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

941–950 of 1001 posts

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

#941

Post by [deleted] »

cebert wrote: post #677
pogue wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 2nd part is the quote from Jimmy Kimmel that he said on air that caused the "controversy", that resulted in the FCC commissioner, Brendan Carr to go on a podcast and threaten ABC/Disney with retaliatory action if they refused to take Kimmel off the air. CNN doesn't show a clip, but explains what was said & the events that caused this. https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/17/business/video/abc-jimmy-kimm... Never believe t…

This isn’t a free-speech issue. Kimmel was free to say what he said, and I personally don’t find his comments egregiously offensive. 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.

[deleted]

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

#943

Post by seadan83 »

tgma wrote: post #824
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.

The same licenses restrict badwords. You can't even say fuck on the same airwaves. That spectrum is public property licensed with restrictions. That's not a First Amendment issue at all, it is a contractual issue.

You're seemingly equating "obscenity" with "political criticism". I'll note that "political criticism" is offensive when you don't agree with it. The first amendment is exactly for that kind of offensive language.

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

#944

Post by lawn »

dogleash wrote: post #888
bluecheese452 wrote: post #717

[flagged]

Yo. Free speech absolutist checking in. Sick of people racing to chirp that we're nowhere to be found. I'm too detached to doomscroll. Just saw the news now. Honestly, I'm tired of all of the snide remarks from both teams acting like you’re not equally guilty of opportunistically showing up for free speech. And you have the balls to make comments like this as I'm already dealing with the fact Jimmy Kimmel should have…

> equally guilty

The defense of choice everyone.

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

#945

Post by D-Machine »

happytoexplain wrote: post #492
enlightens wrote: post #172

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…

I think everybody is (reasonably) confused by the use of the words "anything other than". It's usually used in phrases that express the speaker's opinion to the opposite ("as if this is anything other than performative" means "this is performative"). Based on the clip, it sounds like Kimmel unfortunately used it literally: "trying to portray [him] as anything other than...", as in, "they're jumping the gun on his por…

Thing is, even if the "trying to portray [him] as anything other than..." reading was intended and the correct reading, the statement is still closer to the opposite of the truth.

Granted, it is not reasonable to expect everyone to have been terminally online for this issue, but even before this statement was made, it was clear if you visited places with right-wing bias (e.g. 4chan) that almost no one was concerned this guy might be MAGA. And if you looked at more grey tribe places (e.g. ACX open-thread comments / discussion), it was also already clear the preponderance of evidence and reason in fact definitely point to it being far more likely the guy was left than right (or at minimum some idiosyncratic, but definitely not "groyper" or "MAGA" rightist). Heck, this was even clear if you read through enough Reddit comments sorting by "controversial".

Also, it was abundantly clear the sentiments were: Blue tribe social media desperately looking for evidence against obvious left/progressive connections, Red tribe media gleefully pointing out left/progressive connections, and gray tribe places generally having the usual mix + typical frustration at the over-certainty of everyone else.

I.e., the reality is that the "desperation" was almost entirely on the left (understandably) trying to disown the shooter. What there was on the MAGA right was maniacal glee about all the potential (and prima facie more reasonable) left-wing connections. I doubt noting these overall patterns instead would have saved Kimmel, but choosing to frame the whole thing as "desperate MAGA" was just an insinuation that really ran directly opposite to the facts and reason.

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

#946

Post by [deleted] »

hnuser123456 wrote: post #870
fhdkweig wrote: post #832

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those who want to see the full clip in context, he has a youtube channel (for now). The video in question is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHT7ICvMtlA (Sept 16, 2025) and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j3YdxNSzTk (Sept 15, 2025)

The quote cited in TFA claims that the murderer was "one of them". Now, why would someone take out a prominent spokesperson for their own party? They wouldn't, because that's not something that people do to other people they agree with. But somehow, people interpret that remark to make sense? The remark only makes sense if "one of them" refers to the fact the shooter was a white male, and the reader believes all whit…

[deleted]

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

#947

Post by giardini »

gengwyn wrote: post #797
sharken wrote: post #674

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, there is quite a bit of money on the line, you can't really blame ABC for acting as a corporation: https://latenighter.com/news/jimmy-kimmels-removal-comes-ami...

As Sam Harris so eloquently put it: "What's the point of having 'fuck you' money if you never actually say 'fuck you'?"

Sort of like Vladimir Putin would say: "What's the point of having nuclear weapons if you never actually nuke someone?"

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

#948

Post by seadan83 »

billfor wrote: post #546

FCC aside, how is it any different from ABC canceling Rosanne Barr because of something she said? They may cancel whomever and whatever they want, which in the past has been due to pressure from the outside, justified or not. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/roseanne-barr-obama-adviser-...

The first amendment protects speech from government repercussion. So aside from the threat of government repercussion, yeah, I also totally don't see how this is a first amendment issue.

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

#949

Post by somenameforme »

rich_sasha wrote: post #856
somenameforme wrote: post #840

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I have almost no context here. I only found out Kirk, RIP, existed, when the news of the shooting hit. But I watched the clip (I don't know the comedian) and it really doesn't make fun of the assassination. It makes fun of JD Vance. I strongly agree you don't make fun of tragedies, especially polarising ones, but this really doesn't do that.

You, and I, and millions of others. Yet another example of how this shooter was stuck in some serious online bubbles. If there was even a vaguely contrarian voice, they would have mentioned his entire idea would, and has, turned a guy most people have never even heard of into a vastly more well known martyr.

Anyhow, the post that was "giving context" linked the actual video that likely got Kimmel canned second. Here it is timestamped to the section: https://youtu.be/-j3YdxNSzTk?t=122

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

#950

Post by somenameforme »

hnuser123456 wrote: post #870
fhdkweig wrote: post #832

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those who want to see the full clip in context, he has a youtube channel (for now). The video in question is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHT7ICvMtlA (Sept 16, 2025) and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j3YdxNSzTk (Sept 15, 2025)

The quote cited in TFA claims that the murderer was "one of them". Now, why would someone take out a prominent spokesperson for their own party? They wouldn't, because that's not something that people do to other people they agree with. But somehow, people interpret that remark to make sense? The remark only makes sense if "one of them" refers to the fact the shooter was a white male, and the reader believes all whit…

There was a lot of fake news following the shooting trying to suggest that the shooter was MAGA and decided to kill Charlie Kirk because he 'wasn't MAGA enough.' In particular a photoshopped image of him wearing a MAGA shirt was shared millions of times on social media [1], along with suggestions he was a "groyper" which is apparently some fringe right wing group. You can see the substantial impact of this by looking at Google trends on the term. [2]

This fake news was wide spread and even leaked into Hacker News through at least dozens of comments. [3] People are still implicitly trying to promote this misinformation by flagging any comment that mentions it, and spinning Kimmel stating, "with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them" to mean anything other than what it does.

[1] - https://xcancel.com/CollinRugg/status/1966575444435890341

[2] - https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=groyper&...

[3] - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

Post reply on HN