Social Jimmy Kimmel gets Canceled

[SurferH2O]

It's so cute to see the Left complaining about 1st Amendment violations.

 

[Xanzito]

I've watched everything he said, at least I think. I don't see anything in there that's worth firing him over. He's a comedian. I've never thought he was really funny, but I think this is a gross overreach. Especially if Trump decided to involve himself or any kind of government entity.

And if CBS or Disney wanted to fire him because he sucked or his ratings were bad, they should have said that was the reason. So either the government is suppressing free speech or Disney and CBS are just lying about why they canned him.

Now if Disney and CBS thought what he said was awful and wanted to distance themselves from it that would be another story, but I find that hard to believe.

Sorry, but has any low rated show firing was ever explained as "they suck and don't bring views"? Even Joy Reid, that had an audience pretty much consisted as Fox News writers to gather material, didn't get this justification.

 

[Xanzito]

What did I sow?

This is where you make up things I never said and quote irrelevant things I said.

You didn't sow anything, but our dear Jimbo... oh boy.

 

[Roids]

Biden's government put pressure on Facebook and twitter to silence anyone questioning the vaccine and covid policies.

Which is not comparable to doing it because people were criticising Biden on FB. Biden did that to save lifes, Trump did it to save his ego.

 

[nonoob]

I saw that. Pretty awful

Isn't that Colbear guy new ?

 

[DoctorTaco]

The “News Distortion” Rule

• What It Is: The FCC’s “news distortion” policy, referenced by Carr in the Kimmel case, prohibits broadcasters from deliberately falsifying or slanting news with the intent to mislead the public. It stems from the FCC’s broader public interest standard and was formalized in cases like the 1969 WLBT decision, where a station lost its license for biased reporting.

• Applicability: This rule is not limited to news programming. It applies to any content aired on broadcast stations that presents itself as factual reporting or could be reasonably interpreted as such, potentially misleading viewers about significant public events. However, the FCC has historically applied it narrowly, focusing on clear cases of intentional fabrication by newsrooms (e.g., staging events or knowingly airing false reports).

Again, the FCC has no jurisdiction here and the FCC head was absolutely wrong for saying what he said. It can be argued that Kimmel could be held to having to reasonably present factual information. My whole point was morons DO think he’s telling the truth.

From the podcast:



And later



Absolutely this is the wrong thing to say and it’s been ruled open that “satire” is not “news”. So they have no authority to do anything here in my opinion. However, it’s interesting because people absolutely DO think Kimmel is telling the truth. Even here you have smooth brains thinking he is right wing.

It’s not a violation of someone’s first amendment to enforce FCC guidelines. Again, all that happened was a threat — a vague threat — on a podcast.

There were no official actions taken by the FCC so no violation happened because — nothing actually happened.

The 1969 case was way more cut and dry than this. If this rule was enforced to the letter of the law then neither administration would be allowed to put their people on the air because of the absolute bullshit lies they push to enhance their narratives.

 

[DoctorTaco]

The official threat led to literally no official action. There was no official action.

It was literally hours apart. They made the threat and within hours Kimmel had been fired. Why would they file official charges 2 hours after issuing a threat?

 

[fingercuffs]

It was literally hours apart. They made the threat and within hours Kimmel had been fired. Why would they file official charges 2 hours after issuing a threat?

@Rob Battisti
Did you get mixed up?

 

[fica]

this is getting out of hand narcissists are going after each other. christian narcissist are up in arms for people not giving a fck about kirk so now everybody is bad. we all who never said anything borderline warshiping thing about this guy are under microscope. it is crazy what this place is christian narcissist calling everybody bad because people dared to not called them greatest speakers religios people or just human beings ever atheist calling christians not good people because they critisize them and never take aheist opionions of them being bad seriously

 

[fingercuffs]

this is getting out of hand narcissists are going after each other. christian narcissist are up in arms for people not giving a fck about kirk so now everybody is bad. we all who never said anything borderline warshiping thing about this guy are under microscope. it is crazy what this place is christian narcissist calling everybody bad because people dared to not called them greatest speakers religios people or just human beings ever atheist calling christians not good people because they critisize them and never take aheist opionions of them being bad seriously

Can you arrange this into paragraphs please?

