RIP Charlie Kirk

[Alan]

Or, maybe it is more of the Kimmel overview that the network dislikes. Nexstar cancelled the Kimmel showing and I assume Nexstar represents most of the affiliate stations. What the affiliates want is a big deal at the networks.

The first story I read about this yesterday highlighted the fact that Nexstar and Sinclair (both major owners of affiliate stations) decided to drop Kimmel's show from their stations for an undetermined amount of time and that ABC/Disney then decided to do the same on the network level, again for an undetermined amount of time which would lead one to believe that something about the show would be fixed and everything would return to normal.
Subsequent stories then sort of ignored the Nexstar/Sinclair angle and focused on blaming the Trump administration. That leaves me wondering which focus is true, is ABC working on making changes to one of their offerings to appease their affiliates or is the government canceling programming they don't like? It appears most folks are automatically choosing option 2.

[Rogar]

It would probably be an incomplete story to leave out the influence of FCC chairman Brenden Carr, who threatened to pul licenses of ABC affiliates who continue to broadcast Jimmy Kimmel Live.

[Tybee]

Censored.

[early morning]

censored. cancelled. and placed in danger from the sociopaths that make up many of the MAGA base. so much for the right wingnuts and their free speech advocacy. what was it that used to be one of their main complaints about those on the left? that we were whiney snowflakes, concerned about "hate speech"? First amendment free speech makes it FINE to call people out, put targets on their pictures, and say really vile things about them! but it's the rightwingers I know who are in full melt down about OTHER people using first amendment free speech rights to disagree with the current dictatorial wanna-bes.

[LDAHL]

A certain amount of effort seems to have been made to convince the public of the MAGAdunnit codswallop. Apart from the usual “stochastic terrorism” nonsense, we saw CNN report the messages the shooter inscribed on his bullets as “cultural phrases” rather than simply tell us what he wrote. Much was made of the fact that the shooter’s parents were Republicans. It’s not surprising that a loyal soldier like Kimmel would push that particular lie.

Whether that’s a firing matter I’m not sure. But if Disney found it offensive enough to justify bowing out of the declining late night market, I have no trouble believing them.

[iris lilies]

I am glad ya’ll are NOW concerned about First Amendment rights. Welcome aboard.

We could play “both siderism” but that’s like trying to figure out the Israelis and the Palestinians and who started it all. Go back in time, pick a moment and see the side that started it. But the action before that. Until the next action by the other side.

The truth is the Western world has become more authoritarian in the past 20 years and I am concerned the average Joe doesn5 see, recognize, or worry about it.

It does not matter whose political side is up at the moment because that can and will change.

[iris lilies]

Now is the time I can promote one of my favorite charities.

It is FIRE, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

This organization truly stands non-partisan in their work to protect free speech rights in the United States. Because they are a newish and small organization, they took on one single focus and it is an excellent one: academic freedom and free speech at college campuses.

Since we can no longer count on the partisan ACLU to take on issues they should take on, I look to FIRE as my guiding light.

And FIRE has a shit ton to do these days since the Trump administration has been turning up the heat on government threats of censorship (but believe me, they were busy enough in the Biden years.)

[Tybee]

Here is what one of your favorite organizations has to say about this situation:

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr is once again abusing his position to try to assert government control over public discourse, spuriously invoking the “public interest” standard to selectively target speech the government dislikes.
President Trump has recently called for the FCC to revoke ABC’s broadcast license because he does not like the way the network — and Jimmy Kimmel in particular — speaks about him. Just yesterday, Trump suggested to a reporter that Attorney General Pam Bondi’s statement about prosecuting “hate speech” might mean she will “go after” ABC “because you treat me so unfairly. It’s hate.”
Now, Carr is threatening ABC for comments about Charlie Kirk’s shooter that Kimmel made during his opening monologue on Monday, insinuating that the shooter was part of “the MAGA gang."
The FCC has no authority to control what a late night TV host can say, and the First Amendment protects Americans’ right to speculate on current events even if those speculations later turn out to be incorrect. Subjecting broadcasters to regulatory liability when anyone on their network gets something wrong would turn the FCC into an arbiter of truth and cast an intolerable chill over the airwaves.

[iris lilies]

Here is what one of your favorite organizations has to say about this situation, so watch your six if you send them money:

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr is once again abusing his position to try to assert government control over public discourse, spuriously invoking the “public interest” standard to selectively target speech the government dislikes.
President Trump has recently called for the FCC to revoke ABC’s broadcast license because he does not like the way the network — and Jimmy Kimmel in particular — speaks about him. Just yesterday, Trump suggested to a reporter that Attorney General Pam Bondi’s statement about prosecuting “hate speech” might mean she will “go after” ABC “because you treat me so unfairly. It’s hate.”
Now, Carr is threatening ABC for comments about Charlie Kirk’s shooter that Kimmel made during his opening monologue on Monday, insinuating that the shooter was part of “the MAGA gang."
The FCC has no authority to control what a late night TV host can say, and the First Amendment protects Americans’ right to speculate on current events even if those speculations later turn out to be incorrect. Subjecting broadcasters to regulatory liability when anyone on their network gets something wrong would turn the FCC into an arbiter of truth and cast an intolerable chill over the airwaves.

are you directing this at me? What in the world do you mean?

[Tybee]

are you directing this at me? What in the world do you mean?

This is a statement released by the organization you identified as one of your favorite charities:

FIRE statement on FCC threat to revoke ABC broadcast license over Jimmy Kimmel remarks about Charlie Kirk | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

I imagine one of the things government is looking at is where we donate our money. Of course, I could be wrong about that.