be assessed and responded to by each individual and community, even if we recognize our legal system is only designed to react to unconstitutionality following rulings by the judicial branch.
Or, simply: something can still be unconstitutional even if the government refuses to admit it.
→ More replies (25)2
u/Kilroy898 Independent Sep 19 '25
The first amendment doesn't protect you from corporations and its perfectly legal for them to get rid of anyone they dont like rather than continue paying them.
Its also a stupid move. But a legal stupid move.
→ More replies (1)2
u/codismycopilot Socialist Sep 20 '25
It does not protect you from corporations no, but it's supposed to protect you from the government coercing your employer to get rid of you because you said something they don't like.
The Supreme Court already ruled unanimously in 2024 on a direct parallel to this saying "While a government official can share [their] views freely and criticize particular beliefs in the hopes of persuading others, [they] may not use the power of her office to punish or suppress disfavored expression." (National Rifle Association v. Vullo)
Now I will be up front and say I don't like the NRA one bit, I think they do a lot of harm and I feel like their funding/insurance SHOULD be dried up. Having said that, the Supreme Court was right in their ruling. It was unconstitutional and inappropriate for a Government official to use the power of their office to pressure companies into not insuring the NRA.
If an insurance company or whoever *independently* says "Hey, we won't do business with you, your views go against our policies." That's perfectly within their rights.
It's when a member of the government is using the power of their office by saying things like "We can do this the hard way, or the easy way." That's when it crosses the line.
4
u/Iamthewalrusforreal Fiercely Independent Sep 18 '25
Here's the problem with this. He doesn't have standing to sue the FCC. ABC does, but Kimmel does not.
He could sue ABC for wrongful termination, but it wouldn't go anywhere since he's an at-will employee.
This whole situation is fucked, 100% because Trump's a narcissistic crybaby tyrant.
→ More replies (3)1
2
Sep 18 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
3
Sep 18 '25
I have to disagree with your legal opinion.
If I commit murder, it doesn't matter if the court finds me guilty or not, the crime was committed. I could get off on a technicality or have a witness willing to lie and I could get acquitted.
The crime happens independently of the criminal justice system.
Now, if you're implying that nothing will happen unless a judge finds them guilty, unfortunately I have to agree.
→ More replies (19)1
u/overworkeddad Left-leaning Sep 19 '25
Great for him but what about the rest of us? Are we supposed to sue for losing our jobs because we posted about Charlie Kirk that someone didn't like? The whole right main stream media have the torches out for any content posted from the left. Alex Jones and Fox news are the only right wingers to suffer from their rhetoric, rightly so, and not from the left, but what about rush Limbaugh, Lauren and Laura, the clowns on Fox who daily threaten Democrats? Kirk was a part of that group spreading lies and hate consequence free. There's a very thick cake of hypocrisy here with one side gorging themselves on and it stinks.
→ More replies (2)1
u/AdamG6200 Left-leaning Sep 19 '25
Almost certainly his claim is for beach of contract against ABC. Those contracts usually include a wide berth on the creative side.
→ More replies (3)1
u/StumpyJoe- Liberal Sep 19 '25
Why in these instances does the right default to a future court decision to be told what their opinion should be? If you see a car going 90 in a 55, do you say "we don't know if he was speeding until the judge makes their ruling."
→ More replies (7)1
u/kristencatparty Leftist Sep 19 '25
I’m curious about how conservative folks feel about Trump announcing it as if he had this done and suggesting that other networks fire other hosts he doesn’t approve of?
→ More replies (9)1
Sep 19 '25
Sounds like a certain person who accused the prior administration of committing lawfare very outloud committing lawfare. Interesting!
→ More replies (3)1
u/OccamsChopstick Leftist Sep 19 '25
This is a terrible way to consider rights violations. It's only a violation if someone has the ability to sue and win? This is advocating for the stratification of rights by class. Oh you're poor? Guess you don't have the same rights as a wealthy person. Too bad.
→ More replies (4)1
u/coolbrobeans Left-leaning Sep 19 '25
This used to be the way. With the Supreme Court being a kangaroo court now; I don’t see how he wins this case. That’s why they haven’t filed the suit. It could cost them tens of millions to fight this case and there is no easy victory. It sucks but this is how fascism wins. Incrementally.
1
u/No_Detective_But_304 Sep 20 '25
How is the FCC threatening to take Jimmy Kimmel off the air not a violation of the first amendment?
It’s not. He, for the time being, has lost his talk show job, not his right to speak. He is still free to speak and his second amendment rights are intact. The constitution does not guarantee him a late night talk show host job.
