Anonymous #1 3d

Free speech quite literally means the government should not be pushing for consequences regarding individuals speech.

61

Anonymous #3 3d

Plus his ratings have been awful over the last few years and they were probably looking for a scapegoat to dump his contract

-10

Anonymous #3 3d

FCC literally threatened ABC with pulling their broadcast rights

52

Anonymous #3 3d

Could you do 30 seconds of research before commenting and sucking trumps dick? They did this because the FCC was threatening to revoke their license and investigate them…

56

Anonymous #2 3d

They were threatened with the FCC

50

Anonymous #5 3d

Such as?

12

Anonymous #5 3d

“Speech is protected by the first amendment unless it’s attacking something I like”

22

Anonymous #3 3d

The left has always been for free speech

42

Anonymous #6 3d

They literally shot a guy exercising free speech 7 days ago

-11

Anonymous #3 3d

So if somebody is talking when they get shot, it becomes because of free speech? And was it the government that shot him?

14

Anonymous #3 3d

Who’s they? You mean a crazy wacko who planned a lone wolf shooting…that’s not the US government and that’s certainly not a political figure of any kind who carried out that act. What a moronic comparison

9

Anonymous #3 3d

Also fuck you for caring about Charlie Kirk getting murdered and not the dozens of Americans shot dead everyday. Truly some scum you are lacking such empathy

21

Anonymous OP 3d

I never said I didn’t care. That’s the false pretense you developed in your mind. Try talking to the other side sometime. It’ll help you mentally

-4

Anonymous #1 3d

Where were during cancel culture?

12

Anonymous #3 3d

You didn’t have to say it

7

Anonymous #1 3d

It means freedom of consequences from *the government*

19

Anonymous #1 3d

Me when I’m dumb asf

7

Anonymous #11 3d

I honestly forgot he existed for a bit but holy shit this is concerning

38

Anonymous #13 3d

it’s interesting the FCC is pressuring ABC, so government interception into what can be broadcast, i wonder what the result will be

1

Anonymous #9 3d

Meanwhile Fox News can suggest killing homeless people and be perfectly fine.

44

Anonymous #6 3d

Lib-left is pro free speech. Auth-left is against free speech. There’s a spectrum

2

Anonymous #9 3d

am i crazy for not thinking that’s extreme... he criticized maga not charlie kirk or his “legacy”

26

Anonymous #11 3d

Lmaooooo if Dems had a spine the FCC would go so hard

7

Anonymous #9 3d

Honestly I blame the dems for not going hard enough after the maga and conservative crowd when they had the chance

3

Anonymous #11 3d

Specifically Merrick Garland

0

Anonymous #6 3d

who’s that

5

Anonymous #6 3d

He bears a lot of responsibility, but at the same time, I have to remember to live in the present, the past is in the past, and also hold republicans responsible for their own actions.

0

Anonymous #13 3d

The previous AG

1

Anonymous #11 3d

If the FCC did this to a conservative comedian (I don’t even know of a prominent one tbh) I think I’d be concerned. Revoking licenses to pressure someone to be fired is insane regardless of political party

15

Anonymous #1 3d

GEE NOW Y’ALL UNDERSTAND. Keep that same energy next time you want to say racial slurs

12

can you explain from your perspective

13

In no way shape or form is it just criminal law. The us government cannot sue organizations in civil courts either…so that’s false. Secondly you actually think the 1st amendment is in no way supposed to prevent the government from using its power to control speech if it’s not explicitly criminal prosecution? So if Joe Biden was withholding government contracts from anyone he didn’t like you’d be okay with that? If he revoked licenses or FOX news and newsmax you’d think that’s totally fine under

11

The 1st amendment. You genuinely back dictatorships and that’s insane

7

Nope. Please see Rankin v McPherson. You can’t even fire some government employees for wishing a president’s assassination attempt was successful

8

The “FCC worker” is literally the chairman 😭

4

Anonymous #9 3d

So? A quote cannot be prosecuted. He is protected by 1st amendment as well.

0

Anonymous #14 3d

Who is “he”?

1

When you say the FCC has done this in the past, are you referring to the fairness doctrine?

1

Anonymous #9 3d

FCC worker

1

Anonymous #9 3d

Yes. Fairness is really subjective. You cannot call it fair only when you win

1

Anonymous #14 3d

He’s not just a worker, he’s the *chair*. He makes decisions. And the fairness doctrine was abolished in 1987, so that’s not relevant anymore

0

Anonymous #9 3d

Go check it. Bush introduced a new one back in 911. Dems didn’t revoke it

1

Anonymous #14 3d

Can you tell me the name of it? Because I don’t see anything about this happening in 2001

1

Anonymous #5 3d

Which of those does this fall under?

