The Trump administration tactic of flooding the zone is on spectacular display this week, but using federal pressure to cancel a comedian will chill speech far beyond comedy.
Greg could this be an excuse to rid themselves of a poorly performing show ? What he said was silly and factually incorrect but there is no inciting violence for sure. Some of the comments on line were evil but this one seemed silly. Just seems like there’s more to the story
I've seen that floated that Disney used the FCC's jawboning as an excuse/cover to get rid of a poorly performing show.
Of course, that doesn't excuse the FCC's jawboning.
Conservatives should remember that progressives are taking notes, and Fox has O&O TV stations as well.
Question for the better legal minds: Is there any other case law banning specific content on the airwaves other than FCC v. Pacifica (the George Carlin "seven dirty words" case)?
Exactly what I’ve been saying. Anyone with common sense and an understanding of capitalism knows this was a market based decision. Kimmel was even less profitable than Colbert, who already has been cancelled. They just used Kirk and Trump as an excuse. Now leftists can be outraged and claim the world is against them. In reality it’s all about profit or lack thereof. My only surprise is how long it took. All these late shows are competing for the same 40% on the left, having already alienated conservatives and moderates, and of those leftists how many are still watching tv? It’s basic economics, man.
Up to 50% of depressed people are cured by placebo.
Up to 60% of anxious people are cured by placebo.
an innocuous placebo can become insidious instantly... such as when baby's pacifier is lost and the baby's filthy thumb that the sterile pacifier was preventing... goes right back in the baby's mouth!😝
~No American takes the White House recommended inoculation ...the inoculation recommended by scientists and by Ms.FDR:
"Do one thing every day that scares you " ...thus preventing anxiety that leads to depression that leads to suicidality that leads to suicide/murder.
When Ellison or Zuck or Bezos or Musk or Trump or Disney or AI or an algorithm, etc turns the innocuous placebos of 60% of the US to MURDEROUS RAGEFUL TERRORIST FASCISM...
...***GAME OVER***
Uptrends: In 10 years most Americans will want to die?
Osama Bin Laden copycats have a name for those Americans: "AMMO!"
Because I speak English, and understand the plain meaning of straightforward words in the English language, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that when a
murderer engraves "Catch this, fascist" on his bullets, and murders a Trump supporter, he is motivated by anti-Trumpism, not pro-Trumpism. Contrary to Kimmel's even-at-the-time-dishonest blather.
David, I think you're making my point. You want to blame someone, right?
You've identified something you think is a material fact. Now show us how it established that Kimmel's statement was factually incorrect. To borrow a line from Charlie Kirk, prove Kimmel wrong. Show how the fact you identified (and your use of it) proved Kimmel's statement was factually incorrect.
Kimmel claimed it was a Republican maga type who murdered Charlie Kirk. Based on - I kid you not - the murderer's relatives, the ones who turned the murderer in(!), being republicans.
Hmm.
"Catch this, fascist" was found engraved on the bullet. Gotta say, on the face of it, sounds like a lefty, not a righty, did the murdering of the right wing victim.
Kind of reminiscent of left-wing Woody Guthrie putting "This machine kills fascists." on his guitars. And, unironically, good for Woody!
I reckon you've got six options.
1. Tell me it was a black flag operation by a republican Maga type.
2. Tell me the bullet was doctored after the fact by a republican maga type, or it wasn't even engraved
3. Tell me Kimmel doesn't understand what the plain English sentence "Catch this, fascist" means
4. Tell me the murderer wasn't writing in English when he engraved "Catch this, fascist".
5. Kirk was a fascist, totes, and it's not really murder to kill a fascist. Not really. Not murder. Deffo!
David, please start with the actual words that you think support the words with which you started: "Kimmel claimed it was a Republican maga type who murdered Charlie Kirk."
I believe your words extremely egregiously misrepresented Kimmel's words.
Delivering his opening monologue, the host said the "MAGA gang" was "desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it".
Yeah, no way I'm going to get real worked up over this. They should have kept their mouths shut, but the FCC does have at least some legitimate regulatory authority here. The Biden admin had ZERO authority over social media and still pressured them to censor information they found inconvenient. Has everyone already forgotten “The Twitter Files?”
For at least the past 60+ years, a significant chunk of the Democratic party and the left have argued for, and engaged in, more aggressive FCC action against opinions they don't like.
Did the Trump administration misstep here? Yeah, they did. They forgot that when an enemy is making a mistake, you should not interrupt them.
At the same time, I am far more worried about the left’s silencing tactics. I spoke out immediately against what Pam Bondi said the other day, and there was a lot of push back on her from the right. She ended up rolling back her statements in about 24 hours. If the vile harpies on “The View” are still on the air, freedom of speech is probably ok.
For the record: I don’t want censorship. I don’t want the government involved in controlling or regulating speech. Maybe we need to change the powers of the FCC?
James, some of Snyder v. Phelps also was reiterated in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis in 2023, which emphasized the following principles:
“The First Amendment” means “all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands.” It secures the “freedom to think as you will” and “speak as you think.” It “extends to all persons engaged in expressive conduct, including those who seek profit.” Its “protections belong to all, including” speakers “whose motives” someone considers “misinformed or offensive.” It “protects” each person's “right to speak his mind regardless of whether the government considers his speech sensible” or “misguided,” even if it causes someone “anguish” or “incalculable grief.”
“All manner of speech” enjoys “First Amendment’s protections.” “A commitment to speech for only some messages and some persons is no commitment at all.”
“The freedom of thought and speech” is “indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth.” “[A]llowing all views to flourish” is necessary to “test and improve our own thinking” as “individuals and as a Nation,” so it is a “fixed star in our constitutional constellation” that “government may not interfere” with the “marketplace of ideas.”
Take your collection of SCOTUS quotes, and apply it outside the realm of con-law, to what most conservative, Trumpist, and libertarian media leaders have been doing to the Covidvax dissidents over the last four years. What they do (I'm not talking Biden WH, fb, yt, etc.) is not censoring, but Suppressing, that is, the deliberate and coordinated refusal to fulfill basic journalistic duty, a voluntary squelching of a story the public has a right to know about. See my "The Purpose of Open Journalism and Free Speech": https://pomocon.substack.com/p/the-purpose-of-open-journalism-and
Carl, you're right. Our Constitution and the construction of it by SCOTUS govern there, too. They govern every context. That's why I quoted 303 Creative. It emphatically repeatedly used "all," i.e., “all persons," "all, including” any speaker or writer “whose motives” someone considers “misinformed or offensive.” “All manner of speech” and "all views."