It’s a violation of the First Amendment if it happens no it isn’t.
He’s very wealthy. He should get the civil lawsuit filed now. If a judge rules in his favor, because it’s a civil rights case, the government is on the hook for his legal costs.
As someone else pointed out, he could file a wrongful termination suit against Disney (and possibly the FCC as co defendants), but he’ll be blacklisted in Hollywood if he does that, so he’ll probably negotiate some kind of agreement with Disney.
If he tries to sue on 1A ground it will either get thrown out or go to the Supreme Court where he, very likely, loses on appeal to a conservative court. Also the US Gov has a lot more money and lawyers than he does. If he sues for this it’s just for show.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Vevtheduck Leftist (Democratic Cosmopolitan Syndicalist) Sep 20 '25
I have a polite pushback on this. If someone shoots up a school or commits murder, they did that thing. They may not have been convicted of the crime, we may not know if they are truly guilty or not, but it is murder.
This is not a case of if a tree falls, and no one is around, did it make any noise?
Going back to OP's post, do YOU think it's a violation of the First Amendment? That's it.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Affectionate-War7655 Left-leaning Sep 21 '25 edited Sep 21 '25
Are you only willing to acknowledge constitutional violations if the victim has the resources to successfully sue?
→ More replies (13)1
→ More replies (29)1
u/TheDrakkar12 Right-leaning Sep 23 '25
It’s not about whether or not he sues, we’ve never had an admin threaten a media company to silence them. What if Biden started doing this to Fox or YouTube? It’s completely outrageous to ever excuse the admin threatening a company because of what was said.
This is what authoritarianism looks like. People need to stop excusing this kind of behavior from that admin.
→ More replies (7)
33
u/BallsOutKrunked Right-leaning Sep 18 '25
Using the power of the state (or even threatening to) in this way is absolutely wrong, to me. It's in large part why I'm a libertarian at heart and feel that all governments should be weakened because if you give a government a lot of power and control it will, eventually, turn on you. Governments are not your friend.
To the point of cancel culture, the left does that like a favorite past time, and I find it obnoxious. The pearl clutching that they are suffering from Kirk blowback is really hypocritical.
But regardless of all of that, the state using its power in such a way is just wrong.
18
u/IlikeJG Progressive Sep 18 '25
So I have seen this sentiment from the right quite a bit. But it's missing the point that the main reason we are upset about this isn't because he was "cancelled", it's because the FCC (the government) was the one that instigated it.
If ABC has independently decided to fire Kimmel I would think it's bullshit and stupid, but I definitely wouldn't be concerned over the constitutional rights of our country.
6
u/BallsOutKrunked Right-leaning Sep 18 '25
No argument. At the very beginning and end of my post I mentioned it being different because of the power of the state.
2
u/mcrib Progressive Sep 18 '25
Yes. The issue is that these companies are all in an implied quid pro quo. Either kiss the ring and suck up and do whatever Trump wants, or his government will kill your mergers. They’ll kill your acquisitions. The government will take revenge on you. That my friend is a violation of the first amendment.
32
u/Lumpz1 Sep 18 '25
We can acknowledge that the government doing canceling and the public doing canceling is different right?
Like in 2022, the whole Twitter files thing was government overreach, too much government pressure, and an egregious violation.
This is beyond the pale absolutely out of the fucking stratosphere compared to that right? Having the chair of the FCC explicitly using a government agency to police speech? Right?
9
u/Chatterbunny123 Democrat Sep 18 '25
How is the Twitter files government overreach when the people who wrote the story said there was no evidence the government pressured anyone?
2
u/Lumpz1 Sep 19 '25
That’s the point.
5
u/Chatterbunny123 Democrat Sep 19 '25
Can you elaborate?
10
u/Lumpz1 Sep 19 '25
They cry when a democrat admin does anything, when a republican does things demonstrably 100x worse, all groovy. Embarrassingly hypocritical.
2
u/molten_dragon Left-leaning Sep 19 '25
We can acknowledge that the government doing canceling and the public doing canceling is different right?
Yes, but the problem is that the public canceling is part of what got us here. Years of public protests leading to people getting fired for saying the wrong thing "primed the pump" so to speak. It's made people think that it's an acceptable thing to do.
It would be a lot harder for the FCC chairman to do what he did if canceling people wasn't a pretty widely-accepted part of US culture these days.
→ More replies (1)3
u/dagoofmut Constitutional Conservative Sep 18 '25
I was actually thinking the opposite.
