Social Jimmy Kimmel gets Canceled

[Crazy Source]

What law did congress pass that prohibited Jimmy Kimmel from exercising his free speech?

When an arm of the gov't, the FCC, threatened his bosses. This is clearly violating Kimmel's freedom of speech. This is what it is. Take a big whiff.

 

[kflo]

Where does someone's ability to speak on public airways come from?

You’re pathetic and embarrassing yourself.

 

[Alpha_T83]

Dude, this entire thread you've been screeching "This is happening! Oh' my God, this is happening!"

Now you're all "Okay, it's not actually happening and it probably won't happen."

That would be YOU ceding ground on your position.

Because the dynamics have changed. Early on it looked like they were going to fire Kimmel, now a lot of the insiders are speculating that ABC and Disney don't want to be a part of a first amendment violation.

The conversation changed because the dynamics changed. Shocker.

What's probably going on right now is ABC are trying to get Kimmel to apologize and walk back his criticism of Trump, and Kimmel is rightfully refusing. ABC has no good choices here and it's fucking hilarious.

 

[HereticBD]

Because the dynamics have changed.

No they haven't. You just found that he's not actually fired, so now you're pivoting and pretending you haven't been arguing that Kimmel was unjustly fired this entire time.

 

[Alpha_T83]

No they haven't. You just found that he's not actually fired, so now you're pivoting and pretending you haven't been arguing that Kimmel was unjustly fired this entire time.

Nice try to derail a debate that you've clearly lost. However, I was just discussing the consensus narrative that Kimmel was going to be fired. Early on it did look like he would be fired.

The longer he remains suspended but not officially fired, the greater the probability that ABC ends up being forced to bring him back with no apology and no limits. I'm simply acknowledging that reality.

 

[HereticBD]

Nice try to derail a debate that you've clearly lost. However, I was just discussing the consensus narrative that Kimmel was going to be fired.

Sure, buddy. Good save. LOL.

Oh' and ABC won't be bringing him back unless he meets the demands of the affiliates that took him off the air.

 

[Alpha_T83]

Sure, buddy. Good save. LOL.

Oh' and ABC won't be bringing him back unless he meets the demands of the affiliates that took him off the air.

Well, we will probably find out soon. His staff is guaranteed at least 2 weeks of pay, so they will get paid for another week before ABC has a problem on their hands. ABC will either have to keep paying the staff, or people will start looking for new jobs. Once they lose too much staff, you might as well write off the rest of the season.

But that is the scenario in which ABC burns money. They will need to settle with Kimmel in the $10M range to avoid a 1st amendment lawsuit, and the fired/laid-off staff will be able to file their own lawsuits for compensation, unless ABC willingly offers it up. And once you've shut down the show for 6 months, starting up again next year with a new host becomes incredibly expensive.

My guess is they won't fire Kimmel unless they find someone to replace him, unless they are considering getting out of the Late Night business entirely.

 

[HereticBD]

But that is the scenario in which ABC burns money. They will need to settle with Kimmel in the $10M range to avoid a 1st amendment lawsuit, and the fired/laid-off staff will be able to fire their own lawsuits for compensation, unless ABC willingly offers it up. And once you've shut down the show for 6 months, starting up again next year with a new host becomes incredibly expensive.

LOL, you have no idea what you're talking about. That is nothing more than LOLawyer fan fiction.

 

[koquerelle]

Democrats are hypocrites that supported when people that went against them was fired.

Those people were not fired because the government put pressure on their boss. Why is it so hard to understand?

 

[HereticBD]

Those people were not fired because the government put pressure on their boss. Why is it so hard to understand?

Kimmel wasn't fired at all.

 

[Alpha_T83]

LOL, you have no idea what you're talking about. That is nothing more than LOLawyer fan fiction.

You're the one that has no clue what you're talking about. With Carr's public statements, Kimmel has more than enough evidence that the FCC pressured ABC to suspend (possibly fire) him. That makes ABC's action a State Action, and therefore bound by the 1st Amendment.

A successful 1st amendment lawsuit in these circumstances could see Kimmel be awarded $100M if he took it to a verdict. Go ask a lawyer if you don't believe me. So yes, they will have to settle with Kimmel in the $10M range, and get him to sign a confidentiality clause + release of claims (so he can't sue them).