21

Anonymous #6 2d

Defamation, fighting words, etc. None of which describe what Kimmel said

5

Anonymous #9 2d

Now I was just pointing out the fact that there is things that aren’t technically covered. Never did I say that Kimmel said any of those things. I was just making a clarification of what is covered and not covered

1

Anonymous #11 2d

EXACTLY!!!! I’m so fucking tired of the double standard.

1

Anonymous #5 2d

You didn’t make any clarification. You just said that there were such things, which is completely uninformative, and you said so in a context that implies some of them might apply to Kimmel

4

Anonymous #5 2d

It’s amazing that this is what you try to say is an attack on free speech. He can still do his podcast or start a new one or something and say whatever he wants. ABC just doesn’t want to be associated with it 👋👋👋👋

-1

Anonymous #20 2d

What did "the left" do to him?

14

Anonymous #19 2d

You live under a rock?

-2

Anonymous #20 2d

Nope. It certainly wasn’t "the left" who killed him. "The left" is not an individual person. You sound like a moron.

14

Aww, getting your feelings hurt? 🥺

36

Anonymous #12 2d

Btw this was the government threatening to pull funding from ABC. This isn’t like your employer firing you for saying slurs

36

Anonymous #9 2d

The majority is just tired of the hateful senseless bs that feeds the division, man. And unfortunately your side is so hateful that now people need to fear that what they say can get them killed if the wrong person hears them. You don’t have to worry about that from the side you hate. All you have to worry about hearing something that makes you mad cause you can’t prove it wrong.

1

Anonymous #7 2d

1st amendment protects you from the government not private employers

2

Anonymous #12 2d

practicing freedom of speech is a constitutional right, not sure if you knew that. social consequences are not the same as your constitutional right being taken away from you. so you’re okay with trump censoring every piece of media to fit his agenda? you’re okay with us having the same values as north korea?

7

Anonymous #25 2d

nobody is happy a man was murdered, we are just saving our tears for the children shot because many people believe those children deserved to die if it means keeping the second amendment. why are you crying over him but not kindergartners shot dead? why are you crying over him when the dem rep and her husband and dog were murdered and trump refused to acknowledge the murder? you’re being a hypocrite.

12

Anonymous #27 2d

Good job you realized their is violence in this world and tragedy’s happen, who says conservatives didn’t mourn for the children’s who’s lives are cut short due to violence we did. I’m not going to entertain the 2nd amendment thing, I hope you find a group of Americans that’s brave and willibg to go door to door to take Americans guns.we aren’t mourning the death of the 2 dem state reps cause what did leftist do when trump got shit at, we aren’t going to mourn for those who hate us.

-3

Anonymous #26 2d

You see how "leftists" can cite quotes that Charlie himself said and provide individual reasons for our resentment of him to justify our lack of sympathy while you have to chalk up the killing of Melissa Hortman to retaliation against "a Democrat." Conservatives operate based on hate and reactionary politics. As much as you try to equate the behavior of leftists with that of conservatives, it really can’t be done honestly.

5

Anonymous #26 2d

Leftists don’t hate conservatives. If you call yourself a conservative, we might be a bit skeptical because of all the terrible things they tend to believe, especially now, we would need reasons unique to YOU in order to hate YOU. Conservatism is too ambiguous a label. However, conservatives are the ones who tend to use arbitrary categorizations as immediate judgments, and Republican government officials are the ones who tend to scapegoat and further justify hatred of the opposition.

1

Anonymous #26 2d

Just look at what Trump said in the immediate aftermath of the Charlie Kirk’s death compared to what Biden said. It’s EVERY SINGLE OPPORTUNITY to foster hatred for the entire political opposition that they paint with the same broad brush. Nothing similar was said in the aftermath of Melissa Hortman.

1

Anonymous #26 2d

why do troglodytes always jump to "who's going to take them"? do you think the only option besides what we have now is to storm everybody's home and forcibly remove them? have you considered acting like a rational adult capable of basic thought instead of going for extreme reactionary leaps?

1

Anonymous #27 2d

This is literally ABC not wanting to be represented by Kimmel because of posts he made. Media is supposed to follow the policies from the FCC including radio shows, etc. If they aren’t following those guidelines and they’re supposed to be following those guidelines there will almost most certainly be consequences.

-6

Anonymous #24 2d

No but right now it’s socially unacceptable to mock assassinations, celebrate, justify, etc. It’s something you’ll have to adapt to until society changes again. I guess you’ll have to be more careful with your words.

