DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Jimmy Kimmel taken off air over Charlie Kirk comments

Where was everyone when all of this was being said??

Oh, memories....

Peen,
I tried to say something similar to the last part of your response here, but I think you put it much more clearly.


While I don't care much for the optics of a president sending in his FCC chair like a hired thug because it presents a slippery slope for subsequent leaders to follow... as well as (threat of) regulation as the avenue of injecting more decency into media being more of a reflection of where we are vs a fix... it's hard for me to argue against accountability (in any form). I just worry that this is being done selectively... enforcing accountability in a hypocritical manner isn't accountability at all.

In the end?

FCC's Brendan Carr made this comment at about 1:30 P.M..... “We can do this the easy way or the hard way,”

It was after that before any of these affiliates announced they would no longer air Kimmel.

ABC, Nexstar and Sinclair all have major decisions soon coming before the FCC. For people that can't see what went on here it's because they don't want to see it.

Do you mean celebrities have different rights to say different things depending on whether they are on a late night show or FOX News?

That's not what it says about free speech in the constitution.

j/c

For all of those pointing out "but this democratic politician said this and that democratic politician said that."

None of them were the head of the FCC who had the direct power over their FCC licenses to broadcast and approving upcoming network deals to broadcast. All at a time when both the two largest affiliate groups as well as the network itself has major rulings coming up soon before the FCC.

The very head of the FCC made the direct threat that "We can do this the easy way or we can do this the hard way."

But please, do go on.

2 minutes verifying this will show anyone that has any interest in real news and facts - that this is [1] Not accurate [2] It is not "fact checked" as claimed on the persons post. [3] Funny to see an attempt to claim a fact check on a lie and not funny that it's the same poster re-posting misinfotmation again.

J/C

Trump's top media regulator says 'I don't think this is the last shoe to drop'.

Brendan Carr Targets ‘The View’ As FCC Chairman Continues Regulatory Threats In Aftermath Of Jimmy Kimmel’s Suspension

Claiming that the model “hasn’t worked for a long time,” Trump took aim at Stephen Colbert, whose late-night show was canceled in July, before alleging that “no-talent” Kimmel and “Tonight Show” host Jimmy Fallon would be the next to go.

“Colbert has no talent,” Trump said. “I mean, I could take anybody here, I could go outside on the beautiful streets and pick a couple of people that would do just as well or better. They got higher ratings than he did. He’s got no talent.”

He added: “Fallon has no talent. Kimmel has no talent. They’re next. They’re going to be going. I hear they are going to be going. I don’t know, but I would imagine, because Colbert has better ratings than Kimmel or Fallon.”

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/trump-said-kimmel-going-just-203346105.html

Yeah, this was all just a happy accident.

Meh - It's the same but different. Is that your argument? It's the same but this time it was the head of the FCC that made a public statement? ... Sure I sort of get it. But I think it's a bit disingenuous to think that this isn't another case of 'both sides have threatened this crap' .... Not sure what Colbert lost his job for. Not sure if others will lose jobs/license. I agree Trump sating publicly that ABC and others should lose their license it concerning. But. . . what the Dems have said and done in the past is not "nothing" ... With reference to the post above about FB - Biden's admin (and FBI) did put pressure on them / warn them and other SM regarding some Covid info and some Hunter Biden laptop stuff. Again - not nothing but also not "censor Anybody". jmo

Only one agency holds the power over future deals and licensing on broadcasting. That the FCC.

My post isn't debatable in that regard. Saying it and having the power to act on it are two totally different things. Is that the point you're trying to debate here?

That people who have no power over broadcasting making comments about this verses the people who hold all the power over broadcasting making the threat that "We can do this the easy way or we can do this the hard way" is the same thing?

It's most certainly not.

The "thug" was re-hired by Biden. The "thug" was confirmed unanimously by the senate.


Now, I've used the term "thug" above, not because I'm shaming you for using it, but because that is the way it appears, and I get it. The bottom line though is that Carr hasn't pulled any punches. BEFORE he was confirmed, he said he would take a more assertive and activist role for the FCC in regulating broadcast media content and holding media companies accountable. Especially concerning biased or irresponsible content. Maybe those on the left hoped that meant censoring Greg Gutfeld??

