Live data from Hacker News

ABC yanks Jimmy Kimmel’s show ‘indefinitely’ after threat from FCC chair

cnn.com

241–250 of 1001 posts

Re: ABC yanks Jimmy Kimmel’s show ‘indefinitely’ after threat from FCC chair

#241

I expected Kimmel to have somehow criticized Kirk, a dubious enough reason to pull the show. But this isn’t even that. Comments quoted in stories assert that the shooter was MAGA - maybe that’s somewhat controversial, but it’s ludicrous to suggest it’s offensive. That paired with comments criticizing the Dear Leader were enough. This is a new low in corporate cowardice toward Trump bullying. Terrible precedent aside,…

Is it possible that they wanted to pull the show and this was just the excuse they were looking for?

Re: ABC yanks Jimmy Kimmel’s show ‘indefinitely’ after threat from FCC chair

#243

Coming soon: broadcast is pulled after host’s comments disparage the current administration.

That is unironically what happened here. The comments Kimmel made here did not disparage Kirk, but rather the administration's reaction to his shooting.

Re: ABC yanks Jimmy Kimmel’s show ‘indefinitely’ after threat from FCC chair

#245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Kimmel was straight up spreading misinformation about the shooter. There's been an absolute ton of that going around. Who else has been pulled from the air? What Kimmel said was > “The MAGA Gang (is) 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,” Kimmel said. “In between the finger-pointing, t…

[flagged]

Re: ABC yanks Jimmy Kimmel’s show ‘indefinitely’ after threat from FCC chair

#246

We really need to stop the cancelling of people for saying controversial, disagreeable and even deeply offensive things. I don't agree with what Kimmel said and I wouldn't have said it myself but it also wasn't outside the bounds of opinions which should be able to be expressed. If you're nodding along in agreement, then you should also know my long-term commitment to consistency in tolerating factually wrong, distas…

[dead]

Re: ABC yanks Jimmy Kimmel’s show ‘indefinitely’ after threat from FCC chair

#247
post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Who paid Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, or Gavrillo Princip? Assassination is a subset of murder, with political motives. It seems very accurate in this situation

[flagged]

Re: ABC yanks Jimmy Kimmel’s show ‘indefinitely’ after threat from FCC chair

#248

The left wing cancel culture era was stupid, annoying, and wrong, and this upcoming right wing era is bound to be much more stupid, annoying, and wrong.

"Upcoming right-wing era" like conservatives haven't been "canceling" Starbucks over Christmas, any retailer who shows an ounce of support for the LGBTQ communities, etc., for years?

Re: ABC yanks Jimmy Kimmel’s show ‘indefinitely’ after threat from FCC chair

#249
post #219

The summary at the top of the page says > ABC said it was pulling the “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” show off the air “indefinitely” after controversial comments by its host about the slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk. but the article says the following, which is entirely different: > “The MAGA Gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everyth…

> “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,” Kimmel said. Off topic, but has there been convincing evidence that the suspect is right wing/MAGA, as Kimmel implied? I've seen some posts on reddit to this effect, but they're far from convincing.

[flagged]

Re: ABC yanks Jimmy Kimmel’s show ‘indefinitely’ after threat from FCC chair

#250
post #227

[flagged]

You were the one arguing “the first amendment doesn’t protect again consequences”. What changed?

The government, via the FFC, used their expansive power to force a private company to censor speech.

I'm not familiar with what you are quoting specifically, but that refrain is typically understood to mean "the first amendment doesn’t protect against consequences ... except from the government".

Post reply on HN