ABC has suspend 'Jimmy Kimmel Live!' in the wake of Brendan Carr threatening ABC affiliates following the late-night host's comments about the suspected Kirk shooter's politics.
Somebody killing a maga adjacent or affiliate personality and your reaction is saying
Isnt it weird how thoses ppl think the shooter isnt maga is dishonest in all context. I’m glad that u dont feel that s the case but that s doesn’t matter in this one.
Also if it was really his freedom of speech under attack it wouldn’t have been only the fcc that would be in the case. You rip what you sow and making the attempt to paint a bad comedian as a martyr of freedom of speech while he still can express himself simply not on broadcast that have stricter rule is also dishonest.
Honestly, I thought it was more important that the shooter was so mentally distorted as to publicly slaughter somebody and that he had the tools and circumstances to do that successfully. If you think not being MAGA was a more significant factor than that, you can hold that opinion, but that doesn’t make it dishonest for someone to believe differently or express that. Again, what Kimmel said was not about what people believe, but what they are prioritizing in what they say and do.
The First Amendment doesn’t say that the government is allowed to restrict free speech so long as they leave you some avenue to express yourself, it says that they are not allowed to restrict free speech at all (outside of some narrow categories that aren’t considered free speech to begin with). Someone doesn’t have to be a saint or martyr for it to be a bad thing for the government to treat them improperly.
You good at just derailing the conversation on things that doesn’t matter regarding that issue.
The first amendement regard personal right not the right about tv national network and still it s a private corporation that fire him not the gouvernement
Those points are exactly on issue. You need to either get yourself up to speed on the conversation we’ve been having or accept that it is beyond you, but for all the patience I’ve put into this conversation I will not stand for you to just declare me derailing it to offhandedly dismiss a core point you don’t like. If you honestly think that I’m trying to pull the discussion off-course, then point out where and how, don’t just give a cowardly hand-wave and pretend to have the high ground.
As a famous politician quipped, “corporations are people, my friend”. Whether you or I like it or not, that is the current reality of constitutional rights. But it’s not just corporate actions that are being targeted, it’s specifically what Kimmel (who is a person) said. Don’t pretend that the enforcement [retribution] mechanism defines what activity is being restricted. If the government threatened to fine the company owned by anyone caught wearing a blue shirt, they are restricting people from wearing blue shirts, not owning companies. If the FCC Chair threatens to do things “the hard way” for a company that employs Kimmel because of what he said, they are restricting his speech.
Furthermore, the fact that government agents didn’t literally haul him out of the building does not absolve them of wrongdoing. Threatening someone and then pretending to not have actually done anything and that their reaction is entirely on them is a classic abuser strategy. Are you going to wholeheartedly stand behind that line of argument and claim to be in good faith? (And don’t even try to claim that people lambasting ABC/Disney for being weak enough to give in to that threat are blaming them for being threatened in the first place.)
Somebody killing a maga adjacent or affiliate personality and your reaction is saying Isnt it weird how thoses ppl think the shooter isnt maga is dishonest in all context. I’m glad that u dont feel that s the case but that s doesn’t matter in this one.
Also if it was really his freedom of speech under attack it wouldn’t have been only the fcc that would be in the case. You rip what you sow and making the attempt to paint a bad comedian as a martyr of freedom of speech while he still can express himself simply not on broadcast that have stricter rule is also dishonest.
Honestly, I thought it was more important that the shooter was so mentally distorted as to publicly slaughter somebody and that he had the tools and circumstances to do that successfully. If you think not being MAGA was a more significant factor than that, you can hold that opinion, but that doesn’t make it dishonest for someone to believe differently or express that. Again, what Kimmel said was not about what people believe, but what they are prioritizing in what they say and do.
The First Amendment doesn’t say that the government is allowed to restrict free speech so long as they leave you some avenue to express yourself, it says that they are not allowed to restrict free speech at all (outside of some narrow categories that aren’t considered free speech to begin with). Someone doesn’t have to be a saint or martyr for it to be a bad thing for the government to treat them improperly.
You good at just derailing the conversation on things that doesn’t matter regarding that issue.
The first amendement regard personal right not the right about tv national network and still it s a private corporation that fire him not the gouvernement
Those points are exactly on issue. You need to either get yourself up to speed on the conversation we’ve been having or accept that it is beyond you, but for all the patience I’ve put into this conversation I will not stand for you to just declare me derailing it to offhandedly dismiss a core point you don’t like. If you honestly think that I’m trying to pull the discussion off-course, then point out where and how, don’t just give a cowardly hand-wave and pretend to have the high ground.
As a famous politician quipped, “corporations are people, my friend”. Whether you or I like it or not, that is the current reality of constitutional rights. But it’s not just corporate actions that are being targeted, it’s specifically what Kimmel (who is a person) said. Don’t pretend that the enforcement [retribution] mechanism defines what activity is being restricted. If the government threatened to fine the company owned by anyone caught wearing a blue shirt, they are restricting people from wearing blue shirts, not owning companies. If the FCC Chair threatens to do things “the hard way” for a company that employs Kimmel because of what he said, they are restricting his speech.
Furthermore, the fact that government agents didn’t literally haul him out of the building does not absolve them of wrongdoing. Threatening someone and then pretending to not have actually done anything and that their reaction is entirely on them is a classic abuser strategy. Are you going to wholeheartedly stand behind that line of argument and claim to be in good faith? (And don’t even try to claim that people lambasting ABC/Disney for being weak enough to give in to that threat are blaming them for being threatened in the first place.)