Post New

First, Colbert and now Kimmel.

Jeebus, Trumpedo, as president, joked about Paul Pelosi having his skull crack. His failson joked that his Halloween costume was going to be a hammer and a pair of underwear. Not a peep from republicans.

Well, wrong; many laughed and cheered.

Yesterday, Trumpedo threatened an Australian journalist, and he's suing every media outlet that doesn't pay him a bribe.

Wow, democracy was fun while it lasted.

Cancel culture.

Free speech for right wing hate mongers only.

WTF.

First, Colbert and now Kimmel.

Shrug..

I looked in on ABC tonight, in the Kimmel time slot. They were running "Celebrity Family Feud". Mindless pap, like all the other singing and dancing nonsense that fills the airwaves now. So mindless it should not offend "his nibs". Years ago, I read that TV became a mindless wasteland, in the 50s, to avoid attracting the attention of the McCarthy types.

Meanwhile, "Hogan's Heroes" is still running weeknights. All the Germans cowering before the Gestapo, terrified they may say the wrong thing, or fail to praise their jumped up piece of poo leader.

Steve

Cancel culture.

The beautiful thing is, apparently not through direct political pressure, but as preemptive obedience* by a media outlet.


*direct translation from the frequently-used term ‚vorauseilender Gehorsam‘

The beautiful thing is, apparently not through direct political pressure, but as preemptive obedience* by a media outlet.

That, of course, is not what happened but all the facts of this case have been massively distorted.

WA PO!!!!


WA PO!!!!!!

BOYCOTT BEZOS!!!!!

BOYCOTT ABC!!!!!!!


BAAAAAAA to our heart's content - but never once take a moment to ask - how could this have been prevented, and how, can we right the ship.

Oh well.


Either it's clueless arrogance OR the cries of "Democracy"! truly are bullshit.

WA PO!!!!


WA PO!!!!!!

We old phartz remember a threat that Katie Graham will get a body part caught in a big, fat, wringer.

But, that was fifty years ago. Everyone is being cowed now.

Steve

That, of course, is not what happened but all the facts of this case have been massively distorted.

On the contrary, it is exactly what happened. Andrew Egger explains:

Eight months into this administration, Donald Trump and his goons have launched so many attacks on our government and civil society that it’s hard to keep them all straight—the law firms, the colleges, the independent agencies, the media companies (and the telecom giants that own them), and on and on and on. Increasingly, though, they’re all part of one meta-story of how the institutions under threat have responded: Did they curl up and give in, or did they fight back?

On the curl-up-and-give-up front, the deck is getting stacked pretty high. JVL wrote last night about the latest example. MAGA didn’t love how late-night host Jimmy Kimmel treated the Charlie Kirk story in one line of his show’s opening monologue the other day,¹ so Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr decided it was time for the government to get involved. “These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel,” he said, “or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.” Within hours, Kimmel’s corporate owners had bent the knee, announcing the host was suspended indefinitely.

One thing to keep in mind about these capitulations is how they snowball. They have tended to come in bunches—when one law firm, one college, one media company rolls over for Trump, it compels others to do the same. Meanwhile, with every new capitulation, Trump grows bolder. There’s no organizing principle to any of this other than his own private desire to see how much he can get away with; at times, even he has seemed faintly mystified by the boundaries he’s been able to blow through. “Have you noticed that lots of law firms have been signing up with Trump?” he said at an event back in April. “They give you $100 million and then they announce that ‘but we have done nothing wrong.’ And I agree, they’ve done nothing wrong. But what the hell, they give me a lot of money considering they’ve done nothing wrong.”

https://www.thebulwark.com/p/yeah-its-fascism-jd-v...

That, of course, is not what happened but all the facts of this case have been massively distorted.


Willful blindness to reality. Sad.

Knee bending for the anthem WAS a tiny tiny part of why this has all happened :)

Enjoy!!!!!

There's still time. I'll even hold off one business day for you to change your attitude and ways.

