53 ms·
ABC yanks Jimmy Kimmel’s show ‘indefinitely’ after threat from FCC chair
- xenospn 1y ago[flagged]
- bediger4000 1y ago[flagged]
- paxys 1y agoIt's only cancel culture when the left does it. And this one is infinitely worse than a bunch of internet commenters disagreeing with his comments or private advertisers pulling out. Trump and the FCC directly threatened to pull ABC's license unless they regulated his speech, and ABC caved. The first amendment is dead and people are celebrating on the streets because their favorite political party was the one to kill it.
- bediger4000 1y agoMy word! With all due respect that seems like a legitimate 1st Amendment violation! I assume those freedom of speech absolutists, like the NYT Editorial Board, are all over this one!
- refurb 1y agoYou were the one arguing “the first amendment doesn’t protect again consequences”. What changed?
- hoten 1y agoThe government, via the FFC, used their expansive power to force a private company to censor speech. I'm not familiar with what you are quoting specifically, but that refrain is typically understood to mean "the first amendment doesn’t protect against consequences ... except from the government".
- refurb 1y agoI mean the FCC has rules around the content that can be put on public airwaves. It has been held up in court. Whether the FCC’s actions are also legal here I don’t know. But it goes to show the insanity of US politics that one can make an argument yesterday then argue against the same point the next. But then again, I get the sense it’s all one circus with everyone well aware of what’s going on. It’s basically a performance where the audience knows the performer doesn’t believe it themselves.
- hoten 1y agoIt's an insincere argument that government censorship is equivalent to public shaming or canceling (or however you want to describe the "left"'s actions here). When the government does it, it's authoritarian. When a group of people do it, it's freedom of expression. There's a discussion to be had about how it may go too far or be extrajudicial (people being fired for non criminal activity), but it's markedly different from the force of the government. This isn't some even handed application of the FCC's policies against hate speech (if that's how one cares to describe Kimmel's comments) or misinformation (is there even such a policy?). You don't have to look far to see this is politically motivated: just this week a Fox host suggested that the homeless should just be exterminated. I don't believe the FCC has threatened Fox's broadcast license in an attempt to influence Fox to fire him
- refurb 1y agoLike most arguments online it’s a bunch of people with little to know knowledge of the actual facts filling in whatever details they want with their own opinions then getting hysterical over the hypothetical implications. I for one choose not to participate.
- bediger4000 1y agoYou right-thinking guys convinced me: cancel culture is bad. What I don't understand is why it's ok if the FCC commissioner pushed for it. That does seem like a first amendment deal.
- refurb 1y agoThe government enforcing laws on the books isn’t cancel culture? I mean if laws weren’t broken, and it was pressure alone because of personal views, then yeah that’s wrong.
- theossuary 1y ago[flagged]
- joemazerino 1y ago[flagged]
- add-sub-mul-div 1y agoThe right doesn't get to elect an incompetent reality show host and then not be the laughingstock of late night. Pick one or the other.
- bigyabai 1y agoNeoliberal entertainment is less about repeating what the government wants to say, and more about repeating what other people want to hear. Both have their issues. You're just yelling into the wind if you think this will keep politics off late-night TV.
- mayh4ps 1y ago[dead]
- bigyabai 1y ago[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- FollowingTheDao 1y agoI see cancel culture is still alive and well...
- zoklet-enjoyer 1y agoI was expecting something offensive. He's just telling us how he sees the world, and it looks the same as how I've seen this thing. Crazy
- wiskinator 1y agoWe are in so much trouble as a society. The real danger here is that ABC did it before the White House ordered or told them too. Fascists rise in power the more scared we are to speak.
- tenuousemphasis 1y agoThe FCC head did threaten ABC's broadcast license.
- JohnFen 1y agoAnd they folded instead of fighting. Their cowardice is helping to destroy freedom and democracy in the US.
- lupusreal 1y agoSupposing ABC hadn't fired Kimmel, then what would Kimmel sue the government for? ABC did Kimmel and the rest of us a favor, by making sure Kimmel was actually negatively impacted by the government talking shit about him and thereby giving us a chance of this actually causing a legal mess.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- ranger_danger 1y agoSounds like it's time for Jimmy to retire... there's no point in fighting this anymore and I'm sure his family is ready for him to quit anyway. We've sure come a long way from The Man Show.