Thank you! Though to be clear, the First doesn't permit court action against the govt for not punishing the press for voluntarily choosing to not report on stories. Nor, to spell out the obvious, should we ever want an amendment or law which would dish out such punishments! As compelled speech is an even greater horror than censored speech, compelled press might be the greatest horror of all! It is mandated Pravda.
Overall, suppression is a problem distinct from censorship, and it is a topic not within constitutional law. I do think Greg needs to think about it more, however, as the spirit of censorship runs strong within it.
Carl, as acknowledged in Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" and again right before the Civil War in John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty," democracy has the dangerous tendency too often to mean mere "tyranny of the majority."
James Madison (famed as the Father of the Constitution and even the Father of the Bill of Rights) focused on the same problem. In fact, Madison emphasized that our Constitution was carefully designed to mitigate that particular problem:
"It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure."
That's why the First Amendment protects the expressions and communications of all from all public servants.
James, what legal principle made you think people who have something to say about Charlie Kirk's death "should have kept their mouths shut"?
In 2011, SCOTUS in Snyder v. Phelps, and Chief Justice Roberts chose to author the majority opinion. In Snyder, SCOTUS justices emphasized the freedom of speech in America. More particularly, they emphasized the freedom to use even a particular backdrop and even to use particularly hateful messages about Americans who had been killed in the service of this nation. Picketers targeted funerals (and the friends and family) of servicemembers who had been killed in combat. SCOTUS reported that, according to one source, “nearly 600 funerals” had been “picketed.” So not only were hundreds of funerals and families picketed, but SCOTUS justices somewhat immortalized and significantly elevated what picketers said and did by protecting it by, first, granting the petition, and, second, writing a strong, detailed decision.
The signs that SCOTUS justices went out of their way to protect included, “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” “God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11,” “America is Doomed,” “Don’t Pray for the USA,” “Thank God for IEDs” (improvised bombs used to kill servicemembers), “Pope in Hell,” “Priests Rape Boys,” “God Hates Fags,” “God Hates You,” “Fag Troops,” “Semper Fi Fags,” “God Hates Fags,” “Maryland Taliban,” “Fags Doom Nations,” “Not Blessed Just Cursed,” “You’re Going to Hell.”
James, do you think I misunderstood your words? I was addressing the following: "They should have kept their mouths shut, but the FCC does have at least some legitimate regulatory authority here." I also was responding to your implication that "it is constitutional for the executive branch to make censorship threats as long as those threats are vague." It's simply not constitutional to retaliate for expression or communication that merely offends some purported public servants.
Yes, I'm saying the FCC had no reason to jump in here. The FCC is the "they" I'm referring to. I can see how my wording isn't clear there, but I would think the rest of my statement would make it clear that I'm pro free speech, very much so, and I don't want the FCC doing stupid stuff.
That FCC guy is now talking about investigating "The View." Yeah, he needs to shut up in his official FCC capacity.
The administration It's making a huge mistake if they keep going down this road.
My bad, James. But my thoughts about your thoughts resulted, in part, from more of your comment, which made me think you were opposing the speech about Kirk by people who opposed him. In part, I thought that because you said "Did the Trump administration misstep here? Yeah, they did. They forgot that when an enemy is making a mistake, you should not interrupt them." You also emphasized, "I am far more worried about the left’s silencing tactics."
I also thought you were implying that "it is constitutional for the executive branch to make censorship threats as long as those threats are vague." But I can see now that your statement might have been ridiculing that view.
Canceling him for an inappropriate joke offends my senses as a comedian. Canceling him for saying anything offends my senses as a lawyer. Canceling him because he sucks … I’m on board. But ABC couldn’t say, “You suck, Jimmie,” so they took the coward’s path and hid behind political expediency.
"The move comes after station owner Nexstar Media Group said it would yank the show from its ABC affiliate stations as a result of the comments. The Irving, Texas-based Nexstar announced Wednesday that Kimmel will be off its stations for the foreseeable future.
“Nexstar strongly objects to recent comments made by Mr. Kimmel concerning the killing of Charlie Kirk and will replace the show with other programming in its ABC-affiliated markets,” a company representative said in a statement." (LA Times)
Note that Nexstar is ABC's largest affiliate organization. So, yeah, "But TRUMP......."
Sounds like ABC’s actions are more in response to the objections of their affiliate organizations (grass roots?) than any suggestion or poorly worded comment from the FCC.
‘He said the MAGA right was “trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them,” and that’s true.’ Seriously? You’re going to parse that statement as truth? Have always respected Mr. Lukianoff. I find this take to be tortured and stretched reasoning of the highest order. To call this a true statement reminds me of every teenager who led their parents to a completely wrong conclusion and then, when found out, protested “But I didn’t lie! It’s technically a true statement!”
You know, I will add to that. I’m not sure that MAGA individuals were “trying to characterize this kid as anything other than them.” I didn’t read much except shock and grief and anger in the first few days and it was pretty quickly that law enforcement and the governor of Utah were giving information that he was leftist (parents’ and family statements, engravings on the shell casings). Kind of a diabolical twisting from Kimmel in my opinion.
Karen, you piqued my curiosity. What in Kimmel's statement do you think was false? What fact shows it was false? To borrow a line from Charlie Kirk, prove Kimmel wrong.
Oh, it was technically true. But the whole force of the statement was to lead one to believe that a MAGA person DID do the killing. Did you read my explanation? Did you listen to Kimmel deliver his harangue? Why do you think so many have said that he lied about the shooter?
Karen, I could see how some people might think that. But when I listened to what he said and when I read it quoted, my first thought was simply that Kimmel was ridiculing the rush to judgment. I thought it was very appropriate to ridicule a rush to judgment. It truly is disheartening to see the madness with which people rush to judge. We'd all be better off if we waited until we have some material facts and reflect a little.
Karen, but even more objectionable than the rush to judgment was what seemed to be a deliberate attempt to whip up hysteria. And, in fact, threats were called in to various places the next day. And then immediate and vicious retaliation started against many people who were perceived as saying or doing anything even remotely offensive about Charlie Kirk. That's a dangerous kind of insanity that should be ridiculed.
“A deliberate attempt to whip up hysteria.” Did you view the obscene slaughter video? Have you seen what he meant to millions of people? Have you witnessed the vile celebrations of his murder? No need for any “whipping up” from MAGA. The left took care of that quite nicely.