Jimmy is very religious, so everyone knows.

 

[fica]

Can you arrange this into paragraphs please?

Jimmy is very religious, so everyone knows.

it is simple narcissist on both sides are at each other throats and this time religious narcissist are in power so everybody needs to WARSHIP this guy atheist dont want to and you know somebody needs to be made a example

 

[fingercuffs]

it is simple narcissist on both sides are at each other throats and this time religious narcissist are in power so everybody needs to WARSHIP this guy atheist dont want to and you know somebody needs to be made a example

Which war ship? Who's an Atheist?

 

[idrankyourbeer]

It's so cute to see the Left complaining about 1st Amendment violations.

oh we've got ourselves a constitutionalist pretender over here. how cute. the makebelieve and self-proclaimed party of law and order and all that, but only when they feel that it's convenient for them.

so on top of the diaper, the garbage bag, and the maxi pad, are you wearing your trump pin while you post this? they say you're not a real maga if you don't attach a twice-impeached convicted rapist felon's face to your clothes. at least that's what people are saying. and you gotta get the watch and sneakers too. wouldn't want your fellow culties to look down on you like you're some kind of broke ass bitch that can't even afford a trump bible. anyways, be sure to get your donations in today. the guy who always tells you how super rich he is needs some more of your money.

 

[Stoic1]

oh we've got ourselves a constitutionalist pretender over here. how cute. the makebelieve and self-proclaimed party of law and order and all that, but only when they feel that it's convenient for them.

so on top of the diaper, the garbage bag, and the maxi pad, are you wearing your trump pin while you post this? they say you're not a real maga if you don't attach a twice-impeached convicted rapist felon's face to your clothes. at least that's what people are saying. and you gotta get the watch and sneakers too. wouldn't want your fellow culties to look down on you like you're some kind of broke ass bitch that can't even afford a trump bible. anyways, be sure to get your donations in today. the guy who always tells you how super rich he is needs some more of your money.

 

[Starman]

Kimmel didn't defraud the public. What he said was not criminal and it wasn't obscene. Therefore the FCC has zero statutory authority to regulate his speech.

Except you're not the arbiter of that. The FCC is.

 

[Starman]

You’re pathetic and embarrassing yourself.

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

 

[Starman]

It comes from the FCC BUT you are ignoring the important part. The FCC can't then revoke a license because it does not like what someone said. The airwaves part is irrelevant in my analogy, the point is as follows.

There’s no “constitutional right” to operate a bookstore.
You need a local business license to operate
If the city revokes that license because you sell books criticizing the mayor, that’s unconstitutional

It's really simple. Not sure if you're being obtuse deliberately or what.




Explain how.



You can't even grasp how the 1st amendment works so stop arguing. The Constitution doesn’t guarantee ABC a license — just like it doesn’t guarantee a bookstore.
But once the government hands out licenses, it can’t use them as weapons to control speech. That’s the First Amendment issue you keep dodging.”

Where does the Constitution say the FCC can't revoke a license if a licensee is in breach of contract? And who decides if a licensee is in breach of contract?

 

[Madmick]

I have seen people say shitty things in the wake of Charlie Kirk's shooting, but shit-canning a late-night comedian for telling the truth a partisan lie is weak and pathetic.

Corrected for accuracy, but otherwise, this is right. Involving the FCC over this is deeply concerning.

The first truly fascist thing I've seen Trump do was usurp control of the Metropolitan Police Department. But this is pretty fascistic stuff, too. Liberals have been abusing that word for nearly a decade. Suddenly Trump wants to vindicate them?

I don't understand why anyone is supporting this.

 

[SuperAlly]

Do you have a point?

Can you read and comprehend words?

 

[SuperAlly]

@SuperAlly This is really easy for me.

Do you have a point?

Is it defending your girlfriends honour?