- fennec-posix 1y agogod, that's a blast from the past...
- armenarmen 1y agoThe right, has for the past decade or so taken a moral high ground with regards to cancelation. Seems that now they've adopted a "turnaround is fair play" mentality.
- paxys 1y agoThe right is simply good at PR. People forget that they invented cancel culture. Dixie Chicks anyone?
- armenarmen 1y agoI had totally forgotten about that!
- XorNot 1y agoVideo games all through the 90s as well.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- panarchy 1y agoSatanic Panic before that.
- xnx 1y ago> The right is simply good at PR One of the defining characteristics of the right is not placing any value on logical consistency. Being a hypocrite will not lose you any support with them.
- dismalaf 1y agoBelieve it or not, alienating politics isn't great for business. Neither is peddling conspiracy theories.
- ceejayoz 1y agoIt worked pretty well for the Murdochs.
- Bud 1y agoNeither of those things occurred, here. Kimmel's remarks were extraordinarily mild, and they also happen to be entirely true.
- xp84 1y agoNobody has provided any evidence that I've seen that the murderer was motivated by a right-wing anything, and frankly as the least logical conclusion it needs sources. I read that the person who turned him in (or an acquaintance) said that he was the only leftist in a family of hard right people. [Apologies for the lack of source; I read it as news was breaking and don't have the link] It's a nonsensical argument that the attack was random. It's farfetched that it was for some unrelated-to-politics reason given that these men as far as we know had no connection to each other, and it's nonsensical to believe that someone beloved by most people in the right wing would be targeted by a fellow right-winger. If someone like AOC or Bernie Sanders was viciously attacked at an event, you can't tell me that you would accept an unsourced assertion that "it was actually a marxist that harmed them."
- thatswrong0 1y ago> it's nonsensical to believe that someone beloved by most people in the right wing would be targeted by a fellow right-winger Look up groypers and Nick Fuentes - he's a right winger who was NOT a fan of Charlie Kirk and amassed a following about it. There is _some_ very mild evidence to believe that it's possible (I personally don't think that's the case FWIW)
- tptacek 1y agoKeep in mind that Kimmel has been hinting about retiring for a couple years now, his contract was up in the air, the "late night television show" category is evaporating (if there's still even a Tonight Show in 10 years, it'll be purely for nostalgia), and this sends Kimmel out in a blaze of glory. I think it's too easy to sort of anthropomorphize these kinds of conflicts --- Kimmel's show has a large staff, and he's responsible for their livelihoods --- but it wouldn't be totally out of the question that Kimmel steered right into this. There's nothing new about this, though: ABC also took Bill Maher off the air, 20 years ago, almost identical circumstances. Maher wound up at HBO. Kimmel will wind up on a podcast, and, like Conan, probably gain in relevance. Moments later I think some people here might be too young to immediately get the Maher reference, but the point there was: he was forced off the air for political reasons as well.
- throwawaylaptop 1y ago[flagged]
- Forgeties79 1y agothe WSJ has faced no repercussions for all their initial reporting either. It’s ridiculous.
- tptacek 1y agoThat's kind of what I mean by steering directly into this.
- throwawaylaptop 1y ago[flagged]
- jimmydoe 1y agoso far it seems the kid is friendly to trans, and loves guns, which fits neither lefty or maga labels. rushing to conclusion seems peak american idiocracy
- wnevets 1y agoThat free speech crowd has been very very quiet the last week
- mayh4ps 1y ago[dead]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- sointeresting 1y ago[flagged]
- markoman 1y agoExcept that Kimmel's job was speech. He had a microphone -- and depended upon that (supposedly God-given) freedom of speech to perform that job. If he lost that job due to something that right didn't guarantee, then I'd understand. His dismissal's cause had nothing to do with a failure on his part. Instead we now have the government, specifically concerned with his criticisms of it, effectuating this block of Kimmel's speech and thereby ending his job. The government is supposed to guarantee your right to criticize it. What happened here?