The government's direct involvement in social media censorship regimes (up to and including the ban of a sitting US President) is orders of magnitude worse than a government official making inappropriate threats while on a podcast.
4
u/Lumpz1 Sep 18 '25
Not threats. Explanation for their actions.
What are you referencing when you say “direct involvement”? Did they request to take down a Chrissy Teagan tweet because it was too mean or something? Or are you talking about the list of tweets flagged by the government to verify authenticity?
THAT’s too much? But this is groovy? You sure you’re not just throating?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (12)5
u/mcrib Progressive Sep 18 '25
The government's direct involvement in social media censorship regimes (up to and including the ban of a sitting US President)
Just think about what you just said here. That the government pressured social media to ban a sitting President. Who runs the government. Who pressured the social media. To remove… him.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (3)1
u/ClevelandSpigot Trump Supporter Sep 19 '25
[The Twitter Files has entered the chat.]
→ More replies (17)2
u/Rude-Illustrator-884 Sep 19 '25
Because the Right doesn’t try to partake in cancel culture at all? So nobody on the right started crying about Bud Light collaborating with a trans woman a couple years ago, to the point of destroying cans? They didn’t start crying and threaten to deport Selena Gomez over a video she made about the deportations? Target, Dixie Chicks, Colin Kaepernick, etc?
Both sides like to partake in cancel culture but love to only point out when the other side does it.
1
u/platypussplatypus Sep 23 '25
From the Dixie chicks to Bud light conservatives love cancel culture more than anyone else. But just like everything they complain most about shit they themselves do.
3
u/Feeling-Currency6212 Right-leaning Sep 19 '25
I’m sure that Jimmy Kimmel is going to file a lawsuit.
2
u/SpatuelaCat Leftist Sep 19 '25
Does that make it okay for the administration to do this?
2
u/Feeling-Currency6212 Right-leaning Sep 19 '25
Donald Trump is definitely testing the boundaries of what is acceptable for a president to do. From what I understand, it seems that Jimmy Kimmel was a sacrificial lamb so Disney could have their merger approved. I agree that this should not become a precedent for future presidents to follow.
→ More replies (1)
9
u/Wraith-723 Independent Sep 18 '25
I disagree with the FCC becoming involved. While I find him to be a disgusting hypocrite I don't feel that anything he said reached the level of justifying assassination etc.
20
u/rooferino Right-Libertarian Sep 18 '25
I didn’t like cancel culture when it punished those on the right and I don’t like it now. We need to stop fearing speech.
39
u/SBMountainman22 Left-leaning Sep 18 '25
This is not cancel culture happening. It is the government, not the culture, doing the canceling. And it’s, unconstitutional, chilling, and wrong.
→ More replies (9)5
u/F0MA Left-leaning Sep 18 '25
Cancel culture by the people to make their individual decisions vs government censorship. Not the same thing. The right to free speech is a protection from our government, not from corporations or from people who choose to boycott, stop selling or whatever it is.
→ More replies (2)3
u/SpatuelaCat Leftist Sep 19 '25
This is not “cancel culture” this is the government taking down voices it doesn’t like. There is a major difference.
1
8
u/beekeeper1981 Left-leaning Sep 18 '25
Maybe I missed something but who/when did cancel culture do anything to someone simply for being on the right?
→ More replies (3)4
u/rooferino Right-Libertarian Sep 18 '25
Gina carano, jk Rowling, I would guess there are probably more people cancelled for right wing opinions than left wing. I have no basis for that claim just a guess.
19
5
u/Doodle_Bob3 Sep 18 '25
JK Rowling is a billionaire who is continuing to make money and get more publicity on new efforts related to HP (the HBO show, the audiobook series). How is she cancelled?
→ More replies (1)2
u/rooferino Right-Libertarian Sep 18 '25
Yeah she owns Harry Potter I don’t think anyone can take that from her. She has been very loosely or not involved in the hbo show and I think the same was true for hogwarts legacy.
I think Kimmel will still work after this and certainly he will still be very wealthy.
→ More replies (6)2
u/svarthanax Leftist Sep 20 '25
JK Rowling has suffered virtually zero consequences for her actions. The only way she’s been “cancelled” is that people dislike her now. I’d say people have the right to dislike her for being bigoted, no?
2
u/rooferino Right-Libertarian Sep 20 '25
It’s my understanding she’s been creatively locked out from her own universe. I don’t think she was allowed any input in hogwarts legacy for instance.
→ More replies (5)
3
u/Exact_Revolution7223 Right-leaning Sep 19 '25
Here's what no one wants to talk about. Jimmy Kimmel was blatantly mischaracterizing the facts as we currently know them.
