Anonymous #1 5w

“There’s literally zero evidence he is doing that”

17

Anonymous #2 5w

You can believe whatever you want to. But I'm telling you, that you can go and look for yourself and you won't find evidence that Trump is violating anyone's right to freedom of speech.

-5

Anonymous #1 5w

Done. And it only took me 15 seconds.

18

Anonymous #1 5w

Lmfao. So because you have your head in the sand, he’s not doing it??? You people aren’t serious.

8

Anonymous #2 5w

News outlets that are granted special permission to use public broadcasting frequencies can't just say whatever they want on the airwaves. Those airwaves belong to ALL Americans and must be divided up in a fair and just way. How come they're allowed to use the airwaves as opposed to somebody else?

-6

Anonymous #1 5w

It’s hilarious how you went from “he’s not censoring people” to “censorship is good, actually” in an instant.

14

Anonymous #1 5w

Lmfao some piece of shit fox “news” host just said that the homeless should be murdered with involuntary lethal injections and nothing happened. Kimmel gave monologue and the fcc lost their shit. Everything you said is bullshit

9

Anonymous #2 5w

It's not censorship when they're using public broadcasting frequencies. Our government has specifically carved up a frequency range and given news outlets exclusive permission to use it. Why are they entitled to special treatment? I'm entitled to a slice of the pie too then, and the fact that I'm not getting it is a violation of MY free speech!

-3

Anonymous #1 5w

Yeah, keep slurping that trump dick while glossing over the fucking point. Idiot.

8

Anonymous OP 5w

You resorted to ad hominem. Face it, there's no evidence that Trump is violating freedom of speech, but their are consequences for your speech, like losing special exclusive privileges such as a broadcasting license

-3

Anonymous #1 5w

*there

-3

Anonymous #1 5w

You didn’t prove shit. That’s why, idiot . With your fucking logic, that fox “news” host should have been fired, not Kimmel for giving a fucking monologue. I will continue to call you fucking idiots over this pathetic glazing. Wild how you don’t see the irony in this. You’re a lost cause.

11

Anonymous #1 5w

There is clear evidence. It’s not my fault you’re up trumps ass.

3

Anonymous OP 5w

Oh please, Kimmel is back on, and that was a decision that Disney made. Disney is a private company. But technically the Trump administration has every right to push back on it since publicly owned airwaves are involved. If Kimmel wants to spew whatever garbage he wants, he's free to get off television and start a podcast.

-3

Anonymous #1 5w

Lmfao now please shut the entire fuck up about free speech. You’re a fucking loser just like trump, the whiny little cunt. The federal government has no place censoring speech. If you’re cool with a fox “news” saying we can just murder the homeless with involuntary injections, then fuck you, you miserable cunt. Maybe you should get an involuntary injection.

8

Anonymous #1 5w

And I love how you say shit as if you’re trying to convince some dumb fuck magat 😂😂😂 nobody believes your bullshit, rube.

5

Anonymous OP 5w

Lol cue the ad hominem

-2

Anonymous #1 5w

Nice deflection. Lmk when you make a fucking point

4

Anonymous OP 5w

The federal government can't censor speech. However, the federal government DOES decide who gets to have a broadcasting license. The FCC makes those decisions based on qualifications and public interest. Clearly the public is NOT interested in a majority of these leftist news channels.

-2

Anonymous #1 5w

Bringing up ad hominem on a social media argument is peak “i failed high school literature”

6

Anonymous #3 5w

Not really. It's better to just let them rant. Sticks and stones may break your bones

-2

Anonymous #1 5w

And facts and logic destroys your “argument.” That fact that they called you a loser dummy poopoohead doesn’t negate all the points they brought up that you failed to dispute

1

Anonymous #3 5w

What point did they bring up? Explain to me why only the legacy news outlets should be awarded broadcasting licenses and to not do so is censorship. If anything, it's censorship to NOT award broadcasting licenses to more conservative news outlets

-3

Anonymous OP 5w

I’ve already discussed this with this guy before. He eventually was like “well I bet the FCC wouldn’t give Rogan a license” and I was like “lol…I mean, if he has the money to maintain a station I don’t see why they wouldn’t”. Bro doesn’t realize Rush Limbaugh’s show was literally aired from multiple radio stations

6

Anonymous #4 5w

Rush Limbaugh was highly popular. If Democrats wanted him off the air they should've engaged the public to replace his show with somebody else

-2

Anonymous #1 5w

They could have taken him off the air if they wanted to, by your logic. He said stuff that was absolutely false. I’m not engaging with you on this again because it wasn’t productive last time, and you basically understood none of what I said. I’m just warning OP not to waste their time

5

Anonymous #4 5w

There's no evidence that Rush Limbaugh was any less honest than what CNN spews constantly. It's about public interest anyways. The public was interested in Rush Limbaugh. Why waste the airwaves on a show that is clearly underperforming with viewers?

-2

Anonymous #1 5w

CNN doesn’t have a public broadcasting license lmfao

6

Anonymous #4 5w

They’re only on Internet radio and satellite (which doesn’t have the same restrictions and license requirements)

4

Anonymous #4 5w

Ok you're right, CNN uses exclusively private infrastructure so technically they have no obligation to represent the American people and can say anything they want. But the same cant be said about networks like ABC or NBC

-1

Anonymous #1 5w

And I already told you the fairness doctrine was thrown out, and the person responsible for that was Reagan

5

Anonymous #4 5w

OK, so? That still doesn't change the fact that broadcasting licenses are awarded based on merit and public input

-2

Anonymous #4 5w

They're still required to serve the public interest, convenience and necessity

-2