Advertisers aren't the United States government.

The FCC has governed speech on certain airwaves since the beginning. Maybe you haven't been paying attention. There are platforms where he can say what he wants, on the private industry's dime

maroon barchetta said:

---

fig96 said:

---

So many missing the forest for the trees here.

I don't have strong feelings about Kimmel one way or the other, and if ABC wanted to fire him that was their choice (though I thought his comments would have been much more inflammatory given the uproar). But the fact that the FCC chair is talking about wanting to sanction or take away licenses from media companies for things they say should be a massive red flag.

This isn't the first time that this admin has advocated for companies to fire specific employees for saying things they didn't like (again, massive red flag). Getting fired for an opinion that your employer didn't like is very different than getting fired for celebrating someone's death.

Did the "other side" do some of this as well? To an extent, and that was wrong too. But they didn't literally call for people to fired or tell reporters asking about free speech to their face that they might be next. We have media companies sending out memos to their employees telling them not to post negatively about a public figure who died. That's kind of insane.

You should find this alarming whatever side of the aisle you're on, because at some point your party isn't going to be the one in charge.

---

When the Affordable Care Act was being pushed, the White House had an ad campaign encouraging people to tattle on any friends or neighbors or family members who were sharing info about the ACA that wasn't exactly correct.

The Obama administration literally encouraged people to be Rolf telling on the Von Trapp family.

Never heard one person on the left have a problem with it.

---

Don't recall that, but I'd be totally opposed to that as well. (I'm much more in the center than left FWIW, but that's probably wildly left for many here.)

If you were opposed to that I'd assume you're also opposed to the VP recently calling for a witch hunt of people who said mean things about Kirk? The folks that seem to be on a mission to get people fired is wild, I've seen complaints about businesses not having their flags at half mast. Which is all a bit ironic as Kirk himself didn't believe in hate speech as a concept.

And either way, calling out individuals or networks is something completely different and what I was generally referring to (the FCC regulations are a different discussion though that seems to be a flimsy argument based on what was said IMO). I find outlets like Fox News and NewsMax to be thinly veiled propaganda most of the time, but I'll defend their right to say what they want and wouldn't want any administration not recognizing them or telling them otherwise.

TCTTS said:

---

Provide examples. Explain.

---

The FCC has governed content, what's allowable at certain times of day, decency standards, etc.

The excuse that this was because of low ratings is BS. If they didnt want to renew his contract thats coming up, they would at least let him finish out his run on tv with his last months focused on his run and would most likely generate eyes as he ended his tenure there as opposed to what now? Their ratings with nothing to fill the late night slot will be minimal. If you're going to ignore the pretty transparent quid pro quo right now, at least be honest with takes. Bad things the left says: the worst thing ever uttered, bad things the right says: oopsy woopsy

I'd say some of this hateful rhetoric is inspiring people to pick up rifles. Demonize and Hitler-ize some individuals; don't be surprised when someone decides to slay the demon for what they consider to be the public good

DannyDuberstein said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Provide examples. Explain.

---

The FCC has governed content, what's allowable at certain times of day, decency standards, etc.

---

And yet none of that is remotely in the same ballpark as threatening to revoke a license because it didn't like what a late night host said.

TCTTS said:

---

Advertisers aren't the United States government.

---

Nexstar isn't the United States government.

Correct. I've made this same distinction about a dozen times now in this thread. Doesn't change the fact that they were threatened by the United States government.

TCTTS said:

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Provide examples. Explain.

---

The FCC has governed content, what's allowable at certain times of day, decency standards, etc.

---

And yet none of that is remotely in the same ballpark as threatening to revoke a license because it didn't like what a late night host said.

---

When it involves the subject of murder and doubling down on some of the hateful crap that has brought us here, it sure as hell is in the ballpark

TCTTS said:

---

Correct. I've made this same distinction about a dozen times now in this thread. Doesn't change the fact that they were threatened by the United States government.

---

Were you in the meeting?

DannyDuberstein said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Provide examples. Explain.

---

The FCC has governed content, what's allowable at certain times of day, decency standards, etc.

---

And yet none of that is remotely in the same ballpark as threatening to revoke a license because it didn't like what a late night host said.

---

When it involves the subject of murder and doubling down on some of the hateful crap that has brought us here, it sure as hell is in the ballpark

---

Thank goodness this admin is toning down the rhetoric in an effort to help diffuse things.

Hateful speech is still free speech.

TCTTS said:

---

Hateful speech is still free speech.

---

Yet what is allowed on FCC regulated airwaves has never been fully free. Ever.