OR, I'll take more of your 'democracy' tomorrow and run up your debt a few billion.

Choose wisely this time.


Boom..... I'm winning.

On the contrary, it is exactly what happened.

No, it isn’t.

You folks need to think about the TV business for a minute.

The network is the network: they produce the shows that are aired.

But the network’s affiliates choose what to air.

And a great deal many of those affiliates are in the icky flyover country that people like Jimmy Kimmel crap I’m pretty much on the daily.

And guess who watches those affiliates? People upset about the loss of Charlie Kirk.

So when Kimmel fronted the left wing lie narrative about Kirk’s murderer the affiliates - already unhappy with his low ratings - said…nope. We’re yanking his show off the air.

Because guess what? They’re the ones that pick.

ABC merely followed their customers’ lead.

ABC merely followed their customers’ lead.

Do you approve of the decision by FCC Chairman Brendan Carr to raise the possibility of revoking ABC's broadcast license if they didn't pull the Kimmel show:

"There's actions we can take on licensed broadcasters. It's long past the time that...Comcast and Disney say 'We're not gonna run Kimmel anymore...because we licensed broadcasters are running the possibly of fines or licensed revocation from the FCC.'"

I don't think it's plausible to argue that ABC's decision was merely based on "their customers' lead," when you have that kind of statement being made by the head of the FCC.

Wouldn't you be apoplectic if a Democratic FCC chair made such a statement directed at a conservative broadcaster?

Wouldn't you be apoplectic if a Democratic FCC chair made such a statement directed at a conservative broadcaster?

You mean like when the government deplatformed conservatives left and right across social media to the cheers of left wingers everywhere?

You mean like when the government deplatformed conservatives left and right across social media to the cheers of left wingers everywhere?

I certainly recall you were adamant that that was completely inappropriate, yes. Even though the government's role there was quite different than a threat to pull a license, you felt it was censorship for the government to even be telling social media companies when posters were violating the social media companies' own terms of service, without making any actual threats.

Here, we have the head of the FCC making an overt threat to pull the broadcast license of ABC broadcasters if Kimmel's show isn't pulled.

Do you think that was appropriate? Would you be okay with it if a Democratic FCC chair made a similar statement directed at a conservative broadcaster?

Wouldn't you be apoplectic if a Democratic FCC chair made such a statement directed at a conservative broadcaster?

I don't watch Kimmel (or really any late night talk show). But I got up enough curiosity to look up what he said.

"The Maga Gang 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." There were also comments about the Felon's maturity level.

Really? That's it? If he had said something like "glad he's dead", I would get it. But he didn't, and in fact, he sent condolences to the family a few days prior. He insulted POTUS, and MAGA. He did not insult Kirk nor his family.

That the FCC reacted this way is unconscionable. Networks (and affiliates) are certainly free to exercise their own discretion based on their markets (customers). But those comments did not warrant a reaction from the FCC, IMO.

I certainly recall you were adamant that that was completely inappropriate, yes.

And I was 100% right on that. The federal government leaned on social media companies to censor its political opposition and suppress information it didn't like.

Those actions were a-ok with the majority of left wingers. So why are left wingers complaining about something that today's FCC *didn't* do?

Do you think that was appropriate? Would you be okay with it if a Democratic FCC chair made a similar statement directed at a conservative broadcaster?

I can imagine the howls if a Dem FCC chair said "take Tucker Carlson off, or else...". (I assume he's still on the air...if not, pick another Faux Noise talking head.)

So why are left wingers complaining about something that today's FCC *didn't* do?

Because the FCC did do it. The chair of the FCC publicly threatened to pull the broadcast licenses of ABC broadcasters if they didn’t change their own speech. Left wingers believe that goes vastly farther than low level government folks encouraging social media companies to follow their own TOS.

My question to you is why aren’t you enraged by this, given how upset you were back in the day?

