Anonymous #1 3d

Real asf

5

Anonymous #2 2d

seems like a clear violation of the terms no?

1

Anonymous #6 2d

There is way too much gray area here about what is “False”. He did not speculate anything regarding the actual crime itself, only MAGA’s reaction to it. And he didn’t present it as fact, he presented it as opinion. To vaguely say that “the MAGA gang” tried to point fingers about who was responsible is not as concrete as saying a specific person did something they did not do. “The MAGA gang” is broad and what he said is not falsifiable

2

Anonymous #2 2d

it is indeed falsifiable. when he said “as anything other than one of them” he attempts to align him with republicans even though his voter status has been inactive, therefore belonging to neither party. also the crime was fueled by hate (stated by robinson) and even if it was framed as satire, the underlying themes insinuate an air of inaccuracy and insensitivity, so they are free to fire him regardless of anything else.

1

Anonymous #6 2d

He isn’t calling saying that the shooter was maga. He literally just commented on the idea of maga proponents painting the shooter as anything else except maga, refusing to consider that he could be right wing. That is what he said and again, he’s not even talking about a specific person. Why are you sticking your neck out for fascist government trying to silence freedom of speech?

1

Anonymous #2 2d

yes he is. the phrasing “one of them” explicitly suggests that he is a member of or ideologically aligned w MAGA, and his use of the words “desperately trying” insinuate that it’s futile to argue, which reinforces the idea that the shooters actions are naturally tied to MAGA. you are fascist if you celebrate the death of someone you disagree with, and there have been no infringements on free speech👍

1

Anonymous #6 2d

I never said i celebrated it and neither did jimmy kimmel. And again, he didn’t explicitly say that the shooter belongs to maga, he’s saying maga is acting like there’s no possibility that he could be “one of them” and are instead desperately pointing fingers and shifting blame. “Insinuating” and “explicitly suggesting” is not enough to deplatform him completely. He hardly said anything offensive or slanderous at all

6

Anonymous #2 2d

You’re grasping at semantics (which you aren’t even comprehending) to justify arbitrary suppression of free speech from what the right deems to be “the other side”. There’s plenty of other talk shows like this that you could come down on in a similar manner, but it rarely happens because its ridiculous to. It’s entertainment and you can’t shut it down simply because you don’t like the content politically

4

Anonymous #2 2d

never said you did. i said if you celebrate it you’re a fascist. not explicitly but very heavily implied he was and yes it is. they can fire him for whatever reason they want, it doesn’t matter if you think it’s not offensive or slanderous (which isn’t even possible) they have every right to fire him for what he said

1

Anonymous #6 2d

Then lets lament the fact that it’s incredibly concerning that hosts of major media outlets can be forced to say whatever the president wants them to say, or else they can lose their jobs.

5

Anonymous #2 2d

This looks okay to you? Nothing wrong here?

1

Anonymous #2 2d

so did he get fired bc of trump or not? either way, if something like that were to happen then there will be a lawsuit so big that there’s no way they wouldn’t take it

1

Anonymous #6 2d

Yes, he effectively did and they aren’t even hiding it. Look at those quotes directly from trump and his appointed FCC’s mouths. Something like that DID just happen and thats why this is a big deal. This administration does not play by the law. They will harass and blackball ABC if they don’t capitulate to their demands, exactly like the head of the FCC literally just implied they would in that quote

5

Anonymous #2 2d

ABC can deal with the headache of a lawsuit (against the literal president of the united states, who is trying to wrestle more and more control over the courts), or they can give in and fire this one talk show host who is already getting old anyway. They took the easy way out but its not even on ABC, the president should not be making these threats. Its clear he wants to bully all media outlets into doing what he says, and he’ll do it if he can

5

Anonymous #2 2d

“We can do this the easy way or the hard way” who the fuck talks like that? That is so very obviously a threat, they are saying that they will make life as difficult as possible for ABC if they don’t fire Kimmel

5

Anonymous #2 2d

idk none of those quotes say they did, just that if they don’t then there will be rule changes within the FCC. if there is a clear violation of free speech even i could win that case against the federal gov. it is so clear and cut that there is no possible way a judge would rule against them if that actually happened.

1

Anonymous #6 2d

Oh? And what about a judge appointed by trump? What about a judge threatened by and bullied by trump? Lets say it went all the way to the supreme court. Well guess what: the supreme court leans right and consists of people in trump’s camp - they already established a precedent of giving into his demands. What we’re seeing is an authoritarian movement slowly but surely gaining control over the government

5

Anonymous #6 2d

Those “rule changes” will consist of new rules that just further empower trump’s government to stifle and control media. If they can just change the rules, and if they’ve shown that they want to bully people into obeying them, why wouldn’t they try to change the rules in such a way that would grant them as much power as possible?

1

Anonymous #2 2d

appeals. sue again. appeal again. no judge in their right mind would damage their rep and rule against such an obvious case.

1

Anonymous #6 2d

I don’t think we should rely on “that can’t happen. It’s not allowed”. What if you’re wrong?

1

Anonymous #2 2d

then the entire justice system come crashing down and nothing matters anymore

1

Anonymous #6 2d

I would argue that that is exactly what they want. Who’s going to stop them when they control the rules and rule enforcers ? We may have been arguing but we’re on the same side, they don’t give a fuck about us and all they want is control. Controlling media is a huge win for them and for that reason this kimmel fiasco is concerning in its own right, irrespective of what happened to charlie kirk

1

Anonymous #2 2d

there’s always fiascos like this though and nothing ever comes of them. you’re reading into this wayyy too much.

1

Anonymous #6 2d

Always? When has a president ever outright threatened a media outlet to fire one of their hosts for talking bad about him or his movement? When has an FCC head done the same ? Something has already come of this. ABC capitulated. They got what they wanted, they’re moving the chains and fighting for every yard towards more of what they want. It doesn’t happen overnight, it happens with little milestones like this one and they build up and set new precedents

1

Anonymous #2 2d

ok then what about when the FBI colluded with the Biden administration to silence dissent on Twitter? not a conspiracy theory, this is confirmed and twitter was compliant. same exact scenario you are making it out to be (collusion with federal agency) except they went one step further and got twitter to comply willingly. what ever came of that? nothing. except a few angry people, which would be you in this case.

1

Anonymous #6 2d

I’ll have to read about that but this is becoming less of a left vs right thing and more of a government vs middle and working class thing. If biden and the FBI did do that, then i condemn it and i’d even say that it might even be an earlier precedent that in some small part led us to where we are now. The government, as it is now, is becoming more authoritarian and in my strong opinion this is blatantly spearheaded by the right but the democrats aren’t innocent either

6

Anonymous #2 2d

This example doesn’t change the fact that trump and his appointees are truing to overtly threaten and bully their way into unchecked power

5

Anonymous #2 2d

*trying to

5

Anonymous #2 2d

idk i agree with you a little but there’s no way he’ll reach unchecked power levels. i feel like it’s a normal thing in politics but it never advances to the level you’re thinking of

1

Anonymous #6 2d

I hope that you’re right. I think it’s worth being on guard against authoritarianism and that it’s worth doing everything possible to avoid the worst scenario though. Thanks for hearing me out

1