Equinox said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Correct. I've made this same distinction about a dozen times now in this thread. Doesn't change the fact that they were threatened by the United States government.

---

Were you in the meeting?

---

Good Lord, Carr's words have been posted in this thread multiple times now. Keep up.

TCTTS said:

---

Hateful speech is still free speech.

---

Kimmel is free to publish it in a newsletter.

TCTTS said:

---

Equinox said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Correct. I've made this same distinction about a dozen times now in this thread. Doesn't change the fact that they were threatened by the United States government.

---

Were you in the meeting?

---

Good Lord, Carr's words have been posted in this thread multiple times now. Keep up.

---

How do you know Nexstar execs saw it and discussed it?

DannyDuberstein said:

---

I'd say some of this hateful rhetoric is inspiring people to pick up rifles. Demonize and Hitler-ize some individuals; don't be surprised when someone decides to slay the demon for what they consider to be the public good

---

100%. Social media is a cancer and will be the downfall of civilization

So government censorship of speech is allowed as long as they don't censor all speech. Got it.

TCTTS said:

---

So government censorship of speech is allowed as long as they don't censor all speech. Got it.

---

Clutch those pearls tighter!

Yea, I'm having a hard time following equinox's argument

Equinox said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

So government censorship of speech is allowed as long as they don't censor all speech. Got it.

---

Clutch those pearls tighter!

---

Tell me you have nothing left to say without telling me you have nothing left to say.

TCTTS said:

---

Equinox said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

So government censorship of speech is allowed as long as they don't censor all speech. Got it.

---

Clutch those pearls tighter!

---

Tell me you have nothing left to say without telling me you have nothing left to say.

---

You don't have anything to say, yet you keep saying it over and over. Pretty much like every thread you infect.

fig96 said:

---

Kaiser von Wilhelm said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

fig96 said:

---

So many missing the forest for the trees here.

I don't have strong feelings about Kimmel one way or the other, and if ABC wanted to fire him that was their choice (though I thought his comments would have been much more inflammatory given the uproar). But the fact that the FCC chair is talking about wanting to sanction or take away licenses from media companies for things they say should be a massive red flag.

This isn't the first time that this admin has advocated for companies to fire specific employees for saying things they didn't like (again, massive red flag). Getting fired for an opinion that your employer didn't like is very different than getting fired for celebrating someone's death.

Did the "other side" do some of this as well? To an extent, and that was wrong too. But they didn't literally call for people to fired or tell reporters asking about free speech to their face that they might be next. We have media companies sending out memos to their employees telling them not to post negatively about a public figure who died. That's kind of insane.

You should find this alarming whatever side of the aisle you're on, because at some point your party isn't going to be the one in charge.

---

I literally don't understand cheering this on, for this reason alone. The tables WILL be turned at some point, and it's only going to get worse from here.

---

Isn't that what is currently happening? Or did you mean, turning the tables BACK?

---

I must have missed where the previous admins threatened networks, reporters, and media personalities openly.

---

Do you mean like when the Obama admin was going to exclude FNC from pool reporting before they had to back down from it?

Or how about the Biden Admin working insidiously behind the scenes with Big Tech to de platform conservative voices and scrub social media of wrong think? That wasn't a threat; it was worse because they were actually running a suppression campaign from the WH.

The Democrats set the precedent here and now they are reaping the whirlwind. This will spiral and we can all look back to the Democrats as almost always the ones taking us down totalitarian paths.

Sea Speed said:

---

Honestly seems like they had ABC dead to rights on this. Carr did it the right thing hands down pic.twitter.com/YcBaFpUiqX

— Latinx Adjacent Doctor PhD (@TonerousHyus) September 18, 2025

---

Honest question: in what world is this "clear cut" and "dead to rights"?

Kimmel said that "the MAGA gang desperately tried to characterize this kid as anything other than one of them", he never states that the shooter was MAGA. People characterizing this as a blatant lie are at best inferring a lot here. (And while both sides wildly pointed fingers the kid seems to be generally apolitical and have his own odd motivations.)

I can't imagine trying to characterize this as a lie blatant enough that it would get ABC's FCC license revoked would hold up in court.

TCTTS said:

---

---

Tell me you have nothing left to say without telling me you have nothing left to say.

There's always a tweet. Holy ****, these people are such bad faith, hypocritical clowns. This should be the end of the thread, right here, but of course it won't be…

Should the government censor speech it doesn’t like? Of course not.

The FCC does not have a roving mandate to police speech in the name of the “public interest.”https://t.co/j4o2lA6LiL

— Brendan Carr (@BrendanCarrFCC) February 14, 2019