Another pov- apparently 2 large affiliates decided on their own that they were pre-empting JK show as they didn't care for his viewpoints and since 2 very large affiliates were upset and show not performing, Disney decided to cut show. Not sure this is a free speech issue. Seems some decided not to air his show. As a business, they can make those decisions. I am all in for free speech and I recognize there are consequences to it - not airing shows, losing jobs, not being invited to parties, being excommunicated from families and friends, etc.
⚡📡 Sinclair and Nexstar have to listen to their customers. That CK's assassins were somehow part of the "MAGA GANG" was not marketable.
Late Night is dying. Kimmel just wasn't funny. Legacy media has zero integrity in the red states. Is editorial bias in the public interest?
Charlie Kirk deserves a legacy of free speech and open civil dialog. The 🎬 🎶 📻 📺 📰 old line media infotainment corporations enforced a vice like grip on their PC orthodoxy of CRT/DEI, verging on full collectivist Agitprop, but elections 🔔🗽🇺🇲📜 have consequences. ⏰
Robert, Kimmel clearly did not say anything at all about the political bent of Kirk's killer. Kimmel clearly (to me) was ridiculing the "MAGA gang" rushing "desperately" to start blaming their perceived political opponents before we even had sufficient material information about the killer's political bent. That is a very fair criticism about everybody who deliberately rushes desperately to blame someone else before we even know who to blame for what.
Hey Jack, thanx 4 the reply. I re-verified the kimmel quote (NY Post) ~ "...with the MAGA gang trying to characterize this kid who killed Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them..." (not very marketable out here in the flyover)
I stand by his ridicule as being over the line. ABC / Disney are big boys, and if they wanna play it as an fcc strong arm, so be it. However I personally don't know if very fair and Jimmy Kimmel belong in the same sentence or thought. Words have meaning. The bias of the legacy media is facing regulatory scrutiny.
He has an employer, right? Don’t they get the final say? And think of all the money they’ll save! Kimmel just want funny, he was a whiney elite. And I don’t want political commentary from a so called comedian.
Gluten, does it strike you as odd that you object to a comedian's "political commentary," but you don't object to jawboning by political figures masquerading as public servants? Do you want people (Carr and his (mob) boss) pretending to be public servants while they blatantly abuse their positions to violate, attack and undermine our Constitution?
Carr obtained his position and obtains his pay only because he expressly acknowledged (as required by federal law, 5 U.S.C. 3331) that his first, foremost and constant duty is to "support and defend" our "Constitution" against "all enemies, foreign and domestic" and to "bear true faith and allegiance to" our Constitution.
Trump obtained his position and obtains his pay only because he expressly acknowledged (as required by Article II) that his first, foremost and constant duty is to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" to "the best of" his "Ability."
Which matters more to you? Supporting our Constitution or opposing a comedian?
You mean people on the right were doing exactly what the left has been doing for years? They were looking for a reason to get rid of Kimmel, and low audience ratings wouldn't be fast enough. Kimmel knew they were not going to renew his contract, and he gave them a reason to get rid of him now. What I find puzzling is why they are offering him a chance to return if he apologizes and makes a donation. There are no clean hands here.
Susan, mere equity (mere clean hands) isn't even potentially relevant. This is about our Constitution. Do you want people (Carr and his (mob) boss) pretending to be public servants while they blatantly abuse their positions to violate, attack and undermine our Constitution?
Carr obtained his position and obtains his pay only because he expressly acknowledged (as required by federal law, 5 U.S.C. 3331) that his first, foremost and constant duty is to "support and defend" our "Constitution" against "all enemies, foreign and domestic" and to "bear true faith and allegiance to" our Constitution.
Trump obtained his position and obtains his pay only because he expressly acknowledged (as required by Article II) that his first, foremost and constant duty is to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" to "the best of" his "Ability."
Which matters more to you? Supporting our Constitution or opposing a comedian?
This is a good time to recall what Justice Jackson (writing for SCOTUS) wrote in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943):
"There are village tyrants as well as village Hampdens, but none who acts under color of law is beyond reach of the Constitution."
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
The "freedoms of speech and of press" are "susceptible of restriction only to prevent grave and immediate danger to interests which the state may lawfully protect."
"Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.
[Clearly,] the First Amendment to our Constitution was designed to avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings. There is no mysticism in the American concept of the State or of the nature or origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent. Authority here is to be controlled by public opinion, not public opinion by authority."
It is a "fixed star in our constitutional constellation" that "no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."
I don’t think ABC got rid of him for what he said. They wanted to get rid of him because his ratings were terrible, and, like Colbert, they are losing money with him. I thought what he said was disgusting, but it was not a good enough reason to get rid of him. I have heard politicians say much worse, and nothing is done to them.
Susan, for a funny (I thought) illustration of the danger of repression of expression, consider Jon Stewart's cowering conduct (right out of 1984)! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GXNJ3V9lzg
Susan, I haven't historically watched much of Stewart's show, but when I saw this, I watched the whole thing and I thought it was worth the time. A time or two I even actually lol'd.
Plus, Stewart actually did show some truly astonishing clips of Trump. I wasn't laughing then. I was sad--for us. When I saw Trump read his "praise" to the leaders of the UK and then mutilate the names of two countries (which he apparently "prepared" to speak about), I felt the same sadness, shame and concern (for us) as when I saw Biden during the debate.
I never watched Stewart of any of the late-night “comics.” I have watched Trump say and do some incredibly dumb things. Compare him to Kamala and Harris. Would you prefer one of them?
Susan, Kimmel and who did what to him and why aren't even potentially relevant. The only relevant matters are our Constitution and the people who are violating our Constitution and their oaths to support and defend our Constitution. As Greg addressed, the relevant conduct is the jawboning by purported public servants who clearly are not serving the public's interests.
Girondin, the issue is very far from being only one mere comedian being unemployed. The issue is that many people are dashing about madly, viciously trying to have many people fired for saying anything less than laudatory about Charlie Kirk. That's a particularly dangerous, viral insanity that we all should fear. It's a real Reign of Terror to silence critics of a man that many had good cause to think was bad or even evil. That's not my opinion (yet), but it is theirs. And the evil retaliation of Charlie Kirk's so-called supporters now makes me think that the people who thought Kirk was evil might be right.
Girondin, I can see that you posted a reply. Did you really just block me so that I cannot see what you wrote? On a website devoted to free speech did you just block me so that I cannot reply to your post?
If you think Charlie Kirk didn't praise political violence with the foregoing words, please explain to me what words you think Kimmel used to praise political violence.