- sointeresting 1y ago[flagged]
- mrbombastic 1y agoThat’s not true
- romellem 1y agoExcept all indications are the show was pulled because of pressure from the government. The FCC threatening “we can do this the easy way or the hard way” is not constitutional.
- filmgirlcw 1y agoDid we learn nothing from when ABC fired Bill Maher from Politically Incorrect 24 years ago? Clearly, we did not.
- casey2 1y agohttps://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
- nba456_ 1y agoExcept the FCC literally threatened ABC over this
- casey2 1y agoRead the comic again, your right to free speech has nothing to do with your privilege of using the public airwaves. The FCC chairs' threat to ABC is about the later, not about arresting executives or Kimmel like one would expect if you read the comic then your comment.
- suzdude 1y agoWhat was wrong with what Kimmel said? Is it against the public good to question the motives of the president of the United States? Is it misuse of public airwaves to point out the lack of evidence on hand to divine the political affiliations of this school shooter?
- rileymat2 1y agoThe comic is incomplete, the first amendment also protects content based discrimination in government interactions outside of certain exceptions. It does not require arrest. For example in the granting of permits for marches.
- vFunct 1y agoWhat's the end game of these right-wing legacy media? The median age of TV viewers is like 65. How do they expect to maintain any viewership once all the elderly people die off? The only thing people watch anymore are live sports and local news, and even those are showing signs of declining.
- techpineapple 1y agoThere was an article recently that basically said lots of moves on the right aren’t strategic they’re ideological. So yeah, I think the right really wants to control media, and isn’t worried about the inevitable backlash. But I do keep thinking about the fact that the move to the right among young men, will probably pretty quickly reverse itself, if they keep going after media/video games/porn, etc.
- Gigachad 1y agoIt’s not the company behind this. The federal government forced them to do this. All media is being taken over by the state.
- thehappypm 1y ago“All media” is a huge stretch.. legacy hyper regulated media maybe
- nebula8804 1y agoYouTube recently introduced an AI-driven policy that automatically places suspected under-18 accounts into Restricted Mode, which blocks access to political and news content. This happens because lots of people are sharing accounts with their kids and despite Youtubers attempts to change this there are large amount of viewers who actually dont subscribe to channels. This change has already caused independent creators to lose 25–33% of their views, since many users get flagged and no longer see political videos recommended. This has happened once before during the 2017–2018 "Adpocalypse": when all political channels lost ad revenue after advertisers pulled out due to seeing their content on a few extremist channels. The motivation now seems to be brand safety and political sensitivity, but the effect is the same: fewer viewers, less revenue, and potential long-term harm to independent media. Its the first step towards pushing out independent creators. Yeah there is substack and patreon but many avenues of independent media are in danger and this is a step in the wrong direction.
- superkuh 1y agoThis state of things, Kimmel's show being canceled for entirely normal and non-offensive statements, is kind of funny when you try to imagine the steps that had to happen to get here from his start on "The Man Show". The least suprising aspect of this story is that ABC has fascist leanings.
- breadwinner 1y ago[flagged]
- paxys 1y ago[flagged]
- tptacek 1y agoPlease don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- tptacek 1y agoColbert was almost certainly on track to be cancelled anyways. The program was tremendously expensive and was losing boatloads of money. I don't know if Trump accelerated the cancellation or not, but the writing was on the wall.
- xp84 1y agoIndeed, it was just a smart move by Viacom/whatever to curry some favor with Trump by doing it now instead of waiting for another time, figuring that favor would be more valuable than the bad PR they earned. Probably a good bet since with the mergers (including the one they themselves were supposedly trying to push across the finish line) it's impractical to hold grudges for long. With only a few oligarchic firms in each industry you can't practically boycott more than maybe one at a time, and they all do shady stuff.
- allturtles 1y agoIt's exactly the problem that currying favor with the President is a smart move for businesses.