And Kimmel's staff is over 100 people, so it is covered by Federal WARN laws for mass layoffs. ABC is required to pay them out for 60 days salary + benefits, if the show ends up being cancelled for the rest of the season and the staff laid off.

 

[HereticBD]

You're the one that has no clue what you're talking about. With Carr's public statements, Kimmel has more than enough evidence that the FCC pressured ABC to suspend (possibly fire) him. That makes ABC's action a State Action, and therefore bound by the 1st Amendment.

A successful 1st amendment lawsuit in these circumstances could see Kimmel be awarded $100M if he took it to a verdict. Go ask a lawyer if you don't believe me. So yes, they will have to settle with Kimmel in the $10M range, and get him to sign a confidentiality clause + release of claims (so he can't sue them).

And Kimmel's staff is over 100 people, so it is covered by Federal WARN laws for mass layoffs. ABC is required to pay them out for 60 days salary + benefits, if the show ends up being cancelled for the rest of the season and the staff laid off.

Wish in one hand and shit in the other...

 

[Alpha_T83]

Wish in one hand and shit in the other...

You can talk all the shit you want. We'll see how this plays out. Quote me if I'm wrong. ABC has three choices right now:

1) Bring Kimmel back without an apology and no limits, knowing he will go at Trump/MAGA harder than ever.

2) Immediately replace him with someone else ("best" choice, saves shutting down the show, but Kimmel will still get a settlement).

3) Fire Kimmel officially and lay off all the staff (worst choice, burns money, probably sees ABC leave the Late Night business entirely).

 

[HereticBD]

You can talk all the shit you want. We'll see how this plays out. Quote me if I'm wrong. ABC has three choices right now:

1) Bring Kimmel back without an apology and no limits, knowing he will go at Trump/MAGA harder than ever.

No. They won't be bringing him back in any capacity until he apologizes and the affiliates lift their ban. Without Sinclair and Nexstar on board they will not be bringing him back in any capacity. That's the long and short of it. There is no scenario where ABC is gonna be forced to put one of their failing shows back on the air.

2) Immediately replace him with someone else ("best" choice, saves shutting down the show, but Kimmel will still get a settlement).

I don't know why you think replacing him is relevant at all.

3) Fire Kimmel officially and lay off all the staff (worst choice, burns money, probably sees ABC leave the Late Night business entirely).

They can just let him sit out indefinitely, and not pay for the production of his failing show.

 

[Mohawk Banditó]

@HereticBD
You know the character in your avatar wasn't the hero of the show, right? Or did you just pick it to more accurately represent yourself when you post?

Where does someone's ability to speak on public airways come from?

I'm not sure. I just pulled this from the FCC's website

The FCC and Freedom of Speech. The First Amendment, as well as Section 326 of the Communications Act, prohibits the Commission from censoring broadcast material and from interfering with freedom of expression in broadcasting. The Constitution’s protection of free speech includes programming that may be objectionable to many viewers or listeners. Therefore, the FCC cannot prevent the broadcast of any particular point of view. In this regard, the Commission has observed that “the public interest is best served by permitting free expression of views.” However, the right to broadcast material is not absolute. There are some restrictions on the material that a licensee can broadcast. These restrictions are discussed below.

Licensee Discretion. Because the Commission cannot dictate to licensees what programming they air, each individual radio and TV station licensee generally has discretion to select what its station broadcasts and to otherwise determine how it can best serve its community of license. Licensees are responsible for selecting their entertainment programming, as well as programs concerning local issues, news, public affairs, religion, sports events, and other subjects. As discussed further in this Manual, broadcast licensees must periodically make available detailed information about the programming they air to meet the needs and problems of their communities, which can be found in each station’s public file. They also decide how their programs will be structured and whether to edit or reschedule material for broadcasting. In light of the First Amendment and Section 326 of the Communications Act, we do not substitute our judgment for that of the licensee, nor do we advise stations on artistic standards, format, grammar, or the quality of their programming. Licensees also have broad discretion regarding commercials, with the exception of those for political candidates during an election, and the limitations on advertisements aired during children’s programming.

