Social Jimmy Kimmel gets Canceled

[fedoriswar37]

You would make a pathetic lawyer. Learn the law.

Who cares about what type of lawyer I'd make.

There's never been a better time in history to get your message out . Especially for a guy who doesn't need a cent to his name likely for the rest of his life.

 

[kflo]

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.

What do you think people believe about what Kimmel said?

 

[Andy Capp]

The only date and time that is important is the facts about Robinson and when Kimmel made his statements.

As I said, I don’t agree that the FCC should be involved. My point was that low IQ morons like @Alpha_T83 can be misinformed by people like Kimmel and in a time of contention, there should be some responsibility for your platform for what you say.

Re: the bold text, what kind of bullshit is that? Kimmel never said anything about Robinson. What Kimmel said is that before they even had the right suspect MAGA was proclaiming that the shooter was a far left extremist and painting every other person who disliked Kirk's views with that same partisan brush. That is verifiably true. That silly cunt I pointed out to you who said there is a war against white people said that before there was an arrest. Why are you still claiming that Kimmel was spreading misinformation when that has been proven false several times over?

 

[Rob Battisti]

Re: the bold text, what kind of bullshit is that? Kimmel never said anything about Robinson. What Kimmel said is that before they even had the right suspect MAGA was proclaiming that the shooter was a far left extremist and painting every other person who disliked Kirk's views with that same partisan brush. That is verifiably true. That silly cunt I pointed out to you who said there is a war against white people said that before there was an arrest. Why are you still claiming that Kimmel was spreading misinformation when that has been proven false several times over?

That’s incorrect. He made his comments after Robinson had been apprehended.

 

[Rob Battisti]

What do you think people believe about what Kimmel said?

His comments as to him insinuating that Robinson was part of the “MAGA gang”.

 

[Alpha_T83]

His comments as to him insinuating that Robinson was part of the “MAGA gang”.

He made the factually correct statement that Kirk's murderer was from a MAGA family.

And this statement wouldn't have been necessary if Trump and MAGA weren't irresponsibly blaming the Democrats for Kirk's killing. All they needed to do was condemn his killing and call for cooler heads to prevail, to lower the partisan rhetoric. But they couldn't do that.

You think liberals that had nothing to do with Kirk's murder are just going to sit by and not respond when the US president blames them for Kirk's death?

 

[Roids]

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.


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.

Firstly, Kimmel is only obliged to be factual and not misleading if reporting news, which does not apply since he is a comedian doing stand up. So there is no broad 'he must be factual' standard he must adhere to, you don't need to be factual telling stand up or giving opinions. The ideology of the shooter is only a matter of opinion anyway.

Secondly you keep trying to play this game pretending the FCC chairman issuing a public FCC releated threat was 'nothing happening' which is laughable. It was not a vague threat it was a direct explicit threat of regulatory enforcement by the FCC against the ABC, it can't be more direct.

There were no official actions taken by the FCC

The official threat, was the official action. This has been already ruled in court. Bantam books vs Sullivan, a government body with NO regulatory power was threatening book stores for selling books, and it was ruled unconstitutional.

 

[Rob Battisti]

He made the factually correct statement that Kirk's murderer was from a MAGA family.

And this statement wouldn't have been necessary if Trump and MAGA weren't irresponsibly blaming the Democrats for Kirk's killing. All they needed to do was condemn his killing and call for cooler heads to prevail, to lower the partisan rhetoric. But they couldn't do that.

You think liberals that had nothing to do with Kirk's murder are just going to sit by and not respond when the US president blames them for Kirk's death?

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.

Once again, I see nothing wrong with what he said. He is a lousy host, but this is far from the worst thing he’s said.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Firstly, Kimmel is only obliged to be factual and not misleading if reporting news, which does not apply since he is a comedian doing stand up. So there is no broad 'he must be factual' standard he must adhere to, you don't need to be factual telling stand up or giving opinions. The ideology of the shooter is only a matter of opinion anyway.

Secondly you keep trying to play this game pretending the FCC chairman issuing a public FCC releated threat was 'nothing happening' which is laughable. It was not a vague threat it was a direct explicit threat of regulatory enforcement by the FCC against the ABC, it can't be more direct.


The official threat, was the official action.

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

You act like I’m defending the guy. It was absurd for Cook to say anything at all.

 

[Andy Capp]

Tell me specially what action the federal communication commission took.

“ABC’s affiliates need to step up and hold ABC accountable as a network for passing through material that fails to respect the public-interest standard to which they are held,” Daniel Suhr, president of the Center for American Rights, wrote in the complaint. “Disney as ABC’s corporate owner needs to act directly to correct this problem.”

 

[Siver!]

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

You act like I’m defending the guy. It was absurd for Cook to say anything at all.

What do you mean there was no official action? Do you mean by the FCC or by the network?

 

[Rob Battisti]

“ABC’s affiliates need to step up and hold ABC accountable as a network for passing through material that fails to respect the public-interest standard to which they are held,” Daniel Suhr, president of the Center for American Rights, wrote in the complaint. “Disney as ABC’s corporate owner needs to act directly to correct this problem.”

Is Daniel Suhr even remotely connected to the FCC?

 

[Rob Battisti]

What do you mean there was no official action? Do you mean by the FCC or by the network?

The FCC took no official action. A vague threat was made on a podcast.

 

[Roids]

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

You act like I’m defending the guy. It was absurd for Cook to say anything at all.

The official threat is all that is needed. Again the supreme court.

“The government may not induce, encourage, or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.”

 

[Roids]

The FCC took no official action. A vague threat was made on a podcast.

Stop lying. It was a direct explicit threat. He threatened the ABC license for what Kimmel said and referenced the regulatory authority he had to do it. How the fuck is that vague?

 

[Rob Battisti]

@Andy Capp whats funny? I asked for the official action and you posted a quote from a conservative non-profit.

 

[Siver!]

The FCC took no official action. A vague threat was made on a podcast.

Gotcha.

I don't think the threat was that vague, and it may hurt Carr that his words were quickly acted upon in such drastic fashion.

But at the end of the day, Carr's continued vague threats to the media industry even in the aftermath are being backed by Trump himself.

Carr will probably end up being a fall guy, and Trump will probably reward him handsomely (or shit on him given Trump has zero loyalty).

 

[Rob Battisti]

Stop lying. It was a direct explicit threat. He threatened the ABC license for what Kimmel said and referenced the regulatory authority he had to do it. How the fuck is that vague?

I posted the quote and it certainly wasn’t that.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Gotcha.

I don't think the threat was that vague, and it may hurt Carr that his words were quickly acted upon in such drastic fashion.

But at the end of the day, Carr's continued vague threats to the media industry even in the aftermath are being backed by Trump himself.

Carr will probably end up being a fall guy, and Trump will probably reward him handsomely (or shit on him given Trump has zero loyalty).

Again, Carr was wrong for saying anything. It was dangerous and stupid to do so. Idk why people are getting worked up by my distinguishing between a vague threat on a podcast and an official action taken by a government entity.

 

[Siver!]

Again, Carr was wrong for saying anything. It was dangerous and stupid to do so. Idk why people are getting worked up by my distinguishing between a vague threat on a podcast and an official action taken by a government entity.

I'm not, I just wondered what you meant and you clarified.

I was confused because obviously official action was taken (by the network).