Girondin, I was responding to your reply that Kirk was "not praising political violence at all." Do you see that reply posted here? Or did you delete it after you posted it? Obviously, I'm not objecting to the latter. But the fact that I couldn't see your reply here after you posted it led me to believe you blocked me so that I couldn't see it.
Girondin, would you like to see who truly did praise political violence? Charlie Kirk did.
"I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth it to have [ ] gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational."
Event organized by TPUSA Faith (the religious arm of Kirk’s conservative group Turning Point USA) on 5 April 2023.
Almost immediately before the foregoing words, Kirk insisted, “we must also be real. We must be honest.” So let us be real. Let us be honest. Kirk actually advocated “gun deaths every single year” because he thought that “cost” was “worth it” and “a prudent deal” to “protect our other God-given rights.” Kirk got exactly what Kirk sought. As Kirk said repeatedly, “I think it’s worth it.” To Kirk, “That” was a “deal” that Kirk thought was “prudent.” To Kirk, his own death—for the very reason he was killed—was “rational.”
Also in 2023, on The Charlie Kirk Show Kirk even advocated (at least) buying and actively and routinely bearing arms in public, specifically, for political reasons:
"You have a government that hates you. You have a traitor as the president. Buy weapons, I keep on saying that. Buy weapons. Buy ammo. If you go into a public place, bring a gun with you."
Charlie Kirk got exactly what he said America deserves.
Kimmel lied about the motives of the killer and what people were doing. At this point there’s no point to continue discussing. Blatant liars like you will get what you deserve, eventually.
Girondin, you keep trying to move the goalposts. First, you misrepresented, "The people being targeted are people praising political violence." So show us the words you think Kimmel used to praise political violence.
Now, you misrepresent, "Kimmel lied about the motives of the killer." So show us the words you think Kimmel used to "lie." If you can prove Kimmel lied (you cannot), you necessarily will prove that you lied (repeatedly).
You're guilty of the logical fallacy of false equivalency. Saying something false isn't the same as lying. A lie is a falsehood that the speaker actually believes is false. So I'm not saying you lied. I'm saying your statements are false. They're obviously false. If you repeat them, THEN I might say you lied.
The outrage is that what happens to an untalented and unintelligent individual, among a horde of untalented and unintelligent Hollywood celebrities America has put up with for fifty miserable unentertaining years, matters to anyone at all.
Richard, I suspect that "outrage" purportedly supporting Charlie Kirk regarding this issue is pure pretext. The real outrage felt by Kimmel's critics (especially Trump) was over the way Kimmel very justifiably and appropriately ridiculed Trump for Trump's truly bizarre responses to Kirk's killing.
Richard, I got it. You said what you thought was an outrage. I was playing on your word (outrage) to ridicule the fake outrage of at least some of Kimmel's critics and focus on what really outraged them.
The real outrage is how purported public servants are repeatedly violating our Constitution and their oaths (to support and defend our Constitution) by retaliating against critics.
The ridicule was not evident to me when I read your comment, but now that you have explained it, I must reiterate my long-standing complaint, which I often make on Substack, about the ineffective application of irony in written work, because the snark in the voice cannot be made to be heard.
My point, however, was about my own outrage -- shared silently by many tens of millions of Americans, but as yet spoken aloud by far too few -- at watching untalented and unintelligent hacks in Hollywood and New York produce garbage ideas in crap TV shows and ugly, noise the call music or the lousy films devoid of any nutritious ideas these fifty years; and damned if I care about anyone else's "purported" -- there's your word -- outrage at yet another illiterate bum in a suit being culled off the airwaves.
No snark. I was ridiculing only those (including Carr) who merely pretended to be outraged by (their own blatant deception about) what Kimmel purportedly said (but did not actually say).
I didn't suggest anyone should be outraged about Kimmel. But everyone certainly should be outraged by the misconduct of Carr and his (mob) boss Trump.
Snark is the essence of ridicule. It is the condemnation by invective of one seen to be inferior. Ridicule does not make a successful argument against anyone except the utterer. I think this does it for me in this thread, though you are welcome to have the last word. Be well and God bless!
I wish the time of decency could come back on both sides (extreme side I should say). It does not look like Jimmy was ready to apologize either . People should stay in their lanes. Do we need Jimmy Kimmel to comment politics…
Celine, does it strike you as odd that you object to a comedian who you think somehow did not "stay in his lane," but you don't object at all to political figures intimidating critics? Do you want people (Carr and his (mob) boss) pretending to be public servants while they blatantly abuse their positions to violate, attack and undermine our Constitution?
Carr obtained his position and obtains his pay only because he expressly acknowledged (as required by federal law, 5 U.S.C. 3331) that his first, foremost and constant duty is to "support and defend" our "Constitution" against "all enemies, foreign and domestic" and to "bear true faith and allegiance to" our Constitution.
Trump obtained his position and obtains his pay only because he expressly acknowledged (as required by Article II) that his first, foremost and constant duty is to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" to "the best of" his "Ability."
Which matters more to you? Supporting our Constitution or opposing a comedian?
Wrong in my judgment about the standing call in the Murthy case, and likely wrong about Kimmel's not knowingly trying to get falsehoods circulating. And there is a range of reasonable opinions about how to use and not use the FCC, and I assume as an originalist (and thus also a "non-absolutist" on the First) I'd have some disagreements with you in that debate.
But overall, an important piece. You're right on the core issues here, and it's a good reminder to Trump supporters like myself--kudos.
Greg could this be an excuse to rid themselves of a poorly performing show ? What he said was silly and factually incorrect but there is no inciting violence for sure. Some of the comments on line were evil but this one seemed silly. Just seems like there’s more to the story
I've seen that floated that Disney used the FCC's jawboning as an excuse/cover to get rid of a poorly performing show.
Of course, that doesn't excuse the FCC's jawboning.
Conservatives should remember that progressives are taking notes, and Fox has O&O TV stations as well.
Question for the better legal minds: Is there any other case law banning specific content on the airwaves other than FCC v. Pacifica (the George Carlin "seven dirty words" case)?
Exactly what I’ve been saying. Anyone with common sense and an understanding of capitalism knows this was a market based decision. Kimmel was even less profitable than Colbert, who already has been cancelled. They just used Kirk and Trump as an excuse. Now leftists can be outraged and claim the world is against them. In reality it’s all about profit or lack thereof. My only surprise is how long it took. All these late shows are competing for the same 40% on the left, having already alienated conservatives and moderates, and of those leftists how many are still watching tv? It’s basic economics, man.
❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁
Just a "tad of emotional maturity:"
Up to 50% of depressed people are cured by placebo.
