Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 1001 posts

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

#341

Post by suzdude »

casey2 wrote: post #322
nba456_ wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except the FCC literally threatened ABC over this

Read the comic again, your right to free speech has nothing to do with your privilege of using the public airwaves. The FCC chairs' threat to ABC is about the later, not about arresting executives or Kimmel like one would expect if you read the comic then your comment.

What was wrong with what Kimmel said?

Is it against the public good to question the motives of the president of the United States?

Is it misuse of public airwaves to point out the lack of evidence on hand to divine the political affiliations of this school shooter?

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

#342

Post by Nevermark »

kcplate wrote: post #317
iamdelirium wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> In this case, it is the FCC, an arm of the government, that is pressuring ABC to do this rather than other private citizens. Actually it was a couple of big ABC affiliate owners that started the avalanche, and ABC followed…not any government pressure. You can certainly speculate that the these affiliates had an ulterior motive in their actions to curry favor with the Trump administration, but it’s not unreasonable…

> You can certainly speculate that the these affiliates had an ulterior motive in their actions to curry favor with the Trump administration, ...

I don't know what "ulterior motive" would mean. Businesses have no choice but to deal with real threats, that isn't a hidden agenda. And I wouldn't refer to bending to demands, as a means of damage control under duress, as "currying favor".

I would consider "favor curriers" to be those that align themselves with administration excesses, in hope of favors, without duress being a factor.

This is now a business reality: a US administration that loudly broadcasts its successful use of corrupted leverage against law firms, media companies, universities, tech companies, and others it wishes to bow the knee.

Even if we conjecture the same decisions might have been made in healthier times, for whatever reasons, the unlawful pressure still shades the decisions made in this reality.

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

#343

Post by mrandish »

iamdelirium wrote: post #274
mrandish wrote: post #233

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…

[flagged]

> Sorry but people are entitled to pressure other private citizens when they say disagreable things.

I said

> I'm 100% supportive of disagreeing, debating, peacefully protesting, ignoring and even mocking ideas we don't agree with but I draw a hard line at shouting down, deplatforming or canceling them.

So we agree. What's there to be "Sorry" about?

> What First Amendment is trying to protect

My post doesn't mention the First Amendment or the troubling matter of the FCC chair comments about individual speech. I chose not to post about those because I wanted to focus on the other kind of free speech which doesn't involve the government or the First Amendment and isn't even a matter of law. It's about the morality and ethics of how consistently we as private citizens actively support fellow citizens we disagree with in being heard - even when they're offensive, hateful and wrong. It's about whether we should support or oppose private citizens canceling other citizens.

Frankly, I can't tell if we agree or not. I suspect it depends on exactly what you mean by the word "pressure". If "pressure" is limited to "disagreeing, debating, peacefully protesting, ignoring and even mocking" then we are in total agreement. If "pressure" includes "shouting down, deplatforming or canceling" then you're a canceler and we disagree. If it includes wiggle room which might lead to silencing viewpoints you oppose, you're a closet canceler - in which case the vagueness of the term "pressure" and being "sorry" make more sense. On the other hand, if "pressure" includes opposing even those you agree with most the moment they want to silence those you disagree with (instead of debating and countering their bad, wrong ideas) - then we're soulmates.

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

#344

Post by fdschoeneman »

mrandish wrote: post #233

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…

[flagged]

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

#346

Post by phendrenad2 »

StumpChunkman wrote: post #240

What causes very active discussions like this to drop off the front page so quickly? I saw another newer post that was probably made because the poster didn't see this post, and a comment made in there linked to this discussion.

As an amateur HNologist, it's been my observation that controversial topics DO tend to fall off the first page quickly, much more quickly than tech topics. I suspect that there's some part of the algorithm that detects when there are a lot of downvotes on comments, and it counts against the thread itself.

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

#348

Post by Bratmon »

kcplate wrote: post #317
iamdelirium wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> In this case, it is the FCC, an arm of the government, that is pressuring ABC to do this rather than other private citizens. Actually it was a couple of big ABC affiliate owners that started the avalanche, and ABC followed…not any government pressure. You can certainly speculate that the these affiliates had an ulterior motive in their actions to curry favor with the Trump administration, but it’s not unreasonable…

The FCC made a direct threat to the affiliate owners that if they kept Jimmy Kimmel on the air, their broadcast licenses would be terminated.

That is absolutely government pressure.

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

#349

Post by afavour »

_9za9 wrote: post #180
afavour wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not quite as simple as that. The FCC chief threatened ABC just today: https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/brendan-carr-abc-fcc-jimmy-... If Nexstar was acting in reaction to what Carr said there’s a First Amendment argument to be made. They also require FCC approval for a merger right now, it’s not difficult to see the quid pro quo potential. The argument would at least be heard by a judge.

[flagged]

> First Amendment ‘coercion’ requires a concrete threat backed by government power and a causal link to the station’s decision.

Yeah. How about this direct quote from Carr?

> I mean, look, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct to take action on Kimmel or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.

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

#350

Post by thatswrong0 »

thatswrong0 wrote: post #292
mrangle wrote: post #203

[flagged]

You're saying the left is more radicalized than the right? The stats don't pan out: https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.c... Are you just going to ignore stuff like, I don't know, January 6th? When has the left done ANYTHING approaching what Trump and his followers did there? Trump himself has made COUNTLESS violent remarks himself: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/10/trump-v..…

Donald Trump also openly mocked Nancy Pelosi and her husband after the attack on them, which was done by a Trump supporter who believed Pelosi was trying to steal votes from Trump (which, for the record, was a FAILED assassination attempt). He did nothing to condemn this violence:

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/29/trump-mocks-pelosi-...

Which left wing politician in recent memory has said anything even REMOTELY as violence endorsing as this?

I'll be waiting for ANY sources besides just calling what I'm saying "misinformation"

Post reply on HN