Further to the point, even if the FCC did push this, it would have almost certainly been litigated before anything was done. We know how long that takes.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

FireAg said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

I'm well aware the Biden admin sent posts to Twitter and attempted to get users banned (and that is also wrong) but they have no mechanism to force it.

And again since you seem to be ignoring this point - posting on social media is not a right. No one was arrested for anything they said. A private company restricted their access, which they can do for any or no reason.

---

And in that same light, Kimmel having a job with ABC is not a right...

Kimmel does not have the right to convey a message on his social platform (here, a stage in front of a camera provided by his employer) that is counter to what his bosses want to convey...

Having a TV show is not a right...and he was not arrested for anything that he said...

A private company (ABC, in this case) is restricting his access which they can do for any or no reason...

You agree, yes?

---

Absolutely. No issue with what happened to Colbert for example, which is similar to what you are outlining. The government's apparent involvement here via the FCC is where I think we need to be careful. Others don't agree which is fine.

---

Did the FCC take action that I am not aware of?

Did the FCC send a formal notice to ABC that they were going to take action if ABC didn't?

Did the FCC do anything other than put their chairman on TV to voice his displeasure and what FCC rules ABC might be violating?

We have actual emails from WH staffers to Facebook and Twitter execs during Covid specifically telling them who to sensor...does that same evidence exist here?

Logos Stick said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Texas 8&4 said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

I'm well aware the Biden admin sent posts to Twitter and attempted to get users banned (and that is also wrong) but they have no mechanism to force it.

And again since you seem to be ignoring this point - posting on social media is not a right. No one was arrested for anything they said. A private company restricted their access, which they can do for any or no reason.

---

Don't be naive

---

If twitter told them to F off and didn't ban anyone what would the consequences be? If the government was really controlling their actions why was Elon allowed to do whatever he wanted once he took over?

---

If ABC told Trump to F off, what would the specific consequences be? Please provide evidence of the claim you are about to make.

Also, do you agree that ABC is different than social media when it comes to FCC regulation since they have an FCC license to broadcast?

---

I have no idea, but it seems like the FCC was certainly open to attempting some kind of action regarding their FCC licenses, otherwise I'm not sure the point of their public comments. As Texas 8&4 said, not sure they'd be successful in the courts but I doubt that's a fight anyone wants to have and is also the choice I would have made if I were running ABC.

And yes, I agree there as well.

FireAg said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

FireAg said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

I'm well aware the Biden admin sent posts to Twitter and attempted to get users banned (and that is also wrong) but they have no mechanism to force it.

And again since you seem to be ignoring this point - posting on social media is not a right. No one was arrested for anything they said. A private company restricted their access, which they can do for any or no reason.

---

And in that same light, Kimmel having a job with ABC is not a right...

Kimmel does not have the right to convey a message on his social platform (here, a stage in front of a camera provided by his employer) that is counter to what his bosses want to convey...

Having a TV show is not a right...and he was not arrested for anything that he said...

A private company (ABC, in this case) is restricting his access which they can do for any or no reason...

You agree, yes?

---

Absolutely. No issue with what happened to Colbert for example, which is similar to what you are outlining. The government's apparent involvement here via the FCC is where I think we need to be careful. Others don't agree which is fine.

---

Did the FCC take action that I am not aware of?

Did the FCC send a formal notice to ABC that they were going to take action if ABC didn't?

Did the FCC do anything other than put their chairman on TV to voice his displeasure and what FCC rules ABC might be violating?

We have actual emails from WH staffers to Facebook and Twitter execs during Covid specifically telling them who to sensor...does that same evidence exist here?

---

No, just public comments from the head of the FCC suggesting action could be coming.

Quote:

---

"This is a very, very serious issue right now for Disney. We can do this the easy way or the hard way," Carr told right-wing commentator Benny Johnson that day. "These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel, or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead."

"They have a license granted by us at the FCC, and that comes with it an obligation to operate in the public interest," Carr said.

---

Whether unofficial or not, the government does not have the same leverage over twitter.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

You clearly have no idea what the first amendment is. Have a good day.

---

you miss the mark on social media because there is a massive argument on whether they are a publisher or platform. Having an algorithm and elevating certain content to be more visible is an editorial process making them a publisher and bound by 1st amendment oversight.