Up to 60% of anxious people are cured by placebo.
an innocuous placebo can become insidious instantly... such as when baby's pacifier is lost and the baby's filthy thumb that the sterile pacifier was preventing... goes right back in the baby's mouth!😝
~No American takes the White House recommended inoculation ...the inoculation recommended by scientists and by Ms.FDR:
"Do one thing every day that scares you " ...thus preventing anxiety that leads to depression that leads to suicidality that leads to suicide/murder.
When Ellison or Zuck or Bezos or Musk or Trump or Disney or AI or an algorithm, etc turns the innocuous placebos of 60% of the US to MURDEROUS RAGEFUL TERRORIST FASCISM...
...***GAME OVER***
Uptrends: In 10 years most Americans will want to die?
Osama Bin Laden copycats have a name for those Americans: "AMMO!"
😱😱😱😱😱😱😱
it's not. if they wanted it gone it would have been gone. you have to be absolutely conspiricy theory level
James, what fact made you think that Kimmel's statement was factually incorrect? To borrow a line from Charlie Kirk, prove Kimmel wrong.
Because I speak English, and understand the plain meaning of straightforward words in the English language, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that when a
murderer engraves "Catch this, fascist" on his bullets, and murders a Trump supporter, he is motivated by anti-Trumpism, not pro-Trumpism. Contrary to Kimmel's even-at-the-time-dishonest blather.
David, I think you're making my point. You want to blame someone, right?
You've identified something you think is a material fact. Now show us how it established that Kimmel's statement was factually incorrect. To borrow a line from Charlie Kirk, prove Kimmel wrong. Show how the fact you identified (and your use of it) proved Kimmel's statement was factually incorrect.
Kimmel claimed it was a Republican maga type who murdered Charlie Kirk. Based on - I kid you not - the murderer's relatives, the ones who turned the murderer in(!), being republicans.
Hmm.
"Catch this, fascist" was found engraved on the bullet. Gotta say, on the face of it, sounds like a lefty, not a righty, did the murdering of the right wing victim.
Kind of reminiscent of left-wing Woody Guthrie putting "This machine kills fascists." on his guitars. And, unironically, good for Woody!
I reckon you've got six options.
1. Tell me it was a black flag operation by a republican Maga type.
2. Tell me the bullet was doctored after the fact by a republican maga type, or it wasn't even engraved
3. Tell me Kimmel doesn't understand what the plain English sentence "Catch this, fascist" means
4. Tell me the murderer wasn't writing in English when he engraved "Catch this, fascist".
5. Kirk was a fascist, totes, and it's not really murder to kill a fascist. Not really. Not murder. Deffo!
6. Maybe some other one you can make up?
Otherwise, don't tell me Kimmel wasn't wrong.
David, please start with the actual words that you think support the words with which you started: "Kimmel claimed it was a Republican maga type who murdered Charlie Kirk."
I believe your words extremely egregiously misrepresented Kimmel's words.
Delivering his opening monologue, the host said the "MAGA gang" was "desperately trying to characterise 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 trust that is clear enough?
One might have been able to argue that with Colbert, but this case is more clear-cut, since Brendan Carr overtly threatened ABC: https://www.imightbewrong.org/p/the-kimmel-cancelation-is-a-million
Yeah, no way I'm going to get real worked up over this. They should have kept their mouths shut, but the FCC does have at least some legitimate regulatory authority here. The Biden admin had ZERO authority over social media and still pressured them to censor information they found inconvenient. Has everyone already forgotten “The Twitter Files?”
And by the way, all 3 liberal SCOTUS justices agreed that it is constitutional for the executive branch to make censorship threats as long as those threats are vague. https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/justices-side-with-biden-over-governments-influence-on-social-media-content-moderation/
For at least the past 60+ years, a significant chunk of the Democratic party and the left have argued for, and engaged in, more aggressive FCC action against opinions they don't like.
Did the Trump administration misstep here? Yeah, they did. They forgot that when an enemy is making a mistake, you should not interrupt them.
At the same time, I am far more worried about the left’s silencing tactics. I spoke out immediately against what Pam Bondi said the other day, and there was a lot of push back on her from the right. She ended up rolling back her statements in about 24 hours. If the vile harpies on “The View” are still on the air, freedom of speech is probably ok.
For the record: I don’t want censorship. I don’t want the government involved in controlling or regulating speech. Maybe we need to change the powers of the FCC?
... are you... what? are you this kind of petulant?
That's not a comment just an insult. If you have an actual reply to me, just say it.
James, some of Snyder v. Phelps also was reiterated in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis in 2023, which emphasized the following principles:
“The First Amendment” means “all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands.” It secures the “freedom to think as you will” and “speak as you think.” It “extends to all persons engaged in expressive conduct, including those who seek profit.” Its “protections belong to all, including” speakers “whose motives” someone considers “misinformed or offensive.” It “protects” each person's “right to speak his mind regardless of whether the government considers his speech sensible” or “misguided,” even if it causes someone “anguish” or “incalculable grief.”
“All manner of speech” enjoys “First Amendment’s protections.” “A commitment to speech for only some messages and some persons is no commitment at all.”
“The freedom of thought and speech” is “indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth.” “[A]llowing all views to flourish” is necessary to “test and improve our own thinking” as “individuals and as a Nation,” so it is a “fixed star in our constitutional constellation” that “government may not interfere” with the “marketplace of ideas.”
Slight shift of topic, Jack:
Take your collection of SCOTUS quotes, and apply it outside the realm of con-law, to what most conservative, Trumpist, and libertarian media leaders have been doing to the Covidvax dissidents over the last four years. What they do (I'm not talking Biden WH, fb, yt, etc.) is not censoring, but Suppressing, that is, the deliberate and coordinated refusal to fulfill basic journalistic duty, a voluntary squelching of a story the public has a right to know about. See my "The Purpose of Open Journalism and Free Speech": https://pomocon.substack.com/p/the-purpose-of-open-journalism-and
Carl, you're right. Our Constitution and the construction of it by SCOTUS govern there, too. They govern every context. That's why I quoted 303 Creative. It emphatically repeatedly used "all," i.e., “all persons," "all, including” any speaker or writer “whose motives” someone considers “misinformed or offensive.” “All manner of speech” and "all views."
Thank you! Though to be clear, the First doesn't permit court action against the govt for not punishing the press for voluntarily choosing to not report on stories. Nor, to spell out the obvious, should we ever want an amendment or law which would dish out such punishments! As compelled speech is an even greater horror than censored speech, compelled press might be the greatest horror of all! It is mandated Pravda.