- potato3732842 1y ago
- alpha_squared 1y agoI'm unsure where we as a society go from here. The left's cancel culture resulted in the firing of private citizens from their jobs, or at least some reprimand. The right's cancel culture is the full weight of the federal government brought down against opposition, in stark violation of the First Amendment; that is, until the Supreme Court can find some new carve-out for why this isn't protected speech. Realistically, how could anyone be okay with the level of power this administration is wielding? I struggle to see a peaceful transfer of this specific set of powers. Unless the assumption is just that the left will always behave "more responsibly."
- moogly 1y ago> the assumption is just that the left will always behave "more responsibly." Probably true, which means you're in for a full-blown dictatorship for, oh, 30 years or so before (perhaps) some violent revolution.
- JohnFen 1y agoWe start by rejecting the cartoon labels of "left" and "right" as if all conservatives or all liberals believe the same things and think the same way. The left/right division is a longstanding technique intended to keep us divided. The reality is that outside of the actual extremists, liberals and conservatives agree on 80% of everything. We can, and need to, start there. We are all Americans and have to realize that just because we may disagree about things (particularly a small percentage of things) doesn't have to mean we're enemies. But, if history offers any lessons, then our path is likely set and we're going to have to push through some nightmarish times before we find a way to be better.
- mikepurvis 1y agoIt's astonishing how bad the US political apparatus is at making progress even on matters that easily fall within that 80%, though— healthcare reform, childcare, higher education, common sense gun laws, infrastructure investments. All of this stuff should be a slam dunk to implement with broad coalitions no matter who holds which branches, and yet it's all been basically gridlocked for decades, and instead it's never-ending turmoil over meaningless nonsense like who uses what bathrooms.
- cmrdporcupine 1y agoWhy has this been flagged?
- sky2224 1y agoAs much as I'd also appreciate a discussion on something like this, it's heavily political and HN isn't really the place for that unless it's directly related to tech.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- VikingCoder 1y agoCensorship affects everyone. Like, literally, your ability to understand the world around you. If that's not "tech," then I think folks need to broaden their perspective.
- neom 1y agoA good read: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45267159 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45267159
- sky2224 1y agoI agree, but I'm basing this on HackerNews' own guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html My explanation was a little bit narrow by mentioning tech though, that just happens to be the general thing shared most of the time.
- appreciatorBus 1y agoThere are plenty places that aren’t HN to discuss politics. Since everything is connected to everything else, by your logic, every discussion forum must discuss everything. If you prefer more open-ended discussions about everything, I would suggest trying Twitter or Bluesky .
- Computer0 1y agoWow, I will have to check out his comments. All around me everyone is becoming more anonymous on social media, if not deleting it. It is fascinating to see the cultural reverberations of this motivated killing!
- rolph 1y agobefore attributing all to one event, consider the straw that broke the camels back.
- kccoder 1y agoNope. They’re just not letting a tragedy go to waste. The environment is ripe for them to continue their authoritarian project.
- kelnos 1y agoWhen a liberal is attacked or killed, the right blames the left. When a conservative is attacked or killed, the right blames the left. This is just the exploitation of a tragedy in order to consolidate more power and win more political points.
- pppp 1y agoNexstar, who initially threaten to pull Kimmel's show from all (200) of its stations and started this ball rolling, owns ALL THREE OF OUR LOCAL network affiliate stations. All 3 in one market. Remember when this was illegal?
- magicalist 1y ago> Nexstar, who initially threaten to pull Kimmel's show from all (200) of its stations They also have a $6.2 billion bid for even more local stations by acquiring Tegna, a deal which will have to be approved by the guy at the FCC who yesterday was telling local affiliates to threaten to pull Kimmel's show! https://apnews.com/article/nexstar-tegna-newsnation-cw-trump-c1743d55103a809ea31c5c7c7c4c0c87 https://apnews.com/article/nexstar-tegna-newsnation-cw-trump...
- pppp 1y agoSorry, after the Tegna deal they will own all three stations in my market. Essentially, the viewpoints we see will be determined by one man.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- iamdelirium 1y agoSorry but the fact is a government agency (the FCC) pushed for this. This is a completely different thing than Disney deciding to do it on its own. This is a 1st amendment issue.
- honeycrispy 1y agoWhere did you learn this?
