Charlie Kirk, MAGA influencer and Turning Point USA co-founder, killed at 31

On Wednesday, before ABC yanked Kimmel's show, Carr called Kimmel's comments "truly sick" and said there was a "strong case" for action against ABC and Disney.

"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.

Link to CNBC article

There’s plenty of info on this if you google “FCC chairman Jimmy Kimmel”.

The following is from Chris Cuomo:

“You can like or not like Disney’s decision on Kimmel.”

“But until I see proof of actual government coercion of their decision, this is about Disney making a business decision about its brand and the responsibility it has to respect the desires of its audience and its license.”

“I don’t care how you feel about it. We don’t have the proof before us. Maybe we will, then I’ll change my analysis.”

Chris Cuomo

BTW, free speech and letting progressives share their views is the best thing that has happened to the republican party. It would really be foolish for the GOP to try to shut that down.

The following is from Chris Cuomo:

“You can like or not like Disney’s decision on Kimmel.”

“But until I see proof of actual government coercion of their decision, this is about Disney making a business decision about its brand and the responsibility it has to respect the desires of its audience and its license.”

“I don’t care how you feel about it. We don’t have the proof before us. Maybe we will, then I’ll change my analysis.”

Chris Cuomo

Chris Cuomo is making a distinction without a difference. The government threatening to coerce is....coercion. Disney/ABC did not make this decision of their own volition. They made it because they were threatened.

And we do have the proof before us.

The FCC's rules on intentionally lying to the public are not explicitly codified as a law or regulation. However, the agency has a policy against "news distortion" that allows it to take action on complaints about the accuracy or bias of news coverage. This policy is based on the principle that broadcasters must not intentionally distort factual news reports. The FCC's authority is limited to cases where it can prove that a broadcaster has deliberately distorted a factual news report. Expressions of opinion or errors stemming from mistakes are not actionable under this policy.

Federal Communications Commission

Edit with further link: Hoaxes | Federal Communications Commission

a citizenry that took up arms”

“A citizenry that took up arms”?

The reality is that there were about 2500 out of 330,000,000 that entered the capitol, the vast majority of whom were not armed. They were peacefully walking through. So no, it wasn’t a citizenry in any meaningful sense that took up arms. The percentage of the American people who did that won’t even show up on calculator. There are more illegally armed people in a mid size city any given weekend than were in Washington. That’s no defense of those in the capitol whether peacefully or not. It is simply a comment on reality.

You cannot be a serious participant in a conversation with this type of statement. It is ridiculous.

At no time was the government in danger. It was wrong to do. It was silly. But there is no serious argument that the government was in danger.

One of the funny things is this: When the right said that the 2nd Amendment wasn’t about hunting and sport shooting but about defending against a tyrannical government, the left mocked it saying no way that individuals with guns were going to overthrow the US government with all its firepower. Then, when a few armed people (who didn’t fire a shot) show up in Washington, all of the sudden the government is in danger of being overthrown.

That alone reminds us of the stupidity of people these days. If we are going to be a serious people, we are going to have to have serious conversations. We need to end the nonsense.

JD Miller, it appears we have vastly different ideas regarding the freedom of speech and freedom of the press. I'll just leave it at that.

JD Miller, it appears we have vastly different ideas regarding the freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Yes, we do. I find it interesting that you are okay with known lies being spread by those who are directly under the regulations of FCC, but you had no problem during Covid when the Biden administration was pressuring the censure of private citizens and doctors from sharing scientific data that did not support their narrative.

Trump said on the campaign trail that:

He will, “immediately stop all government censorship and bring back free speech to America.” And “never again will immense power of the state be weaponized to persecute political opponents”. This was going to be the most pro-free speech administration in the history of the US.

Reality is that is only the fact when they are aligned with his thoughts. Otherwise, he is using the federal government to go after people because of their speech. When Pam Bondi spoke and Trump standing next to her nodding, even the far right decried what was being spoken and called for her removal. Don’t shift to Biden and what he did. This falls on Trump. He promised something and instead is doing the opposite. This falls on the heels of the Epstein file release debacle. Everything he does is about serving him and his purpose.