Overall, suppression is a problem distinct from censorship, and it is a topic not within constitutional law. I do think Greg needs to think about it more, however, as the spirit of censorship runs strong within it.
Carl, as acknowledged in Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" and again right before the Civil War in John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty," democracy has the dangerous tendency too often to mean mere "tyranny of the majority."
James Madison (famed as the Father of the Constitution and even the Father of the Bill of Rights) focused on the same problem. In fact, Madison emphasized that our Constitution was carefully designed to mitigate that particular problem:
"It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure."
That's why the First Amendment protects the expressions and communications of all from all public servants.
James, what legal principle made you think people who have something to say about Charlie Kirk's death "should have kept their mouths shut"?
In 2011, SCOTUS in Snyder v. Phelps, and Chief Justice Roberts chose to author the majority opinion. In Snyder, SCOTUS justices emphasized the freedom of speech in America. More particularly, they emphasized the freedom to use even a particular backdrop and even to use particularly hateful messages about Americans who had been killed in the service of this nation. Picketers targeted funerals (and the friends and family) of servicemembers who had been killed in combat. SCOTUS reported that, according to one source, “nearly 600 funerals” had been “picketed.” So not only were hundreds of funerals and families picketed, but SCOTUS justices somewhat immortalized and significantly elevated what picketers said and did by protecting it by, first, granting the petition, and, second, writing a strong, detailed decision.
The signs that SCOTUS justices went out of their way to protect included, “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” “God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11,” “America is Doomed,” “Don’t Pray for the USA,” “Thank God for IEDs” (improvised bombs used to kill servicemembers), “Pope in Hell,” “Priests Rape Boys,” “God Hates Fags,” “God Hates You,” “Fag Troops,” “Semper Fi Fags,” “God Hates Fags,” “Maryland Taliban,” “Fags Doom Nations,” “Not Blessed Just Cursed,” “You’re Going to Hell.”
I think you should first reread my comment, and make sure you're understanding what I'm saying.
If that does not satisfy, then I will answer your question.
James, do you think I misunderstood your words? I was addressing the following: "They should have kept their mouths shut, but the FCC does have at least some legitimate regulatory authority here." I also was responding to your implication that "it is constitutional for the executive branch to make censorship threats as long as those threats are vague." It's simply not constitutional to retaliate for expression or communication that merely offends some purported public servants.
Yes, I'm saying the FCC had no reason to jump in here. The FCC is the "they" I'm referring to. I can see how my wording isn't clear there, but I would think the rest of my statement would make it clear that I'm pro free speech, very much so, and I don't want the FCC doing stupid stuff.
That FCC guy is now talking about investigating "The View." Yeah, he needs to shut up in his official FCC capacity.
The administration It's making a huge mistake if they keep going down this road.
My bad, James. But my thoughts about your thoughts resulted, in part, from more of your comment, which made me think you were opposing the speech about Kirk by people who opposed him. In part, I thought that because you said "Did the Trump administration misstep here? Yeah, they did. They forgot that when an enemy is making a mistake, you should not interrupt them." You also emphasized, "I am far more worried about the left’s silencing tactics."
I also thought you were implying that "it is constitutional for the executive branch to make censorship threats as long as those threats are vague." But I can see now that your statement might have been ridiculing that view.
Yes
Not my best writing. LOL
Canceling him for an inappropriate joke offends my senses as a comedian. Canceling him for saying anything offends my senses as a lawyer. Canceling him because he sucks … I’m on board. But ABC couldn’t say, “You suck, Jimmie,” so they took the coward’s path and hid behind political expediency.
You know how it is though. When was the last time anyone was fired for sucking? It’s always some passive aggressive bullshit answer.
I recognize a fellow traveler who works for a publicly traded corporation when I see one
"The move comes after station owner Nexstar Media Group said it would yank the show from its ABC affiliate stations as a result of the comments. The Irving, Texas-based Nexstar announced Wednesday that Kimmel will be off its stations for the foreseeable future.
“Nexstar strongly objects to recent comments made by Mr. Kimmel concerning the killing of Charlie Kirk and will replace the show with other programming in its ABC-affiliated markets,” a company representative said in a statement." (LA Times)
Note that Nexstar is ABC's largest affiliate organization. So, yeah, "But TRUMP......."
Sounds like ABC’s actions are more in response to the objections of their affiliate organizations (grass roots?) than any suggestion or poorly worded comment from the FCC.
‘He said the MAGA right was “trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them,” and that’s true.’ Seriously? You’re going to parse that statement as truth? Have always respected Mr. Lukianoff. I find this take to be tortured and stretched reasoning of the highest order. To call this a true statement reminds me of every teenager who led their parents to a completely wrong conclusion and then, when found out, protested “But I didn’t lie! It’s technically a true statement!”
You know, I will add to that. I’m not sure that MAGA individuals were “trying to characterize this kid as anything other than them.” I didn’t read much except shock and grief and anger in the first few days and it was pretty quickly that law enforcement and the governor of Utah were giving information that he was leftist (parents’ and family statements, engravings on the shell casings). Kind of a diabolical twisting from Kimmel in my opinion.
Karen, you piqued my curiosity. What in Kimmel's statement do you think was false? What fact shows it was false? To borrow a line from Charlie Kirk, prove Kimmel wrong.
Oh, it was technically true. But the whole force of the statement was to lead one to believe that a MAGA person DID do the killing. Did you read my explanation? Did you listen to Kimmel deliver his harangue? Why do you think so many have said that he lied about the shooter?
Karen, I could see how some people might think that. But when I listened to what he said and when I read it quoted, my first thought was simply that Kimmel was ridiculing the rush to judgment. I thought it was very appropriate to ridicule a rush to judgment. It truly is disheartening to see the madness with which people rush to judge. We'd all be better off if we waited until we have some material facts and reflect a little.
Karen, but even more objectionable than the rush to judgment was what seemed to be a deliberate attempt to whip up hysteria. And, in fact, threats were called in to various places the next day. And then immediate and vicious retaliation started against many people who were perceived as saying or doing anything even remotely offensive about Charlie Kirk. That's a dangerous kind of insanity that should be ridiculed.
“A deliberate attempt to whip up hysteria.” Did you view the obscene slaughter video? Have you seen what he meant to millions of people? Have you witnessed the vile celebrations of his murder? No need for any “whipping up” from MAGA. The left took care of that quite nicely.
