RIP Charlie Kirk

[iris lilies]

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.

I dont like wading into speculation about Tyler Robinson’s motivation because it doesnt really matter, does it? But as a personal observation, and this is what you are referencing, the level of denial about Robinson’s motives, while acceptable to me during the days immediately following Kirk’s assasination, is not tenable now. Those who are still crying “groyper” are silly and I don’t respect their discourse.

We have more important things to focus on than what brand of stupid idealogy Tyler Robinson was following.

[bae]

National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175 (2024). 9-0 decision.

“Six decades ago, this Court held that a government entity’s ‘threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion’ against a third party ‘to achieve the suppression’ of disfavored speech violates the First Amendment. Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58, 67 (1963). Today, the Court reaffirms what it said then: Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors. Petitioner National Rifle Association (NRA) plausibly alleges that respondent Maria Vullo did just that.”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...2-842_6kg7.pdf

[early morning]

We have more important things to focus on than what brand of stupid idealogy Tyler Robinson was following.

You'd think, right?? But it doesn't seem so. It's lots easier to get riled up over that than to actually try to fix something in a manner that benefits MOST Americans, not just the rich ones.

[Tybee]

It's hard to not be fearful when things have changed so much, we are being listened to, tracked and monitored. I remember as a kid in the Cold War hearing how it was in Russia, how someone was listening to everything you say, and here we are, 60 years later, in that same place. It is hard to know what to say, what to do to try to keep freedom of speech alive. It feels that recent events have had a very chilling effect on our rights to speak publicly and express our opinions.

[bae]

Die Fahne hoch die Reihen fest geschlossen
S.A. marschiert mit ruhig festem Schritt
Kam’raden die Rotfront und Reaktion erschossen
Marschier’n im Geist in unsern Reihen mit
Die Strasse frei den braunen Batallionen

Probably would make a catchy tune.

“Perhaps those who would warn you that the Anschluss is coming - and it is coming, Captain - perhaps they would get further with you by setting their words to music.”

[iris lilies]

It's hard to not be fearful when things have changed so much, we are being listened to, tracked and monitored. I remember as a kid in the Cold War hearing how it was in Russia, how someone was listening to everything you say, and here we are, 60 years later, in that same place. It is hard to know what to say, what to do to try to keep freedom of speech alive. It feels that recent events have had a very chilling effect on our rights to speak publicly and express our opinions.

I wonder if you recognize at all the chilling effect of liberal ideology on college campuses in recent decades, and closing discourse and keeping professors with more conservative views silent?

this might feel chilling and sudden TO YOU but others have been experiencing it for a while now.

[Tybee]

I wonder if you recognize at all the chilling effect of liberal ideology on college campuses in recent decades, and closing discourse and keeping professors with more conservative views silent?

this might feel chilling and sudden TO YOU but others have been experiencing it for a while now.

been teaching at college campuses since 1981 and have never seen anything like this.

[Rogar]

Today, the Court reaffirms what it said then: Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors.

So are we assuming that Mr. Carr's threats to ABC are illegal?

EDIT to add: Seems like a prime opportunity to sue.

In a round about way it might be a good thing that public radio was defunded. It's one less thing the administration can't hold over their heads in retribution or censorship.

[LDAHL]

I think it unconstitutional, if not illegal for the FCC to issue threats. I felt the same about previous administrations jawboning social media platforms to suppress ideas they found inconvenient or weaponizing the IRS against donors to organizations they disapproved of. The attempt to establish a Disinformation Governance Board was more silly than chilling.

There is no place for government policing the marketplace of ideas. The UK cops monitoring the internet for thought crimes is an abomination that I hope we never see here. On the other hand, I don’t see the same applying to private organizations. A television network, cake shop or tire store has a right to craft its own image.

[Alan]

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.

I think the "incomplete" or perhaps the more accurate "false" story is that the FCC chairman threatened to pull licenses of ABC affiliates who continue to broadcast Jimmy Kimmel Live.

I saw the chairman's entire statement which was a response to an apparent interview question which I unfortunately haven't seen or heard. His response was that if ABC/Disney's affiliate customers objected to the content of ABC's product, they should let ABC know and perhaps consider not carrying whichever content they found objectionable. He then went on to muddy the waters somewhat by expounding on the FCC's responsibility to ensure networks and affiliates were adhering to their licensing agreements which include the responsibility to operate within the "public interest, convenience and necessity". I think he then went on to suggest that purposely providing inaccurate information such as Kimmel's allegation that Kirk's shooter was MAGA was a direct contradiction to the public interest, convenience and necessity rule. He did not threaten to pull the license of any affiliates broadcasting specific programming.

Now, Sinclair and Nexstar were apparently listening and decided to do exactly what his hypothetical answer suggested, they decided to stop broadcasting one of ABC's products until such time as they deemed that product reflected the values their customers expected and their advertisers were willing to support. While part of that decision may have been an effort to curry favor within the FCC, that was obviously a business decision, not a political one.

That's my take anyway.