My opinion? This was a perfect storm brought on by the Kirk assassination and I don't think the results would have been different whether Trump egged him on or not... which, by the way, everyone is assuming happened and speaking as if it as fact... as usual.

That said, I wish we had a president that would filter some of the bs that comes out of his mouth because it has a tendency to come back and bite him. The narrative now is "Trump said he was coming after Kimmel" when he said "I hear Jimmy Kimmel is next" after Colbert was cancelled. It was said in a lighthearted manner as he talked about how he has no skills as a comedian. Presidential? Not in the least. Are his comments the tail wagging the dog? I don't know, quite possibly. But it's funny how conjecture is readily accepted as fact where Trump is concerned.

So, now we have an "activist" FCC director. I don't know if that's bad or good, but let's be honest, the sh*tshow we've watched in all forms of media is clearly out of hand. And like it or not, those granted licenses to use the airwaves have a certain set of criteria to follow that hasn't just been pulled out of thin air by Carr.

As far as Kimmel is concerned. He's despicable and he's not really entertaining. He jumped on a soapbox every night to tell his narrow-minded, dwindling fanbase how terrible the president is. Definitely not much comedy there, more like someone spewing vitriol under the guise of comedy. He got what he deserved and I'm sure ABC was just itching for impetus, clearly seizing the moment when the Kirk comments aired. Which, by the way, many on the inside say he was reprimanded for and urged to walk back, for which he responded with a middle finger.

The dude knew he lied. There was already a mountain of evidence saying the shooter wasn't MAGA when only a molehill was required to guide a normal human into second guessing that language. But "normal human" doesn't apply. He's driven by his hatred of Trump.

I wasn't tracking his history at all, so I appreciate you pointing that out. That said, it also motivated me to educate myself on his history with FCC.

I do want to stress that I actually agree with the majority of your last response, and especially with your overall point.

His history with FCC isn't quite as consistent and altruistic as you make it sound. I'm not going to risk looking like I'm trying to attack Carr because I don't disagree with the decision enough to do so.

I think using this as an example of people being too easily misinformed is a bad one (there are better, 'juicier' examples out there). Did you know that Nexstar is waiting on FCC approval for a merger? I did not until I just read it. I'm sure you can deduce where I'm going with that.


The more I think/read about it, the more I'm convinced this was a convenient/pragmatic exit to a show whose ratings were already slipping, and a business decision. And along those lines, the thing I agree with you the most on is that Kimmel isn't worth all this debate/effort.

Still waiting for an answer

Both Sinclair and ABC's parent company Disney also have deals in the works that will require FCC approval......

Sinclair is in the process of buying and selling TV stations — all of which require approval from the FCC.

Did Disney have NFL deal in mind when pulling Jimmy Kimmel?

When media companies do deals that require federal approval, it's hard not to think about.

The company has a mega-deal with the NFL that will require regulatory approval from the Trump administration before it can proceed. Kimmel could be a sacrificial lamb.

https://awfulannouncing.com/politics/disney-nfl-deal-pulling-jimmy-kimmel-fcc-chairman.html

I didn't do a deep dive on Carr, just enough to see the history of where he came from and what he was (verbally) stood for. I'm not sure about your dive with the FCC, but a ran across a pretty interesting history lesson. I looked because I wanted a little context of the HDTV debacle when the networks screamed for government providing infrastructure so that they could "compete" and then weren't keeping their end of the bargain. Both Bush and then Obama laid down the law for compliance and put their licensing on the line.


Soon after the Kimmel announcement I heard about the merger. This is where I've been most outspoken against Trump from the beginning. Shut your mouth once in a while and find a damned filter. So now, whether he pressured these companies or said absolutely nothing at all to them personally, his reputation and words proceed him. This also gives ABC an out as they also know raised eyebrows and pointed fingers will go straight to Trump.

I guess part of my litmus test is: would companies looking for a mega-merger do anything different knowing the feelings of any president in office? I think the answer is easy.

Another note is that there was pressure for Jimmy to apologize before the suspension. He gave a firm no and said he would "double down on criticisms of Trump supporters". So who knows? Maybe that was his way of pushing his chips into the center of the table as he was ready to watch the final cards fall and walk away? TBH he has seemed nothing short of unhinged, angry and unhappy since the election and may have been ready to self-martyr and walk away?