"The Maga Gang 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." There were also comments about the Felon's maturity level.

The Utah Gov, saying he was praying, for 33 hours, that the perp was not "one of us".

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/qOuavWu9a1E

From the Salt Lake Tribune, the Gov realizing his prayers were not answered.

‘It was one of us’ — Gov. Spencer Cox and fellow Utahns come to terms with a suspected assassin in their midst

“But it did happen here,” Cox said during a news conference Friday when he announced the arrest, “and it was one of us.”

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2025/09/13/utah-gov-co...

So, where is the distinction between what Kimmel said, and what Governor Cox said?

Steve

Left wingers believe that goes vastly farther than low level government folks

So what you’re saying is that left wingers are totally cool with the FedGov leaning on providers and various companies to censor speech they don’t like.

That tracks. The left also launched into a campaign against “disinformation”, which was always continently defined as “speech they didn’t like”.

Jimmy Kimmel was clearly spreading disinformation and ABC made a decision to remove him for it.

It’s odd to me that the same people who wanted the mere idea of the lab-leak theory - the most plausible one, btw - stricken from the public record entirely and the people who dared to raise the possibility silenced…but are up in arms over the spread of a rather obvious lie.

Perplexing, that.

So, where is the distinction between what Kimmel said, and what Governor Cox said?

One was being sorrowful and respectful, and the other was cracking jokes.

The FCC’s roll in the pulling of Kimmel’s show is horrible, but I think progressives and Democrats are completely missing the moment on this. The death of Charlie Kirk is the conservative portion of the country’s George Floyd moment. And Eric Garner and Trayvon Martin. A huge chunk of the country is shocked and outraged at the horrible and unjustified death of this person.

If you’re cracking wise and making jokes, it means you either fundamentally missed that (which is thoughtless). Or worse, it means you know that and you don’t care. And that’s just not going to be acceptable culturally, regardless of what the government does.

Progressives are not used to the idea that there are lines that cannot be crossed politely that might block their jokes or opinions. That sort of cultural power has, in recent years, been available only to progressives. But conservative has that power now, and in this context, and if progresses don’t start acting the way they expected conservative to act around things like the George Floyd murder, they are going to face even more blowback.

ah, so being told how to feel via rightwing media, in the moment, does matter much more than facts.

damn, we lost an election thinking gop voters actually cared about affordability...or deficits...or pedophilia...

ah, so being told how to feel via rightwing media, in the moment, does matter much more than facts.

No. It just means that if you start cracking jokes about what much of the country feels is a monumental shock to the system, you're going to come off looking like a monstrous a-hole to much of the country.

What a lot of progressives appear to be missing is that this is, in fact, viewed by those folks as a cataclysmic event akin to the Floyd/Trayvon Martin/Eric Garner murders. That regardless of whether Charlie Kirk as a person someone they esteem or despise, the murder of that person itself is a monumental shock. That progressive-coded folks in "normie" institutions (ABC, the Washington Post) are completely ignorant of - or indifferent to - that fact is really distasteful to them. Again, just like cracking some George Floyd jokes a few days after his awful murder would go down with much of the country.

It's a failure to read the room - or even know what room you're in. If you're writing columns for Jacobin, you don't have to worry about any of this. If you're writing for the WaPo or in the writer's room for Jimmy Kimmel Live, though, you're in much more of a "normie" space. And you probably need to be a lot more aware of the fact that a lot of "normie" folks are conservative-leaning and are not okay with this being treated with humor just yet. It's cliche, but it's definitely "too soon."

But conservatives have that power now, and in this context, and if progresses don’t start acting the way they expected conservative to act around things like the George Floyd murder, they are going to face even more blowback.

Disagree, what is happening is entirely different, as I'm sure you well know. While both Floyd and Kirk were killed on video, In George's case the murder was done by a state agent, a policeman. Floyd was not an influencer and if it hadn't been on tape, the cop would've walked. Younger folk took it as this was happening all the time and only came out THIS TIME because it was on video. That we were seeing a visual of a dark fungus creeping in our police.

