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

741–750 of 1001 posts

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

#741

Post by suzdude »

amradio1989 wrote: post #586

ABC was certainly complicit in what Jimmy Kimmel was doing. But they are now throwing Jimmy under the bus. Jimmy was wrong to say what he said. At best it was a bad-faith assertion, at worst it was propaganda. It wasn’t even true, or likely to be true given what we knew. The fact is that someone is dead. That is the strongest form of censorship. That is the strongest attack on “free speech”. Jimmy pulled indefinitely…

He showed a clip of the president. And he said:

> 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

Which is factual. It does not make assertions about Mr. Robinson. It represents a factual observation that many of the "MAGA gang" are attempting to distance themselves.

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

#742

Post by nobody9999 »

nobody9999 wrote: post #681
davesque wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MAGA did, in fact, do their best over the weekend to cast the shooter as anything other than one of them. Comments made in poor taste? Maybe? Not really? No poorer taste than the president saying on Fox & Friends that he "couldn't care less" about promoting unity after the Kirk shooting. Next point, from NYTimes article covering this: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/17/business/media/abc-jimmy-... "The abrupt decisio…

>So yes, ABC/Nexstar are within their editorial rights to make this decision, but that decision came at an awfully conspicuous time. So what, nothing to see here? {Paraphrasing for those who don't get it] Brendan Carr: That Kimmel guy sure is a pill. Will no one rid me of this meddlesome comic? Hey ABC, It would be a shame if something bad happened to you guys, wouldn't it? In fact, let's do some investigating to mak…

It was implied, but apparently, not clearly enough.

The issue is emphatically not that "Kimmel dissed our boy. He needs to be raked over the coals!" Nor is it "Kimmel had it just right! Fuck those MAGAts!"

The current controversy, while relevant to the above, is not the problem. What people think and believe and most[0] of what they say is, at least under current law in the US, not punishable by the state.

A government official (Brendan Carr) publicly threatened legal action, using the weight and resources of the Federal Government (don't believe me, listen to him say it yourself) against ABC/Disney[1] in retaliation for the legal (however you may feel about it) speech of Jimmy Kimmel.

Now you might think, "well so what? that jackass is always harassing the President and his most patriotic team. And now he's doing so about our beloved cultural ambassador, gunned down by some tranny loving freak just a few days ago. That sack of crap deserves whatever he gets!"

And you have every right to think that. And to speak it or write it or take out web/TV/print/billboard/etc. ads.

And you think, "Damn straight! I got rights. The First Amendment says the government can't punish me for what I say or think! And it's not a coincidence that it's the First one, is it?" And you're right.

If all that is true, especially the First Amendment[2] bit:

   Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or 
   of the press; [...]
Which, as centuries of jurisprudence have confirmed, aside from a few (none of which apply in this particular context) exceptions[0], the government may not punish folks for what they say.

Which is exactly what Brendan Carr threatened to do with the resources of the FCC if ABC/Disney didn't take action against Kimmel.

Which is facially a violation of the Constitution (of which the First Amendment is an integral part), which is the supreme law of the land.

And so whether you think Kimmel was out of line or not, something we all should be able to get behind is that the government has no place telling us what we can or cannot say.

A right that Charlie Kirk took advantage of and was proud to extol. And good for him -- whether you agree with him or not. And if we (want to) live in a nation of laws, then Jimmy Kimmel (or you or me) should have the same rights and latitude.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

[1] https://www.foxnews.com/media/fcc-chair-levels-threat-agains...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_...

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

#743

Post by theossuary »

ProllyInfamous wrote: post #484
theossuary wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The state doesn't have to censor anything when most people are too afraid to comment publicly (retaliation). My original argument, above, is that comedians ought to be allowed to "joke" about anything, as long as it generates community discussion. Any discussion will generate better outcomes than 2-party's design of PureHate™.

They were allowed to joke about anything by the state. The state didn't censor them. That's the first amendment. Jimmy Kimmel had the FCC threaten to pull ABC's broadcasting license the day he poured fun at Trump and the right. How is that the same as citizens using their free speech rights to criticize a comedian?