-6

Anonymous #12 2d

Things don’t become socially unacceptable overnight, dude. That’s just not how culture works. This is an isolated incident due to conservative campaigning. It is unconstitutional for the government to condone or engage in such actions.

18

Anonymous #12 2d

Yeah, no. This is the exact same bullshit that the FCC was doing with south park and paramount’s merger. The chairman of the fcc specifically threatened Disney over Kimmel speculating on whether it was someone on the right shot Kirk. That’s it. He didn’t say he had it coming or anything even close to as inflammatory as that

15

Anonymous #19 2d

The FCC is supposed to have the policy book for what is acceptable in media. They are already overreaching anyway. This isn’t new, and this same defunding proposition was made against Fox in 2023. If they break a policy, they can have their licenses removed. Same thing for radio shows, like if you play music that has a certain profanity you can lose funding for that.

-5

Anonymous #12 2d

Verbatim from the chairman of the fcc: “This is a very, very serious issue right now for Disney. We can do this the easy way or the hard way, Disney needs to see some change here, but the individual licensed stations that are taking their content, it's time for them to step up and say this, you know, garbage to the extent that that's what comes down the pipe in the future isn't something that we think serves the needs of our local communities."

9

Anonymous #12 2d

What FCC policy are those who show no sympathy for Charlie Kirk violating?

4

Anonymous #12 2d

The 1st amendment does not care about cultural normalcy that’s the point of it. It’s the law above all else

2

Anonymous #12 2d

Btw, Trump accused the shooter of being a radical leftist before Kimmel said anything on the matter, and even less was known about the guy at that point. It’s fucking hypocritical lmao

5

Anonymous OP 2d

Yes but if the FCC gives licenses and if they feel someone with their license is breaking their policies, they can revoke it.

0

Anonymous #12 2d

No, not if they "feel" like someone is breaking their policies. If it is a legally defensible position that they ARE. Which policy is lacking sympathy for Charlie Kirk violating?

2

Anonymous #19 2d

Not about having no sympathy, more so mocking, celebrating, or justifying morose acts. Right now the chairman is using the “public service” argument lol which is funny but they are in jurisdiction to revoke licenses if they can actually follow it up with policies being broken. So we will probably see if it goes anywhere.

1

Anonymous #12 2d

*public interest*

1

Anonymous #12 2d

It’s not legally defensible. But the administration have demonstrated that they do not care about constitutionality

0

Anonymous #26 2d

They stopped the show because the government threatened to cut funding

8

Anonymous #30 2d

Can you prove that

-1

Anonymous #21 2d

To the extent that anyone can prove anything, yeah. It’s sort of common knowledge

2

the classic “i know you are but what am i” mixed with the timeless “he did it first”. impeccable!

13

Anonymous #27 2d

No you guys are literally happy about it. I did cry over the kindergarteners shot dead. And the kids shot in the church by the trans kid. I prayed for Melissa horrman and had sympathy for her family. NO ONE celebrated, NO ONE said who gives a shit about her and her family because she’s a commie. Literally no one said that. Her life was equally as important. The only difference is that no one (including you) knew who she was prior to the news report so the outcry from the world was different.

4

Anonymous #21 2d

Have you even seen the clips that got him cancelled? You’re a troll

1

Anonymous #20 2d

Sorry I didn’t realize I merged with half the population to assassinated Kirk, mb 🤡

1

Anonymous #33 2d

Yes he was perpetuating propaganda making claims with zero evidence to back it up. You’re delusional, have a good day

1

Such as?

1

Anonymous #26 2d

And if a private employer fired someone for what a lot of people on both sides consider a bullshit reason, then we’re allowed to be pissed and demand change. Do they have to change, of course not. But they should be aware that there are possible social repercussions for them if they don’t.

0

Anonymous #21 2d

I’m not sure what you don’t understand about the FCC saying they’ll revoke someone’s license

1

Anonymous #33 2d

Lmao ofc I replied to the wrong person, I meant #21

1

Anonymous #33 2d

Kind of like how Kimmel is seeing the repercussions of spreading propaganda

1

Anonymous #9 2d

What about when Obama tried to cancel Roseanne Barr for her free speech?

0

Anonymous #25 2d

Okay yeah it’s wrong then and it’s wrong now. Doesn’t matter which side

1

Anonymous #25 2d

You mean when Roseanne tweeted something publicly and got backlash very quickly for it? You think Obama himself actually called Bob Iger himself?

6

Anonymous #9 2d

Oh nvm then

1