Kirk was not killed by a state agent, there doesn't seem to be any black fungus creeping in progressives, if nothing else we take away that it might be caused by hate of trans folk - jury is still out.

We'd just had a video of a black jogger being murdered by three white boys, at least one a former cop, and it became evident that it would have been covered up, if one of the crew hadn't filmed. I still wonder why the attorney didn't get them to not give him the video. Lots of possibilities, but once he had it, he needed to turn it in.

The only guard rail left is the court system and we can't count on that. Let progressives face the blowback - how far into gestapoland are we going to go?

reading-the-room certainly has its momentary propaganda value; controlling the fleetingness of anything that matters is the fuel for the last decade of trump's existence.

you were adamant that the factual nature of affordability was the key factor for trump, but it has gotten much worse and is now effectively a non-issue. rightwing media is mostly ignoring consumer prices, or asking for patience so other distractions can take affect. unlike 2024, media is not telling people to 'feel' how terrible prices are.
it is amazing how well it works, because living\rec costs are in the faces of MAGA daily !


i have yet to see where the gop has failed on telling the public how they should feel on any topic since covid (which now seems an anomaly). the epstein clamor among gop voters is not peaking, but slowly fading. thus will this kirk phase go poof as a non-landmark (especially via a killer from the right), along with with the killing of actually elected officials.

Disagree, what is happening is entirely different, as I'm sure you well know.

It's not entirely different - and while there are some significant differences, they're not in the ways that matter to this point. That Kirk was killed by a private citizen, rather than a government official, is not relevant to the impact that their violent deaths have and what level of dignity those events deserve to be treated with in the public discourse. In much the same way that the black community (and a lot of progressives and others) were appalled by both the killing of George Floyd and the killing of the black jogger, even though the killers in those two cases were different - because a lot of the impacts stemmed from the killings themselves, not who did it.

It's the sentiment encapsulated in the expression, "too soon." When people are still raw from a tragedy, if you start treating that tragedy with less than the respect that they think it warrants, they will think you're being a monster. I think Kimmel (or his writers) and Attiah and Dowd really misread where that line actually is today. For the last many years, saying things in "normie" cultural spaces that violated progressive taboos as being hateful or vile could get you fired without warning, but there weren't all that many "invisible lines" that you couldn't cross in saying things that conservatives found hateful or vile. That tide has turned. Conservatives are now feeling very muscular in pushing for their unwritten rules about what statements are so offensive as to "go too far" and warrant private parties firing their employees.

Oh, and for those saying Carr was leaning on ABC:

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/su...

§ 73.1217 Broadcast hoaxes.

(a) No licensee or permittee of any broadcast station shall broadcast false information concerning a crime or a catastrophe if:

(1) The licensee knows this information is false;

(2) It is foreseeable that broadcast of the information will cause substantial public harm, and

(3) Broadcast of the information does in fact directly cause substantial public harm.

(b) Any programming accompanied by a disclaimer will be presumed not to pose foreseeable harm if the disclaimer clearly characterizes the program as a fiction and is presented in a way that is reasonable under the circumstances.

(c) For purposes of this rule, “public harm” must begin immediately, and cause direct and actual damage to property or to the health or safety of the general public, or diversion of law enforcement or other public health and safety authorities from their duties. The public harm will be deemed foreseeable if the licensee could expect with a significant degree of certainty that public harm would occur. A “crime” is any act or omission that makes the offender subject to criminal punishment by law. A “catastrophe” is a disaster or imminent disaster involving violent or sudden event affecting the public.

Dope1: (a) No licensee or permittee of any broadcast station shall broadcast false information concerning a crime...

Umm, what now?

I believe this was the entirety of Kimmel's comments. What, here, is “false information”? And if you want to get into “false information” about a crime, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with Trumpedo's (and his failson's) comments on Fox "News" about Paul Pelosi.