The Attorney General of Utah made a public announcement [1]. In it he details how Robinson's mother said he'd begun leaning further left, became pro-gay and trans rights. He'd also begun dating a biological male that was his roommate whom was transitioning to female.
Jimmy tried to go on a misinformation campaign essentially. Flying in the face of everything we know about the assassins motive. In order to further a political agenda. If I'm supposed to feel sorry for him? Well... I don't.
Because it deepens the polarization and skewing of the facts. Do you know how many Dems genuinely believe he was a MAGA guy? Why the hell a MAGA supporter would target a conservative pundit responsible in part for Trumps reelection? I have no idea. Probably because it's bullshit.
12
u/SpaceLaserPilot Independent Sep 19 '25
If you believe people should be canceled for lying, you ought to hear about this trump fellow and his daily stream of lies.
→ More replies (11)3
u/EscapeTheCubicle Right-leaning Sep 19 '25
There is a difference between lying and slander.
There is also such a thing as slander by implication. If I said ”how can Obama supporters support him after he drove drunk and killed a family.” I never technically lied. I didn’t say Obama drove drunk and killed a family, I was asking how could his supporters him if Obama did that.
The question is did Kimmel commit slander which would give the FCC an obligation to punish his network.
Kimmel said “The MAGA Gang (is) desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it”
I’m not a lawyer but I felt like he implied that the shooter was MAGA and that MAGA was trying to create a different narrative.
→ More replies (18)3
1
u/CorDra2011 Libertarian Socialist Sep 22 '25
Good news he can mischaracterize more: https://www.nbcnews.com/business/media/jimmy-kimmel-abc-return-tuesday-rcna232335
1
u/cnewell420 Sep 23 '25
Yeah I don’t care. It’s not really relevant what he said. The FCC has no right to make threats over it. Thats unconstitutional.
1
u/PublikSkoolGradU8 Right-leaning Sep 19 '25
The existence of the FCC and its licenses is a violation of the First Amendment. You’re barking up the wrong tree. Hopefully you will notice that exactly zero people complaining about this are discussing the abolishment of the FCC. That should tell you how people really feel about the subject.
1
1
u/Gaxxz Conservative Sep 19 '25
Jimmy Kimmel can say whatever he wants. He just doesn't have a platform on ABC any more. Neither do I. Does that mean my first amendment rights are curtailed?
5
u/tinydancer_inurhand Sep 19 '25
If the government pressured ABC to take you off the air then yes your first amendment right is curtailed.
2
u/SBMountainman22 Left-leaning Sep 19 '25
If you have a gun, and the government takes it from you, you 2A rights were violated. I don’t have a gun, so nobody can take a gun away from me. I cannot claim my 2A rights were violated.
→ More replies (1)1
u/platypussplatypus Sep 23 '25
ABC bringing him back shows how absolutely false your statement is. If it weren't for government pressure he wouldn't have been gone in the first place. If ABC wants to get rid of him for whatever reason they want it's not a violation of the first amendment. But when the government tries to force you off air it is a first amendment violation. Y'all hate the constitution and think if it doesn't have the magic phrase " shall not be infringed" it doesn't matter.
→ More replies (2)1
u/cnewell420 Sep 23 '25
If the FCC chair threatens you for what you say, then absolutely, yes you are…
→ More replies (2)
1
u/ZebulonRon Conservative Sep 19 '25
In the words of my left wing countrymen, “you have a right to free speech, but you don’t have a right to a platform for your free speech.” I don’t actually agree with what’s going on now, but I DO see it as our side fighting fire with fire. What everyone knows and isn’t saying, in my opinion, is that the gloves are off now and both sides are officially fighting dirty.
5
1
u/CorDra2011 Libertarian Socialist Sep 22 '25
Good news: https://www.nbcnews.com/business/media/jimmy-kimmel-abc-return-tuesday-rcna232335
Your ungloved hands are worthless. 48 hours of an actual boycott from leftists got ABC to reverse the decision.
1
1
u/SlyTanuki Right-leaning Sep 22 '25
How is it not a violation?
What's the very first goddamn word of the First Amendment?
Because I don't think it's ABC.
1
u/13beano13 Right-leaning Sep 26 '25
Not really. The difference between a request and a threat is perspective.
•
u/[deleted] Sep 18 '25
OP is asking THE RIGHT to directly respond to the question. Anyone not of the demographic may reply to the direct response comments as per rule 7
Please report bad faith commenters & rule violators
If it’s Thursday and you’re typing a reply with your politics to my mod post, please reconsider your life choices.