Another pov- apparently 2 large affiliates decided on their own that they were pre-empting JK show as they didn't care for his viewpoints and since 2 very large affiliates were upset and show not performing, Disney decided to cut show. Not sure this is a free speech issue. Seems some decided not to air his show. As a business, they can make those decisions. I am all in for free speech and I recognize there are consequences to it - not airing shows, losing jobs, not being invited to parties, being excommunicated from families and friends, etc.
Market Forces or Sucking up to the FCC?
Did Disney 🤔🐁 getting an easy out? ✂️💰
⚡📡 Sinclair and Nexstar have to listen to their customers. That CK's assassins were somehow part of the "MAGA GANG" was not marketable.
Late Night is dying. Kimmel just wasn't funny. Legacy media has zero integrity in the red states. Is editorial bias in the public interest?
Charlie Kirk deserves a legacy of free speech and open civil dialog. The 🎬 🎶 📻 📺 📰 old line media infotainment corporations enforced a vice like grip on their PC orthodoxy of CRT/DEI, verging on full collectivist Agitprop, but elections 🔔🗽🇺🇲📜 have consequences. ⏰
Lord, have mercy....
Robert, Kimmel clearly did not say anything at all about the political bent of Kirk's killer. Kimmel clearly (to me) was ridiculing the "MAGA gang" rushing "desperately" to start blaming their perceived political opponents before we even had sufficient material information about the killer's political bent. That is a very fair criticism about everybody who deliberately rushes desperately to blame someone else before we even know who to blame for what.
Hey Jack, thanx 4 the reply. I re-verified the kimmel quote (NY Post) ~ "...with the MAGA gang trying to characterize this kid who killed Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them..." (not very marketable out here in the flyover)
I stand by his ridicule as being over the line. ABC / Disney are big boys, and if they wanna play it as an fcc strong arm, so be it. However I personally don't know if very fair and Jimmy Kimmel belong in the same sentence or thought. Words have meaning. The bias of the legacy media is facing regulatory scrutiny.
He has an employer, right? Don’t they get the final say? And think of all the money they’ll save! Kimmel just want funny, he was a whiney elite. And I don’t want political commentary from a so called comedian.
Gluten, does it strike you as odd that you object to a comedian's "political commentary," but you don't object to jawboning by political figures masquerading as public servants? Do you want people (Carr and his (mob) boss) pretending to be public servants while they blatantly abuse their positions to violate, attack and undermine our Constitution?
Carr obtained his position and obtains his pay only because he expressly acknowledged (as required by federal law, 5 U.S.C. 3331) that his first, foremost and constant duty is to "support and defend" our "Constitution" against "all enemies, foreign and domestic" and to "bear true faith and allegiance to" our Constitution.
Trump obtained his position and obtains his pay only because he expressly acknowledged (as required by Article II) that his first, foremost and constant duty is to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" to "the best of" his "Ability."
Which matters more to you? Supporting our Constitution or opposing a comedian?
You mean people on the right were doing exactly what the left has been doing for years? They were looking for a reason to get rid of Kimmel, and low audience ratings wouldn't be fast enough. Kimmel knew they were not going to renew his contract, and he gave them a reason to get rid of him now. What I find puzzling is why they are offering him a chance to return if he apologizes and makes a donation. There are no clean hands here.
Susan, mere equity (mere clean hands) isn't even potentially relevant. This is about our Constitution. Do you want people (Carr and his (mob) boss) pretending to be public servants while they blatantly abuse their positions to violate, attack and undermine our Constitution?
Carr obtained his position and obtains his pay only because he expressly acknowledged (as required by federal law, 5 U.S.C. 3331) that his first, foremost and constant duty is to "support and defend" our "Constitution" against "all enemies, foreign and domestic" and to "bear true faith and allegiance to" our Constitution.
Trump obtained his position and obtains his pay only because he expressly acknowledged (as required by Article II) that his first, foremost and constant duty is to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" to "the best of" his "Ability."
Which matters more to you? Supporting our Constitution or opposing a comedian?
This is a good time to recall what Justice Jackson (writing for SCOTUS) wrote in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943):
"There are village tyrants as well as village Hampdens, but none who acts under color of law is beyond reach of the Constitution."
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
The "freedoms of speech and of press" are "susceptible of restriction only to prevent grave and immediate danger to interests which the state may lawfully protect."
"Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.
[Clearly,] the First Amendment to our Constitution was designed to avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings. There is no mysticism in the American concept of the State or of the nature or origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent. Authority here is to be controlled by public opinion, not public opinion by authority."
It is a "fixed star in our constitutional constellation" that "no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."
I don’t think ABC got rid of him for what he said. They wanted to get rid of him because his ratings were terrible, and, like Colbert, they are losing money with him. I thought what he said was disgusting, but it was not a good enough reason to get rid of him. I have heard politicians say much worse, and nothing is done to them.
Susan, for a funny (I thought) illustration of the danger of repression of expression, consider Jon Stewart's cowering conduct (right out of 1984)! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GXNJ3V9lzg
I watched about the first ten second of him doing this schtick when it first happened and it confirmed what I always thought of him—not much.
Susan, I haven't historically watched much of Stewart's show, but when I saw this, I watched the whole thing and I thought it was worth the time. A time or two I even actually lol'd.
Plus, Stewart actually did show some truly astonishing clips of Trump. I wasn't laughing then. I was sad--for us. When I saw Trump read his "praise" to the leaders of the UK and then mutilate the names of two countries (which he apparently "prepared" to speak about), I felt the same sadness, shame and concern (for us) as when I saw Biden during the debate.
I never watched Stewart of any of the late-night “comics.” I have watched Trump say and do some incredibly dumb things. Compare him to Kamala and Harris. Would you prefer one of them?
Susan, Kimmel and who did what to him and why aren't even potentially relevant. The only relevant matters are our Constitution and the people who are violating our Constitution and their oaths to support and defend our Constitution. As Greg addressed, the relevant conduct is the jawboning by purported public servants who clearly are not serving the public's interests.
Jack, I am completely in agreement with you. I am as sick of purported public servants.
A man is dead.
I don’t really give a shit about a failing comedian being fired for sucking at his job.
Girondin, the issue is very far from being only one mere comedian being unemployed. The issue is that many people are dashing about madly, viciously trying to have many people fired for saying anything less than laudatory about Charlie Kirk. That's a particularly dangerous, viral insanity that we all should fear. It's a real Reign of Terror to silence critics of a man that many had good cause to think was bad or even evil. That's not my opinion (yet), but it is theirs. And the evil retaliation of Charlie Kirk's so-called supporters now makes me think that the people who thought Kirk was evil might be right.