Trump’s stated promise: ‘Stop all government censorship’ and his free speech Executive Order — First Amendment News 454

Let’s begin with President Donald Trump’s second inaugural address (Jan. 20), if only to contrast it with last week’s condemnation of his lawsuit against J. Ann Selzer, the Des Moines Register, and its parent company Gannett (see also FAN 451, 449 and 436).

Ready? Here it goes:

After years and years of illegal and unconstitutional federal efforts to restrict free expression, I will also sign an executive order to immediately stop all government censorship and bring back free speech to America.

Never again will the immense power of the state be weaponized to persecute political opponents, something I know something about. We will not allow that to happen. It will not happen again. Under my leadership, we will restore fair, equal, and impartial justice under the constitutional rule of law.

Never again! It will not happen again! Stop all government censorship!

And there’s more: When it comes to free speech, all views will be treated with “impartial justice.” Against that promissory note, let us turn to his unprecedented executive order as discussed below.
Executive Order: Jan. 20, 2025

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:

What follows is a brief description of the Executive Order along with some preliminary comments.
Section 1. Purpose

This section opens with an attack on the Biden administration’s alleged “trampl[ing of] free speech rights” when it comes to “online platforms.” Such abridgments, it is asserted, were done in the name of combating “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and “malinformation” in order to advance the Biden administration’s “preferred narrative.”

Note at the outset that this section is primarily addressed to reversing the Biden administration’s apparent censorship of online expression. Even so, there is a generalized statement: “Government censorship of speech is intolerable in a free society.”

Keep that in mind when it comes to what is set out in Section 4 below.
Section 2. Policy

This section focuses on four commitments: (i) securing free speech rights of all “American[s]”; (ii) mandating that “no [federal] agent engages in or facilitates” abridgments of free speech; (iii) ensuring that no “taxpayer resources” are used to abridge free speech; and (iv) identify and correct any past federal abridgments of free speech.

Unlike Section 1, the explicit focus of this section is not confined to any free speech abridgments committed by the previous administration. The focus is on securing free speech rights of “citizens.” Hence, the policy is directed to an affirmative obligation of the Executive branch to protect free speech rights. The operative action words are “secur[ing],” “ensur[ing],” and “identify[ing].”

Thus, there is a duty to ensure that no federal officers are used or taxpayer dollars expended in violation of the Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Also, unlike Section 1, much of Section 2 applies to all free speech rights and not those confined to social media. There is also a promise to investigate for any and all existing abridgments of free speech committed by “past misconduct by the Federal Government.”
Section 3. Ending Censorship of Protected Speech

Like Section 1, this section focuses on the actions of the past administration (i.e., abridgments committed “over the past four years”). This section, unlike section 2, explicitly applies to federal departments and agencies, though it also applies to federal officers, agents and employees. Such agencies and departments must comply with the requirements of Section 2.

The second portion of this section deals with the investigative powers of the attorney general working “in consultation with the heads of executive departments and agencies.” Again, this investigation is confined to wrongs committed by the past administration. Following such investigations, a “report” shall be submitted to the President suggesting “remedial actions.”

Much of this section seems repetitive of what is set out in Section 2, save for the references to federal departments and agencies and the need for investigation followed by a report to the President. Note that under Section 3, remedial action is suggested, whereas under Section 4, per this Executive Order, remedial action against the United States and its officers is prohibited.
Section 4. General Provisions

In order to appreciate the import of this clause, it is best to quote the final provision (sub-section (c) it in its entirety (with emphasis added):

This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

The opening provisions of this Section refer to authorizations of grants of executive power. The Order is to be implemented consistent with the “applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.”

1. Importantly, While the First Amendment is a prohibition against the federal government and all its officers, this Executive Order:

2. applies to free speech wrongs committed during “the last 4 years” or “past misconduct by the Federal Government” or abridgments occurring “over the last 4 years,” though there is a passing mention of securing the free speech rights of all “American[s].”

Yet even as against such past alleged free speech wrongs, the sole remedy is by way of corrective action taken by the Executive Branch. If such corrective action, or any other actions taken by Executive officials in pursuance of this Executive Order, themselves abridge First Amendment rights, there is no independent remedy secured by the Order.

https://www.thefire.org/news/blogs/...rumps-stated-promise-stop-all-government

"In Washington, there is a new sheriff in town; and under Donald Trump's leadership, we may disagree with your views, but we will fight to defend your right to offer it in the public square, agree or disagree."

woah...

