> The ABC late-night host’s remarks constituted “the sickest conduct possible,” FCC chair Brendan Carr told right-wing podcaster Benny Johnson on Wednesday. Carr suggested his FCC could move to revoke ABC affiliate licenses as a way to force Disney to punish Kimmel.
Regardless of what Kimmel said and if you think it was appropriate or not, we are seeing this administration use this as an opportunity to trample on the free speech rights of everyone they disagree with. If everyone's rights are not protected, then nobody's are.
You don't have to disregard what Kimmel said, because he hardly even said anything. Relevant portion is the first 8 mins of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j3YdxNSzTk
What, in the clip, could reasonably be referred to as "the sickest conduct possible?" No one with a healthy, functioning mind could possibly use that language to talk about Kimmel's comments in that clip.
MAGA did, in fact, do their best over the weekend to cast the shooter as anything other than one of them. Comments made in poor taste? Maybe? Not really? No poorer taste than the president saying on Fox & Friends that he "couldn't care less" about promoting unity after the Kirk shooting.
"The abrupt decision by the network, which is owned by the Walt Disney Company, came hours after the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Brendan Carr, assailed Mr. Kimmel’s remarks and suggested that his regulatory agency might take action against ABC because of them."
So yes, ABC/Nexstar are within their editorial rights to make this decision, but that decision came at an awfully conspicuous time. So what, nothing to see here?
>So yes, ABC/Nexstar are within their editorial rights to make this decision, but that decision came at an awfully conspicuous time. So what, nothing to see here?
{Paraphrasing for those who don't get it]
Brendan Carr: That Kimmel guy sure is a pill. Will no one rid me of this meddlesome comic?
Hey ABC, It would be a shame if something bad happened to you guys, wouldn't it? In fact, let's do some investigating to make sure everything is on the up and up, yeah?[0]
ABC: How High?
[0] Right out of the authoritarians' playbook: "For my friends, everything. For my enemies, the law."
It was implied, but apparently, not clearly enough.
The issue is emphatically not that "Kimmel dissed our boy. He needs to be raked over the coals!" Nor is it "Kimmel had it just right! Fuck those MAGAts!"
The current controversy, while relevant to the above, is not the problem. What people think and believe and most[0] of what they say is, at least under current law in the US, not punishable by the state.
A government official (Brendan Carr) publicly threatened legal action, using the weight and resources of the Federal Government (don't believe me, listen to him say it yourself) against ABC/Disney[1] in retaliation for the legal (however you may feel about it) speech of Jimmy Kimmel.
Now you might think, "well so what? that jackass is always harassing the President and his most patriotic team. And now he's doing so about our beloved cultural ambassador, gunned down by some tranny loving freak just a few days ago. That sack of crap deserves whatever he gets!"
And you have every right to think that. And to speak it or write it or take out web/TV/print/billboard/etc. ads.
And you think, "Damn straight! I got rights. The First Amendment says the government can't punish me for what I say or think! And it's not a coincidence that it's the First one, is it?" And you're right.
If all that is true, especially the First Amendment[2] bit:
Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; [...]
Which, as centuries of jurisprudence have confirmed, aside from a few (none of which apply in this particular context) exceptions[0], the government may not punish folks for what they say.
Which is exactly what Brendan Carr threatened to do with the resources of the FCC if ABC/Disney didn't take action against Kimmel.
Which is facially a violation of the Constitution (of which the First Amendment is an integral part), which is the supreme law of the land.
And so whether you think Kimmel was out of line or not, something we all should be able to get behind is that the government has no place telling us what we can or cannot say.
A right that Charlie Kirk took advantage of and was proud to extol. And good for him -- whether you agree with him or not. And if we (want to) live in a nation of laws, then Jimmy Kimmel (or you or me) should have the same rights and latitude.
It's called entertainment. He's a comedian. You're opposed to free speech and favor government censorship. News and journalists are supposed to do facts, not literal jesters.
If Nexstar was acting in reaction to what Carr said there’s a First Amendment argument to be made. They also require FCC approval for a merger right now, it’s not difficult to see the quid pro quo potential.
> First Amendment ‘coercion’ requires a concrete threat backed by government power and a causal link to the station’s decision.
Yeah. How about this direct quote from Carr?
> I mean, look, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct to take action on Kimmel or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.
>>> The ABC late-night host’s remarks constituted “the sickest conduct possible,” FCC chair Brendan Carr told right-wing podcaster Benny Johnson on Wednesday. Carr suggested his FCC could move to revoke ABC affiliate licenses as a way to force Disney to punish Kimmel
Last I checked, the FCC is part of the government.
Your post deliberately leaves out statements from Sinclair and Nexstar themselves.
"In a statement posted online, Sinclair praised the Federal Communications Commission chair, Brendan Carr and called the comic’s remarks “inappropriate and deeply insensitive”."
"Inappropriate and deeply insensitive", but I suppose you, and the others here like you, believe it is appropriate and timely to spread misinformation as long as it fuels your narrative.
What's at issue is whether it's appropriate for officials in the US government to use their office to apply pressure against speech they don't like. Preventing this behavior is why the first amendment exists.
Regardless of what Kimmel said and if you think it was appropriate or not, we are seeing this administration use this as an opportunity to trample on the free speech rights of everyone they disagree with. If everyone's rights are not protected, then nobody's are.