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

zag213004 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Or Tucker Carlson.

I am convinced Chris Hayes' IQ must be around 67, from what little I have ever heard him say, but this is typical of Democrat duplicity on the topic:

MSNBC’s Chris Hayes on Kimmel getting fired: This renders the First Amendment meaningless.

Chris Hayes on Tucker getting fired: He believed he could say anything no matter how disgusting and get away with it. Over time, that’s not going to work out well for you. pic.twitter.com/KOdROGvseE

— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) September 18, 2025

I really don't comprehend the leftist point though today. Two of the biggest syndicates of channels said they wouldn't carry his show any longer, and the complaint is that the government did this to Disney? What were they supposed to do, pay him his regular salary to stay on in minor markets and maybe half the big American cities? His ratings have been declining for years.

He can go do a podcast for his fans, without the budget for the writers/set etc. His speech isn't censored, and I think he may have been angling to go that route anyway. Poor Jimmy has plenty of Disney cash.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr weighs in after ABC pulls Jimmy Kimmel off the airwaves

"Broadcasters are different from any other form of communication, including here on cable right now. Fox News doesn’t have an FCC license, CNN doesn’t, but ABC, CBS, and NBC—those broadcast… pic.twitter.com/RjATnjPzEC

— Sean Hannity 🇺🇸 (@seanhannity) September 18, 2025

To all of those crying about Jimmy Kimmel's show getting pulled off the air indefinitely...

FCC Rule 47 CFR §73.1217 — Broadcast hoaxes.

What the Rule Says:

It prohibits broadcast licensees (TV and radio) from knowingly airing false information about a crime or catastrophe if:… pic.twitter.com/LeHWXcLh2s

— ZNO 🇺🇸 (@therealZNO) September 18, 2025

Don't jeopardize your employer's broadcast licenses, and there's no FO.

---

Thank you for posting at least one of the actual policies that the FCC chair alluded to Kimmel violating and thus creating pressure on the tv station companies.

Based on the first bullet point of the hoax policy, were those texts (which haven't been verified as admissible evidence in a court of law yet) made public before the monologue? These texts directly contradict kimmels statement. However if he didn't have that information then he would not be subjected to the violation of that first point. For points 2 and 3 they talk about public harm. 2. Is WILL cause public harm. 3. Is DOES cause public harm. I don't think his phrase DOES cause "public harm" as defined in subsection c.

For 2. On its own… maybe? But the context of it and the history of talk like this from political talk radio to comedy sketches…. I think if the right said such a thing in those mediums we would be defending their right to say it and oppose government pressuring the company to take action.

I would also like to see the actual law on the other policy mentioned: "news distortion" and see the details on that. Is what he said stand alone or within the context of a joke set-up. Is news distortion allowed in a comedy or entertainment medium? Or to what degree? Can norm McDonald say on snl that OJ is guilty while in a court of law with admissible evidence and a jury and judge. Deemed OJ not guilty (my personal feelings aside. I think oj was guilty). Would the FCC be right into removing or threatening to remove the broadcast licenses for stations that showed Norm saying that?

---

The texts I don't believe were public until Tuesday afternoon. BUt the bullet casing engravings and commentary of friends and family were public.

You could say it wasn't 100% confirmed that he was a leftist, but the whole "He was Right wing MAGA follower of whomever" had certainly fallen apart.

---

In the era of trolling and mocking I would find it hard pressed to see that Kimmel violated clause 1 based on bullet casings which were account from what would be the prosecution side (the state) of a trial. (For the record I'm not dismissing the validity of the casing and the context of the casings at this juncture I'm simply pointing out that given the possibility of their being trolling or sarcastic phrases/memes Kimmel would not be subjected to clause 1.

I want to focus more on clause 2 and the news distortion aspect. Since I feel like Kimmel situation be be closest to violating these. This certainly isn't the first time an OTA/radio entertainment show has integrated major events into their "show". I'm sure the JFK assasination has been the point of conspiracy entertainment over the air even though it has been proven time and time again the facts of the incident. Or as I said the OJ aquittal and the media parody surrounding that. How has the FCC treated these instances. Did they publically speculate that those persons involved violated FCC regulations?

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

I'm well aware the Biden admin sent posts to Twitter and attempted to get users banned (and that is also wrong) but they have no mechanism to force it.