Anything less than laudatory? Stop making up lies. The people being targeted are people praising political violence.
You can still disagree with the tactic butt nobody is being silenced at all.
Girondin, I can see that you posted a reply. Did you really just block me so that I cannot see what you wrote? On a website devoted to free speech did you just block me so that I cannot reply to your post?
If you think Charlie Kirk didn't praise political violence with the foregoing words, please explain to me what words you think Kimmel used to praise political violence.
You’re not blocked lol. Calm down man, you’ve made multiple multi paragraph responses in a couple minutes.
Are you off some sort of medication?
Girondin, I was responding to your reply that Kirk was "not praising political violence at all." Do you see that reply posted here? Or did you delete it after you posted it? Obviously, I'm not objecting to the latter. But the fact that I couldn't see your reply here after you posted it led me to believe you blocked me so that I couldn't see it.
Girondin, would you like to see who truly did praise political violence? Charlie Kirk did.
"I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth it to have [ ] gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational."
Event organized by TPUSA Faith (the religious arm of Kirk’s conservative group Turning Point USA) on 5 April 2023.
Almost immediately before the foregoing words, Kirk insisted, “we must also be real. We must be honest.” So let us be real. Let us be honest. Kirk actually advocated “gun deaths every single year” because he thought that “cost” was “worth it” and “a prudent deal” to “protect our other God-given rights.” Kirk got exactly what Kirk sought. As Kirk said repeatedly, “I think it’s worth it.” To Kirk, “That” was a “deal” that Kirk thought was “prudent.” To Kirk, his own death—for the very reason he was killed—was “rational.”
Also in 2023, on The Charlie Kirk Show Kirk even advocated (at least) buying and actively and routinely bearing arms in public, specifically, for political reasons:
"You have a government that hates you. You have a traitor as the president. Buy weapons, I keep on saying that. Buy weapons. Buy ammo. If you go into a public place, bring a gun with you."
Charlie Kirk got exactly what he said America deserves.
Really, Girondin? Was Kimmel really "praising political violence." If so, with what words did Kimmel praise political violence? Did I lie or did you?
Kimmel lied about the motives of the killer and what people were doing. At this point there’s no point to continue discussing. Blatant liars like you will get what you deserve, eventually.
Girondin, you keep trying to move the goalposts. First, you misrepresented, "The people being targeted are people praising political violence." So show us the words you think Kimmel used to praise political violence.
Now, you misrepresent, "Kimmel lied about the motives of the killer." So show us the words you think Kimmel used to "lie." If you can prove Kimmel lied (you cannot), you necessarily will prove that you lied (repeatedly).
You're guilty of the logical fallacy of false equivalency. Saying something false isn't the same as lying. A lie is a falsehood that the speaker actually believes is false. So I'm not saying you lied. I'm saying your statements are false. They're obviously false. If you repeat them, THEN I might say you lied.
Tenuous argument re: causation.
The outrage is that what happens to an untalented and unintelligent individual, among a horde of untalented and unintelligent Hollywood celebrities America has put up with for fifty miserable unentertaining years, matters to anyone at all.
Richard, I suspect that "outrage" purportedly supporting Charlie Kirk regarding this issue is pure pretext. The real outrage felt by Kimmel's critics (especially Trump) was over the way Kimmel very justifiably and appropriately ridiculed Trump for Trump's truly bizarre responses to Kirk's killing.
That is not my point at all.
Richard, I got it. You said what you thought was an outrage. I was playing on your word (outrage) to ridicule the fake outrage of at least some of Kimmel's critics and focus on what really outraged them.
The real outrage is how purported public servants are repeatedly violating our Constitution and their oaths (to support and defend our Constitution) by retaliating against critics.
The ridicule was not evident to me when I read your comment, but now that you have explained it, I must reiterate my long-standing complaint, which I often make on Substack, about the ineffective application of irony in written work, because the snark in the voice cannot be made to be heard.
My point, however, was about my own outrage -- shared silently by many tens of millions of Americans, but as yet spoken aloud by far too few -- at watching untalented and unintelligent hacks in Hollywood and New York produce garbage ideas in crap TV shows and ugly, noise the call music or the lousy films devoid of any nutritious ideas these fifty years; and damned if I care about anyone else's "purported" -- there's your word -- outrage at yet another illiterate bum in a suit being culled off the airwaves.
No snark. I was ridiculing only those (including Carr) who merely pretended to be outraged by (their own blatant deception about) what Kimmel purportedly said (but did not actually say).
I didn't suggest anyone should be outraged about Kimmel. But everyone certainly should be outraged by the misconduct of Carr and his (mob) boss Trump.
Snark is the essence of ridicule. It is the condemnation by invective of one seen to be inferior. Ridicule does not make a successful argument against anyone except the utterer. I think this does it for me in this thread, though you are welcome to have the last word. Be well and God bless!
Seems this time you may have been Ready F.I.R.E. Aim
Got em
I wish the time of decency could come back on both sides (extreme side I should say). It does not look like Jimmy was ready to apologize either . People should stay in their lanes. Do we need Jimmy Kimmel to comment politics…
Celine, does it strike you as odd that you object to a comedian who you think somehow did not "stay in his lane," but you don't object at all to political figures intimidating critics? Do you want people (Carr and his (mob) boss) pretending to be public servants while they blatantly abuse their positions to violate, attack and undermine our Constitution?
Carr obtained his position and obtains his pay only because he expressly acknowledged (as required by federal law, 5 U.S.C. 3331) that his first, foremost and constant duty is to "support and defend" our "Constitution" against "all enemies, foreign and domestic" and to "bear true faith and allegiance to" our Constitution.
Trump obtained his position and obtains his pay only because he expressly acknowledged (as required by Article II) that his first, foremost and constant duty is to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" to "the best of" his "Ability."
Which matters more to you? Supporting our Constitution or opposing a comedian?
Scary times!!!!
Wrong in my judgment about the standing call in the Murthy case, and likely wrong about Kimmel's not knowingly trying to get falsehoods circulating. And there is a range of reasonable opinions about how to use and not use the FCC, and I assume as an originalist (and thus also a "non-absolutist" on the First) I'd have some disagreements with you in that debate.
But overall, an important piece. You're right on the core issues here, and it's a good reminder to Trump supporters like myself--kudos.
Speaking of repression and free speech, this episode of Jon Stewart (right out of 1984) is a hoot! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GXNJ3V9lzg