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

#744

Post by suzdude »

MacsHeadroom wrote: post #669
DangitBobby wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not seeing much evidence of his political leaning (other than his choice of target, of course). Can you share some of this evidence?

From the murderer's text messages: > Roommate: Why? > Robinson: Why did I do it? > Roommate: Yeah > Robinson: I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can't be negotiated out. Besides everyone around him testifying that he'd been left-wing ever since dropping out of college, his admission that he found Charlie's relatively moderate speech "hateful" strongly suggests the murderer was quite far to the left.

Yet, out of the small fraction of people who had heard of Mr. Kirk, it was Mr. Robinson, who was raised by republicans, in a MAGA household who resorted to violence.

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

#745

Post by IAmBroom »

cebert wrote: post #695
LeafItAlone wrote: post #684

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, clearly some people did. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences. In this case, his employer responded to partner backlash over his remarks. Government officials also threatened to pull the government provided broadcasting licenses that the corporation has. That’s free speech related.

Ok. I missed that detail.

Reading is fundamental.

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

#746

Post by ProllyInfamous »

throwmeaway222 wrote: post #536
ProllyInfamous wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Any human with their head screwed on straight innately assigns a very negative value weight to murder. Murderers walk freely among you, and we're not all bad people. A few good people earn their legal kills. A healthy society would encourage any speech which could reduce divisiveness (e.g. comments on Mr. Kirk, without retribution) — yet ours thrives on division, getting people to hate better with bigger hearts. ¢¢…

> Murderers walk freely among you, and _we're_ not all bad people what? This is nuts. Are you saying you murder people? > A healthy society would encourage any speech which could reduce divisiveness (e.g. comments on Mr. Kirk, without retribution) Yes I agree with this. There are a lot of people that do vigils and prayers and eulogies when people die. Then there are people that go: he deserved it and XXX is next. The…

>This is nuts. Are you saying you['ve] murder[ed] people?

Yes; I talked about this here two months ago [0]. In my circumstance, I would do it again with even less hesitation...

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44476115#44482107

I also have a brother — served four tours as enlisted grunt kicking in combatants' doors — whose tally far exceeds my own (war. is. hell).

It's not that I'm encouraging murder (I'm not); rather, I'm encouraging people to not live in a world where killing is never an acceptible outcome (because it is, sometimes justifiably).

Some actions should literally be paid for with guilty lives ("FAFO"), e.g. child molesters.

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

#747

Post by IAmBroom »

nabla9 wrote: post #147
jjfoooo4 wrote: post #137

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.

Stop criticizing large corporations as moral entities. They have no other incentives other than money. Corporations are amoral (not good or bad). Only money matters. South Park can go on because they make money. Talk-shows are already dying and cutting them is easy choice even under mild pressure. The value talk they use is PR aimed at stakeholders (customers, employees, government). No company has taken a stance whe…

> No company has taken a stance where they willingly accept net negative returns if they have other choice.

Demonstrably untrue. Nihilist generalizations make a poster feel cool, but they aren't helpful.

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

#748

Post by bitlax »

cosmicgadget wrote: post #429
bitlax wrote: post #91

This is not cancel culture. What Jimmy Kimmel did was always out of bounds.

Are you willing to equally apply this to people who called the killing "leftist violence" and said he is one of "them"?

I try to have a consistent and coherent worldview.

It depends on to what extent the killing was leftist violence, and who you're referring to when you say "them".

What do you think were the killer's motivations? Let's see how closely you've been paying attention.

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

#749

Post by suzdude »

NoGravitas wrote: post #732
suzdude wrote: post #614

Mel Brooks had the right of it. Fascism and Authoritarianism is defeated by satire and mockery. The ideology is too outrageous to survive any such scrutiny. Why else would the administration be so afraid of a few jokes?

In the case of Fascism 1.0, it took satire, mockery, and thousands of Soviet tanks.

Soviet tanks, American bombs, British guns, French lives....
Post reply on HN