The flaw in your logic is that Trump had Kimmel removed. He did not. Only Disney could have removed Kimmel and they did. The FCC could fine Disney for allowing the blatant lies Kimmel was telling on air. You have a right to free speech. You do not have a right to inflammatory remarks that could cause harm in any way to another person. That is what Kimmel did. Disney acted appropriately. The FCC also acted appropriately. The left just does not like it because they have operated with free reign for quite some time now.

Nothing even surprising here. Some of these people speak from a standpoint of absolute impunity. She could poop on the House floor and the fine people of New York would applaud.

That said, she has a right to say whatever she wants and started her spiel with a sharp condemnation of his assassination and political violence. On the left, that punches your ticket to say whatever you want, no matter how vile. That's the party that just inserted a disclaimer in front of every message of support for burning cities during the never-ending George Floyd protests.

I'm fine with it for good reason... between her, Hakeem and the dolt that was screaming fascism again yesterday, they're doing everything they can to ruin a very good chance at taking back the house.

Keep it up!

It is wild how the DNC just doesn't get it.

Can FOX News be fined for the lies they tell? Oh that's right, they were successfully sued for $787.5 million settlement to Dominion Voting Systems for at least one of their lies.


Can you please quote what "inflammatory remarks that could cause harm in any way to another person"?

I'll help you out. Here is what Kimmel said in regards to the actions of the republican party. None of it involved any comments about Charlie Kirk.........................

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.

He then showed a clip of a reporter asking Trump how he was holding up in the wake of Kirk’s death...................

“I think very good,” Trump replied. “And by the way, right there where you see all the trucks, they just started construction of the new ballroom for the White House, which is something they’ve been trying to get, as you know, for about 150 years, and it’s gonna be a beauty.”

“Yes, he’s at the fourth stage of grief: construction,” Kimmel said. “Demolition, construction. This is not how an adult grieves the murder of someone he called a friend. This is how a 4-year-old mourns a goldfish.”

So please explain how any of that is being disrespectful to charlie Kirk or how any of thrse comments were directed towards charlie Kirk. the only thing those comments could have actually hurt was trump's ego.

Here is what Kimmel actually said about the murder of Kirk and the condolences sent well before the monologue....................

“Instead of the angry finger-pointing, can we just for one day agree that it is horrible and monstrous to shoot another human? On behalf of my family, we send love to the Kirks and to all the children, parents and innocents who fall victim to senseless gun violence,” said Jimmy Kimmel in a post on Instagram.

https://www.instagram.com/jimmykimm...rid=db33fa2f-ed88-40d6-b07d-8167625d8cd4

They are really showing the world who they are that is for sure. Hateful people.

Exactly the same type of hateful things as trump has been saying for years now and you didn't give a single damn about it?

TDS is sure a tough pill to swallow. Telling lies and speaking about someone who was murdered by one of their own is really disgusting and despicable. Speaks volumes to the nation though.

So you have no response to............ Can you please quote what "inflammatory remarks that could cause harm in any way to another person"? that was your statement that you are now backtracking on.

What did he say where he was "speaking about someone who was murdered" other than to say he was murdered? Where did he say that the shooter was MAGA?

He did none of those things.

He was speaking about trump and the republicans. I know English is your first language so I have no idea how you're been so easily lied to and accepted them as truth this way.

Maybe if Kimmel would have just said mentally ill homeless people should be put to death he would still have a job...................

On Sept. 10, Kilmeade and others were on “Fox & Friends” discussing the fatal stabbing of Iryna Zarutska in Charlotte, North Carolina. The man accused of killing her reportedly suffers from mental illness and was living in a homeless shelter at the time. During this conversation, cohost Lawrence Jones said that unhoused people who refuse treatment for mental illness should “be locked up in jail,” to which Kilmeade replied that they should be subjected to “involuntary lethal injection.”

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...n-kilmeade-homeless-comment/86181269007/

It seems you're a bit confused. That's what hate looks like.

You do not have a right to inflammatory remarks that could cause harm in any way to another person. That's what these FOX and friends co-hosts did.

You know, it's been 10 years since trump came down the escalator. In all these years the best line of BS you have managed to come up with to try and excuse all of then nasty things trump does and says is to throw up three letters trying to blame those who point it out. TDS. You sound like you're 10