And again since you seem to be ignoring this point - posting on social media is not a right. No one was arrested for anything they said. A private company restricted their access, which they can do for any or no reason.

---

This is exactly what we saw during COVID and Biden Admin.

If the company higher ups are political activists a suggestion is not a suggestion. A suggestion from the Admin would be happily carried out if their preferred person was in office.

If a counter political party is in office, a suggestion is then a suggestion and might or probably wouldn't be taken unless it violated some law.

Politics these days is so wrought with activists that will do anything they can for their side including killing. So It is not a stretch to think activists would censor posts or users at just a mere suggestion.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Texas 8&4 said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

I'm well aware the Biden admin sent posts to Twitter and attempted to get users banned (and that is also wrong) but they have no mechanism to force it.

And again since you seem to be ignoring this point - posting on social media is not a right. No one was arrested for anything they said. A private company restricted their access, which they can do for any or no reason.

---

Don't be naive

---

If twitter told them to F off and didn't ban anyone what would the consequences be? If the government was really controlling their actions why was Elon allowed to do whatever he wanted once he took over?

---

If ABC told Trump to F off, what would the specific consequences be? Please provide evidence of the claim you are about to make.

Also, do you agree that ABC is different than social media when it comes to FCC regulation since they have an FCC license to broadcast?

---

I have no idea, but it seems like the FCC was certainly open to attempting some kind of action regarding their FCC licenses, otherwise I'm not sure the point of their public comments. As Texas 8&4 said, not sure they'd be successful in the courts but I doubt that's a fight anyone wants to have and is also the choice I would have made if I were running ABC.

And yes, I agree there as well.

---

Biden did the same thing to Twitter. The admin threatened to "review" the federal law called Section 230, because it was angry that Twitter and other social media companies were allowing Covid vaccine skepticism. Twitter responded accordingly.

These people are idiots with all of their false equivalency. Not being sufficiently sad <> outright lying about known facts

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Quote:

---

"This is a very, very serious issue right now for Disney. We can do this the easy way or the hard way," Carr told right-wing commentator Benny Johnson that day. "These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel, or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead."

"They have a license granted by us at the FCC, and that comes with it an obligation to operate in the public interest," Carr said.

---

Whether unofficial or not, the government does not have the same leverage over twitter.

---

Are you sure about that? Are you sure that the government doesn't have the ability to block a particular social media platform if said platform chooses not to play ball?

Could the government say...block Tik-Tok from being accessible via data networks in the United States?

The government has more leverage over social media platforms than I think you realize...

Texas 8&4 said:

---

I just want to note one thing...you keep referencing government intervention via the FCC. Even if true, is that remotely as bad as the continued weaponization of the judicial system against conservatives? Point being that this is a war, and you have to use the tools you have to win the war. Right or wrong, and not saying I agree, but that is the way it is.

---

If both are occurring then they are both wrong. The "well the other guy defense" is not a valid defense. I don't agree with government violating our constitutional rights. So in conclusion: government intervention (intimidation is a form of intervention) is wrong and so is political targeting in the judicial system. This assumes the government has no valid evidence in doing so per the laws of the land.

I will add another one. Lois learner using the IRS targeting conservative groups by purposefully delaying or subjecting their charity applications to more scrutiny is also wrong. She should be in prison

zag213004 said:

---

Texas 8&4 said:

---

I just want to note one thing...you keep referencing government intervention via the FCC. Even if true, is that remotely as bad as the continued weaponization of the judicial system against conservatives? Point being that this is a war, and you have to use the tools you have to win the war. Right or wrong, and not saying I agree, but that is the way it is.

---

If both are occurring then they are both wrong. The "well the other guy defense" is not a valid defense. I don't agree with government violating our constitutional rights. So in conclusion: government intervention (intimidation is a form of intervention) is wrong and so is political targeting in the judicial system. This assumes the government has no valid evidence in doing so per the laws of the land.

I will add another one. Lois learner using the IRS targeting conservative groups by purposefully delaying or subjecting their charity applications to more scrutiny is also wrong. She should be in prison

---

Agree 100%...

So how do you fight back against it if you want to play by the rules?

Justice Story... Pretty good originalist SCOTUS jurist and a good read below.

Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (1832):

“We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous…

— Adrian Vermeule (@Vermeullarmine) September 18, 2025

Quote:

---

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution (1833):

'Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.'

That this amendment was intended to secure to every citizen an absolute right to speak, or write, or print, whatever he might please, without any responsibility, public or private, therefor, is a supposition too wild to be indulged by any rational man. This would be to allow to every citizen a right to destroy, at his pleasure, the reputation, the peace, the property, and even the personal safety of every other citizen…. Civil society could not go on under such circumstances…. It is plain, then, that the language of this amendment imports no more, than that every man shall have a right to speak, write, and print his opinions upon any subject whatsoever, without any prior restraint, so always, that he does not injure any other person in his rights, person, property, or reputation; and so always, that he does not thereby disturb the public peace, or attempt to subvert the government. It is neither more nor less, than an expansion of the great doctrine, recently brought into operation in the law of libel, that every man shall be at liberty to publish what is true, with good motives and for justifiable ends…. Without such a limitation, it might become the scourge of the republic, first denouncing the principles of liberty, and then, by rendering the most virtuous patriots odious through the terrors of the press, introducing despotism in its worst form."

---

Quote:

---

Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (1832):

"We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them over the face of the earth. Some are so carried away that they contentiously assert that the flock of errors arising from them is sufficiently compensated by the publication of some book which defends religion and truth. Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply because there is some hope that good may result. Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again?"

---

Texas 8&4 said:

---

zag213004 said:

---

Texas 8&4 said:

---

I just want to note one thing...you keep referencing government intervention via the FCC. Even if true, is that remotely as bad as the continued weaponization of the judicial system against conservatives? Point being that this is a war, and you have to use the tools you have to win the war. Right or wrong, and not saying I agree, but that is the way it is.

---

If both are occurring then they are both wrong. The "well the other guy defense" is not a valid defense. I don't agree with government violating our constitutional rights. So in conclusion: government intervention (intimidation is a form of intervention) is wrong and so is political targeting in the judicial system. This assumes the government has no valid evidence in doing so per the laws of the land.

I will add another one. Lois learner using the IRS targeting conservative groups by purposefully delaying or subjecting their charity applications to more scrutiny is also wrong. She should be in prison

---

Agree 100%...

So how do you fight back against it if you want to play by the rules?

---

Sadly the government has unlimited funds to fight "you" ironically enough with your own tax dollars. I don't have the answer other than significant financial compensation for wrongful prosecution by the government but that won't help until a judgement is passed.

Only other thing I can think of is just the simple calling out of the government of their tactics. I absolutely hate Kimmel. He is black-face wearing fake social justice warrior hypocritical scum. Whose talent relies on one "bit".… and I choose not to give him my attention because he isn't worth that. I hope enough people feel the same and that his show is cancelled within the natural cycle of supply and demand. But at the same time I don't want the government intervention thru intimidation.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Agreed. Maher is who he's always been. He's not tempering anything.

---

Sorry but a hard disagree…Go back just a couple of years ago and watch an episode of Real Time…Maher was just as arrogant and dismissive about all things on the right as Kimmel…His conservative guests were routinely put through the gauntlet by him and the 2 or 3 other liberal guests he would have on in addition to his audience…Bill's definitely noticeably moved more to the center if by just a hair…Whether he did this because he see things differently now or by trying to save his career who knows….

FireAg said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Quote:

---

"This is a very, very serious issue right now for Disney. We can do this the easy way or the hard way," Carr told right-wing commentator Benny Johnson that day. "These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel, or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead."

"They have a license granted by us at the FCC, and that comes with it an obligation to operate in the public interest," Carr said.

---

Whether unofficial or not, the government does not have the same leverage over twitter.

---

Are you sure about that? Are you sure that the government doesn't have the ability to block a particular social media platform if said platform chooses not to play ball?

Could the government say...block Tik-Tok from being accessible via data networks in the United States?

The government has more leverage over social media platforms than I think you realize...

---

Tik tok being owned by a foreign adversary certainly gives them a clearer set of tools and public backing to do so.

What are your thoughts on why they didn't go after Twitter again after Elon took over and (thankfully) basically removed all of the censorship that was in place before and let the banned accounts rejoin?

Logos Stick said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Texas 8&4 said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

I'm well aware the Biden admin sent posts to Twitter and attempted to get users banned (and that is also wrong) but they have no mechanism to force it.