KIMMEL: “We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it. “In between the finger-pointing, there was grieving. On Friday, the White House flew the flags at half staff, which got some criticism, but on a human level, you can see how hard the president is taking this. [Kimmel runs a clip of Trumpedo, who when asked about Kirk changed the subject to the new Ball Room.] Yes, he’s at the fourth stage of grief, construction. This is not how an adult grieves the murder of someone he called a friend.”

“There’s something wrong with him, there really is. Who thinks like that?”

So, what's false?

We'd just had a video of a black jogger being murdered by three white boys, at least one a former cop
****

How was a "boy" a cop? Don't you have to be over 18, or even over 21 to be a cop?

Or is "white boy" a racist slur you use----and are now being punished for, finally?

Or iw "white boy" just your usual denigrating of someone's humanity no different then when White 401K Liberals say "African American Male"....versus just calling him "a man"?

It's "come home to roost" as Sheeple and Reverend Wright will tell you.

please don't remind us why more is needed :)

So, what's false?

Besides all of it? "MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them"

Whoops.

So it turns out that Carr...was acting in accordance to FCC regulations.

Oh, and for those saying Carr was leaning on ABC:

This statute doesn't refute the (correct) claim that Carr was "leaning" on ABC. Nor would it apply to the statements that Kimmel made, as pointed out above. Just because a comedian expresses opinions you disagree with, or think are completely wrong, doesn't mean that they're disseminating false information.

Besides all of it? "MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them"

How is that statement false?

Conservatives were trying to characterize the shooter as not being one of them. Do you think they weren't?

This statute doesn't refute the (correct) claim that Carr was "leaning" on ABC. Nor would it apply to the statements that Kimmel made, as pointed out above. Just because a comedian expresses opinions you disagree with, or think are completely wrong, doesn't mean that they're disseminating false information.

Carr obviously saw it the other way, so the so-called "Champions of free speech" here who are suddenly finding it annoying that somebody they like was #cancelled after literally hundreds of right wingers were cancelled, banned, debanked and other stuff...

...can take it up with him.

How is that statement false?

Conservatives were trying to characterize the shooter as not being one of them. Do you think they weren't?

His statement implies that the shooter was MAGA, which was obviously false from Day 0 of the murder investigation. But that didn't stop Kimmel and many others from pushing what was obviously disinformation.

Now you're going to rejoinder that there's no possible way to read into his comments Because Reasons and you're free to offer up your interpretation and opinion of the veracity of Kimmel's comments all you like, but...

1. Carr did nothing wrong, as there is an active reg on the book about reporting misinformation with respect to crime, and
2. ABC's affiliate stations said, "We're not airing this guy any longer" and were going to choose to take the business of that time slot elsewhere.

So this isn't the Big Massive Free Speech issue the left desperately needs to make it out to be.

Instead, perhaps it would be better for the left to quietly contemplate their own roles in cheering on and encouraging cancel culture and the stifling of free speech. BTW, I let your comment about 'low level officials' pushing censorship slide earlier. That was patently false, just so you know.

(a) No licensee or permittee of any broadcast station shall broadcast false information concerning a crime or a catastrophe if:

(1) The licensee knows this information is false;

Did the FCC threaten Fox when they knowingly lied about the Dominion voting machines for months on end? Or when Fox voluntarily paid Dominion three-quarters of a billion dollars, which was an admission that they knowingly lied?

Take your crocodile tears and hypocrisy somewhere else, because no one here is falling for that crap.

Carr obviously saw it the other way, so the so-called "Champions of free speech" here who are suddenly finding it annoying that somebody they like was #cancelled after literally hundreds of right wingers were cancelled, banned, debanked and other stuff...

...can take it up with him.

They are. I mean, obviously he doesn't read these message boards, but clearly the criticisms are directed towards him. The existence of this statute doesn't justify his statements, because it so clearly doesn't apply.