I’m firmly on the side of free speech, and if Disney acted due to the FCC (not completely proven as far as I can tell, regardless of the assertion) and the FCC doesn’t back down (sounds like Carr has already slightly backtracked), then I want to courts to take this in hand quickly. It should be noted that no one from Kimmel on down to anyone in his show or media has been charged with any sort of violation by the government either, so his speech hasn’t truly been silenced. Carr should have kept his mouth shut, and plenty are arguing that, so this won’t get swept under the carpet, but I’ve also seen no proof that the cancelation of Kimmel’s show was due only to Carr’s statements either and would not have happened otherwise.

However, the comments made by Kimmel were not “harmless,” as portrayed by one of the posters here. “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” That quote is loosely translated from the original, and I’ll leave it to the reader to research who said it if you don’t already know. The author argued that the state would have to support such a lie, but I don’t think even he foresaw the way media companies on their own, without state coercion, would come to parrot only one side of an argument.

Though I don’t want the government involved, I’m also completely in favor of companies enforcing consequences for employees or contractors whose speech is detrimental to their reputations (though I would argue Disney’s is already quite tarnished).

you had no problem during Covid when the Biden administration was pressuring the censure of private citizens and doctors from sharing scientific data that did not support their narrative.

I've never said I'm ok with that.

I think we need to be careful about taking at face value the claim that the only reason Disney jettisoned Kimmel was government influence; journalists like my great uncle at least used to be famously ornery and pretty hard to intimidate. For example, one of the highlights of my great uncle's career was exposing a Mafia gambling ring protected by the Louisiana political establishment, and he was actually sued for defamation--and slept for years with a loaded revolver under his pillow in case the Mob decided to take action. They never tried, perhaps because Kenny had saved the life of a mobster in WW2.

So knowing the landscape, I don't completely buy that Disney would kowtow to Trump. I would believe, however, that they'd see plunging ratings and a guy relentlessly plugging his view of the world, and then use Trump's threat as a pretext to let him go.

Disney has kowtow many times. Conservatives were claiming during the Biden administration that Disney was giving into the liberal agenda. Everyone keeps conflating comedy with journalism. And they are missing the point of the joke, which was not about MAGA and Kirk. Trump and team decried all of the "censorship" on Twitter, Facebook and other places that disagreed with their COVID views or their stances on other issues. They vowed to remove censorship and did so with an Executive order. Only to be hitting the ground pushing for censorship.

When has Disney, apart from this (debateable) case, actually kowtowed to conservative points of view? I'm aware that they've settled a lawsuit out of court brought by Gina Carano, but is that "kowtowing", or is it ordinary breach of contract and they thought they'd lose? Again, debateable.

Let's name some examples. Really, if conservative pressure was being heeded consistently by Disney, explain a number of recent movies making very clearly progressive shifts in the storyline.

I think we need to be careful about taking at face value the claim that the only reason Disney jettisoned Kimmel was government influence; journalists like my great uncle at least used to be famously ornery and pretty hard to intimidate.

I'd be skeptical of the idea that the Disney executives are as ornery or hard to intimidate as your great uncle

So knowing the landscape, I don't completely buy that Disney would kowtow to Trump. I would believe, however, that they'd see plunging ratings and a guy relentlessly plugging his view of the world, and then use Trump's threat as a pretext to let him go.

But isn't the landscape such that Kimmel's view of the world is pretty much the same as the Disney executives? I don't think the Disney executives have all of a sudden become conservative. If there was a monetary business reason to cancel Kimmel, they would have done so without needing a pretext from Trump. What they had was a monetary business reason to believe Trump's threat that their license was in danger.

When has Disney, apart from this (debateable) case, actually kowtowed to conservative points of view?

Ah, but kowtowing to Trump is not the same as kowtowing to a conservative point of view. They were kowtowing to someone who is sensitive to criticism and who has the power to wreak havoc on their business. Being sensitive to criticism is not a "conservative point of view."