And again since you seem to be ignoring this point - posting on social media is not a right. No one was arrested for anything they said. A private company restricted their access, which they can do for any or no reason.

---

Don't be naive

---

If twitter told them to F off and didn't ban anyone what would the consequences be? If the government was really controlling their actions why was Elon allowed to do whatever he wanted once he took over?

---

If ABC told Trump to F off, what would the specific consequences be? Please provide evidence of the claim you are about to make.

Also, do you agree that ABC is different than social media when it comes to FCC regulation since they have an FCC license to broadcast?

---

I have no idea, but it seems like the FCC was certainly open to attempting some kind of action regarding their FCC licenses, otherwise I'm not sure the point of their public comments. As Texas 8&4 said, not sure they'd be successful in the courts but I doubt that's a fight anyone wants to have and is also the choice I would have made if I were running ABC.

And yes, I agree there as well.

---

Biden did the same thing to Twitter. The admin threatened to "review" the federal law called Section 230, because it was angry that Twitter and other social media companies were allowing Covid vaccine skepticism. Twitter responded accordingly.

---

Definitely a fair point. I would argue that both tactics are wrong, but I understand wanting to fight the left on their own terms.

If this happened a week earlier, would Kimmel also have won an Emmy?

BlackLab said:

---

If this happened a week earlier, would Kimmel also have won an Emmy?

---

Hey if a political left person can win the Nobel peace prize for doing nothing, an Emmy is peanuts

zag213004 said:

---

Quote:

---

---

Thank you for posting at least one of the actual policies that the FCC chair alluded to Kimmel violating and thus creating pressure on the tv station companies.

Based on the first bullet point of the hoax policy, were those texts (which haven't been verified as admissible evidence in a court of law yet) made public before the monologue? These texts directly contradict kimmels statement. However if he didn't have that information then he would not be subjected to the violation of that first point.

---

To take this a step further. Let's say Kimmel recorded his monologue at noon. Editing, etc. takes some time, and the show is ready to go by 5pm for a 10pm broadcast. If news breaks at 6pm that directly contradicts what was said in the monologue does ABC or the show's producers have an obligation to pull the episode or do they let it run with a disclaimer at the start of the show?

With how fast news breaks these days facts can easily change between recording and broadcast.

Did someone with the show watch that monologue before it aired and even though the information was false, just say "Nah, it'll be fine" and push it through anyway?

The market should have decided and probably would have...Colbert was going to be cancelled anyway

I'm pretty uncomfortable with interference and extortion of private businesses (Intel, etc.) and even news media. Default on Liberty. Otherwise, the cancel culture on the left would be far worse next time.

Sorry, nationalization and integration of private businesses at best brings you a lost decade of stagnation (Japan) or at worst a drift toward socialism/national socialism.

zag213004 said:

---

BlackLab said:

---

If this happened a week earlier, would Kimmel also have won an Emmy?

---

Hey if a political left person can win the Nobel peace prize for doing nothing, an Emmy is peanuts

---

No kidding. And then he drones 3 Americans dead without "DUE PROCESS." Of course, no outrage over that. But do it to drug runners and illegals and oh, what about due process. No one on the left has any credibility left.

Wildmen03 said:

---

zag213004 said:

---

Quote:

---

---

Thank you for posting at least one of the actual policies that the FCC chair alluded to Kimmel violating and thus creating pressure on the tv station companies.

Based on the first bullet point of the hoax policy, were those texts (which haven't been verified as admissible evidence in a court of law yet) made public before the monologue? These texts directly contradict kimmels statement. However if he didn't have that information then he would not be subjected to the violation of that first point.

---

To take this a step further. Let's say Kimmel recorded his monologue at noon. Editing, etc. takes some time, and the show is ready to go by 5pm for a 10pm broadcast. If news breaks at 6pm that directly contradicts what was said in the monologue does ABC or the show's producers have an obligation to pull the episode or do they let it run with a disclaimer at the start of the show?

With how fast news breaks these days facts can easily change between recording and broadcast.

Did someone with the show watch that monologue before it aired and even though the information was false, just say "Nah, it'll be fine" and push it through anyway?

---

Isn't it a live show? It's in the name: Jimmy Kimmel Live.