This unprecedented action by the chair of the FCC. I think progressives are on shaky ground complaining about the actions of private companies in firing (or "cancelling") employees for doing stuff that's going to be considered detestable by a huge swatch of their audience. But the government action is a wholly different thing.

His statement implies that the shooter was MAGA, which was obviously false from Day 0 of the murder investigation. But that didn't stop Kimmel and many others from pushing what was obviously disinformation.

The statute doesn't apply to implications. It applies to false information.

1. Carr did nothing wrong, as there is an active reg on the book about reporting misinformation with respect to crime

He absolutely did something wrong. Kimmel didn't "report misinformation," he expressed an opinion (or at worst a correct factual statement) as part of his monologue.

His statement implies that the shooter was MAGA, which was obviously false from Day 0 of the murder investigation. But that didn't stop Kimmel and many others from pushing what was obviously disinformation.

...

He absolutely did something wrong. Kimmel didn't "report misinformation," he expressed an opinion (or at worst a correct factual statement) as part of his monologue.

Agreed. Though the MAGA people are claiming the shooter wasn't MAGA. There appear to be conflicting stories, so I'm not sure if anyone has really figured that out yet. If he wasn't, and Kimmel said he was, that would be misinformation. At least in hindsight. At the time he made those comments, we really only knew that he was from a red family in a red city in a red state.

FCC should not have gotten involved. The network can fire whomever they like. That's a business decision. Government applying pressure is oppression of free speech. IMHO.

If he wasn't, and Kimmel said he was, that would be misinformation.

Kimmel didn't say he was. Nor would it be misinformation as defined by the statute - which only implies to false information that would result in an imminent threat to life and property:

“public harm” must begin immediately, and cause direct and actual damage to property or to the health or safety of the general public, or diversion of law enforcement or other public health and safety authorities from their duties.

...which obviously didn't happen. This statute applies to something like a news broadcaster falsely saying that there's a terrorist holding hostages at the local bank (or some such thing), which causes the police to rush over there only to find there's nothing going on. Not a late night talk show host expressing opinions about public events.

Did the FCC threaten Fox when they knowingly lied about the Dominion voting machines for months on end?

Don't know.

Take your crocodile tears and hypocrisy somewhere else, because no one here is falling for that crap.

So sez the side that cheered on all the debanking, #cancelling and deplatforming of...pretty much anybody the democrats had a problem with. This newfound love of the 1st Amendment from you people is 100% BS and you know it.

He absolutely did something wrong. Kimmel didn't "report misinformation," he expressed an opinion (or at worst a correct factual statement) as part of his monologue.

As I said, that's one interpretation of his remarks. As I'm not him, I won't comment one way or the other on what he said.

Oh, and some more factoids.

Turns out the real reason Jimmy Kimmel is as of this moment destined to Learn To Code is none other than...

...Jimmy Kimmel himself:

https://nypost.com/2025/09/18/media/ujimmy-kimmel-...

Unrepentant Jimmy Kimmel refused to apologize after Charlie Kirk outrage — and planned to double-down on MAGA attacks: report

Before we dive into the article, let's note that JK is suffering from falling ratings and was in fact in last place among the 3 late night shows.

Now the article:
Late night host Jimmy Kimmel said he was unwilling to apologize for his remarks that blamed MAGA supporters for killing conservative activist Charlie Kirk — and said he was going to double down on attacking President Trump’s backers before he was yanked from the air, according to new reports.

Kimmel learned in a phone call from top Disney exec Dana Walden on Wednesday afternoon that his show was being removed indefinitely, Deadline reported, citing sources.

During the call, Kimmel reportedly refused to comply with calls from critics and the owners of dozens of ABC affiliate stations for him to apologize.

LOL. The left's new free speech martyr is looking like anything but.

Disney, however, felt that if Kimmel had doubled down on his MAGA comments, the company would have been forced to make a more drastic decision than simply suspending the show, sources told Deadline.