Criticism, Ridicule, and Humor Concerning Individuals, Groups, and Institutions. The First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech similarly protects programming that stereotypes or may otherwise offend people with regard to their religion, race, national background, gender, or other characteristics. It also protects broadcasts that criticize or ridicule established customs and institutions, including the government and its officials. The Commission recognizes that, under our Constitution, people must be free to say things that the majority may abhor, not only what most people may find tolerable or congenial. However, if you are offended by a station’s programming, we urge you to make your concerns known in writing to the station licensee.

Programming Access. In light of their discretion to formulate their programming, station licensees are not required to broadcast everything that is offered or otherwise suggested to them. Except as required by the Communications Act, including the use of stations by candidates for public office, licensees have no obligation to allow any particular person or group to participate in a broadcast or to present that person or group’s remarks.

 

[Alpha_T83]

No. They won't be bringing him back in any capacity until he apologizes and the affiliates lift their ban. Without Sinclair and Nexstar on board they will not be bringing him back in any capacity. That's the long and short of it. There is no scenario where ABC is gonna be forced to put one of their failing shows back on the air.

I don't know why you think replacing him is relevant at all.

They can just let him sit out indefinitely, and not pay for the production of his failing show.

You don't understand the realities of what you're talking about. Kimmel is being paid while suspended. You realize that, right? They can't just not pay him. They have to either fire him or keep him suspended and keep paying him. The same goes for his staff.

So yes, they could keep Kimmel suspended, but they'd be paying $10.7M to Kimmel (remaining contract) and roughly $15M+ salary/benefits to his 200+ staff. So they could choose to pay $25M+ to keep Kimmel suspended without officially shutting down the show, yes.

Does that make any business sense? Absolutely not.

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

Indeed, that's the part these right wing goofballs are deliberately ignoring over and over to protect their nauseating narrative. I give zero shits about Kimmel. I never watch his show. The issue is not that he was fired for saying something his employers considered out of line. If that were all there is to it, fine and dandy. But it's not.

The issue is the FCC (apparently at Trump's behest considering his comment that Kimmel "is next" right after Colbert's show was cancelled and now we know why he was so sure) pressured Disney/ABC, Nextstar, and Sinclair, to get him pulled off the air. Immediately after that, Trump said Meyers and Fallon would soon follow.

if that is true, you do realize that's still ABC's doing though right? it's still ultimately their decision. they didn't have to pull kimmel. they wanted to.

The actions of this administration are plain to see and plainly illegal. Yet, MAGA is fighting tooth and nail to defend them with the strawman that it's Kimmel's fate in particular that people are complaining about, and that doing so paints them as bad people because of (their ridiculous misrepresentation of) what Kimmel said.

i mean yeah probably. but i also think you are grossly underestimating how much responsibility the networks have in these decisions. this is a corporation problem just as much as a trump problem.

 

[ShadowRun]

Wait what ? I thought Trump said no

I’ve been told that’s it

 

[HereticBD]

You don't understand the realities of what you're talking about. Kimmel is being paid while suspended. You realize that, right? They can't just not pay him. They have to either fire him or keep him suspended and keep paying him.

Yeah, no kidding. That's why I said they can just let him sit out. Nowhere did I say they would stop paying him, so I don't know where you're getting that from.

So yes, they could keep Kimmel suspended, but they'd be paying $10.7M to Kimmel (remaining contract) and roughly $15M+ salary/benefits to his 200+ staff. So they could choose to pay $25M+ to keep Kimmel suspended without officially shutting down the show, yes.

Does that make any business sense? Absolutely not.

They will have to pay him regardless, unless he violated something in his contract. It's a wash either way. It's not unprecedented to get rid of somebody who is still under contract and owed money, so I don't know why you're acting like he has ABC by the balls or something.

 

[Alpha_T83]

if that is true, you do realize that's still ABC's doing though right? it's still ultimately their decision. they didn't have to pull kimmel. they wanted to.

i mean yeah probably. but i also think you are grossly underestimating how much responsibility the networks have in these decisions. this is a corporation problem just as much as a trump problem.

I think it's pretty obvious this is not a primarily ABC decision, and mostly an FCC pressure situation.

Like I said earlier in the thread, this makes zero business sense. What is their plan? If they were going to fire Kimmel because they planned to, they would have had a replacement lined up already. But they clearly don't. And even if his ratings are terrible, it's still cheaper to keep him until his contract expires in May 2026, rather than fire him now.

It's clear they had no business plan, which means this wasn't a business decision. It was mostly FCC pressure.