In the media biz, "Suspending" basically means "gone" because once an audience finds another home...it doesn't come back in the same numbers that existed before.

As I said, that's one interpretation of his remarks. As I'm not him, I won't comment one way or the other on what he said.

It's not an interpretation of his remarks. He didn't make any false statements. The only part of his statement that might be construed as a statement of fact was a assertion that the "MAGA gang" was trying to "characterize" Robinson as not being "one of them." Even if that is a factual statement (and without any definition of what the "MAGA gang" is, it's hard to say that this is a falsifiable statement), not even you are asserting that it's untrue. Many (if not most) conservatives have been, and continue to, contest that Robinson is "one of them." In fact, I think you wholeheartedly agree that Robinson isn't one of "the MAGA gang."

The FCC provision doesn't apply to "interpretations" or "implications" of statements that are broadcast. Just false information (and only false information with very specifically defined immediate effects, which this statement didn't fall into, either).

This provision just isn't applicable. There's no argument that it is. The FCC chair's statement was completely insupportable.

He didn't make any false statements. The only part of his statement that might be construed as a statement of fact was a assertion that the "MAGA gang" was trying to "characterize" Robinson as not being "one of them." Even if that is a factual statement (and without any definition of what the "MAGA gang" is, it's hard to say that this is a falsifiable statement), not even you are asserting that it's untrue. Many (if not most) conservatives have been, and continue to, contest that Robinson is "one of them." In fact, I think you wholeheartedly agree that Robinson isn't one of "the MAGA gang."

As you are a litigator and as such an extensive trained public speaker - and upthread you reminded your cohort here about "reading the room" - do you think your explanation above will land in the current environment?

As you are a litigator and as such an extensive trained public speaker - and upthread you reminded your cohort here about "reading the room" - do you think your explanation above will land in the current environment?

It should land just fine. The limited question of whether Carr had any statutory authority to make the threat he did is a pretty narrow one - and Carr (like Bondi) is being criticized from all over the political spectrum for asserting that the government has any role in telling private parties that odious or hateful speech should be prohibited. Few folks are getting upset over folks having respectful conversations about what Kirk's assassination does mean, and should mean, for how the government and private parties handle acrimonious or contentious speech.

In case you're interested, the below is a fairly solid discussion of why what Carr did was so wrongful:

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/09/18/jimmy-kimmel-...

It's not entirely different -

In the way I described it as being different, it most definitely is different. I accept "too soon" as a valid criticism, I do that to relieve stress and don't really care on the internet. IRL I'm different. But I also make social mistakes - not everyone likes me, but they like my wife.

Frankly, it looks like any excuse is being used right now to get anyone Trump doesn't like off the air. That is what's happening, and characterizing it as "those people" who don't pay attention to conservative sensibilities - it isn't, it's pay attention to Trump's sensibilities. He's threatened Australian journalists. Perhaps he's sensed the moment has given him more power, conservatives are posting "turn in people to their employers" - because employers are scared, so this is an unusual time. I suppose Dope could turn me in somewhere and go after my retirement. That's the ticket! :)

I'm sure if I worked at it, I'd remember who got damaged by progressives on the RW side from poor jokes at these times, but it's late and the mind is blank.

Trump is displaying incredible power right now. I'm hoping it doesn't last.

Dope: The federal government leaned on social media companies to censor its political opposition and suppress information it didn't like.

Wasn't that about covid/vaccines and during a declared pandemic? How is it that you don't understand that that's appropriate?

This provision just isn't applicable. There's no argument that it is. The FCC chair's statement was completely insupportable.

Agreed. Dope is just being evasive because he's got nothing.

Not only was it inappropriate, but legal experts are saying it was illegal.

https://www.npr.org/2025/09/18/nx-s1-5545720/kimme...

It's called "jawboning". Not kosher.

To get back on the air Jimmy Kimmel must call for the execution of homeless people.

Post New

Brookfield Corporation FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.