- iamdelirium 1y agohttps://www.foxnews.com/media/fcc-chair-levels-threat-against-abc-disney-after-kimmel-suggested-charlie-kirk-assassin-maga https://www.foxnews.com/media/fcc-chair-levels-threat-agains...
- adrianmonk 1y agoFrom https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/brendan-carr-abc-fcc-jimmy-kimmel-charlie-kirk-1236522406/ https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/brendan-carr-abc-fcc-jimmy-... : > Appearing on Benny Johnson’s podcast on Wednesday, Carr suggested that the FCC has “remedies we can look at.” > “We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr said. “These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.” An absolutely unmistakable direct threat from the chairman of the FCC.
- throwmeaway222 1y agoYeah because Jimmy lied and they can't lie like that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R670myCe1eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R670myCe1eE
- suzdude 1y agoNo he did not. You keep spreading disinformation.
- 1y ago
- _wire_ 1y agoRepublicans are continually outraged by cancel culture, and Republican hypocrisy is (without hyperbole) sociopathic. News just today-- Republican DoJ censored longitudinal study previously published by DoJ which revealed that far and away the most U.S. political violence is perpetrated by... Republicans! Both internally and internationally. Utah Republicans put a suicide watch on Kirk-shooting suspect because they want the pleasure of killing him themselves. Noem is bragging that she shot the family hunting dog because he was "worthless"; all he would do is "massacre chickens" at her hunting lodge, and tried to bite her. She also put down a "disgusting, musky billy goat" that lived around her compound. She said wanted to come clean and show how she can "responsibility". She bragged that the story of shooting her dog got her the top slot at ICE. Republicans: - Bullying - Bigotry - Censorship - Election interference - Gerrymandering - Blackballing - Targeting for death - Persecuting - Trafficking - Inciting & agitating - Grifting The beat goes on. As W used to say "You're either with us..."
- rolph 1y ago"Noem is bragging that she shot the family hunting dog because he was "worthless"; all he would do is "massacre chickens" at her hunting lodge, and tried to bite her. She also put down a "disgusting, musky billy goat" that lived around her compound. She said wanted to come clean and show how she can "responsibility". She bragged that the story of shooting her dog got her the top slot at ICE." this is so chillingly reminiscent of a serial killers autobiography.
- sparrish 1y agoHave you ever lived in a rural community? Putting useless or malicious animals down is merciful and common place and definitely not the making of serial killers.
- wsatb 1y ago> Putting useless or malicious animals down is merciful and common place Maybe that's part of the problem? You kill what you consider "useless" or "malicious". Noem killed a puppy.
- bitlax 1y agoThis is not cancel culture. What Jimmy Kimmel did was always out of bounds.
- lawlessone 1y agowhat did he do here? rate limited when i replied to you so my response below: >We had some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and with everything they can to score political points from it.” Where is the lie?
- bitlax 1y ago[flagged]
- ceejayoz 1y agoThat said…?
- tomhow 1y agoPlease don't call people names or attack people for comments in historical threads. The guidelines apply, no matter how right you are or think you are, and no matter how heated the topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
- wikipedia 1y ago[dead]
- throwmeaway222 1y agoI saw the clip - that was pretty insane.
- davesque 1y agoWhat clip and what was insane?
- throwmeaway222 1y agohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxqLXndjvQY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxqLXndjvQY
- davesque 1y ago[flagged]
- throwmeaway222 1y agoSo you want a far-left source that is broadly hated by a significant chunk of the population?
- afavour 1y agoNo, they requested a first-hand source. i.e. just the clip of Kimmel. Might be shocking to some but it’s quite possible for a source to be neither terminally online far right nor terminally online far left. Incredible, I know.
- davesque 1y agoLol, yes. I don't want one thing, therefore I must want the complete opposite. Can you imagine for a second that I just want for the things people say to actually be consistent, rational, and defensible? No, I hate far-left talking heads just as much as I hate people like Steven Crowder. I hate them because they don't advance the conversation and their entire livelihood depends on misrepresentation and attention seeking. There is no defensible argument that Jimmy Kimmel should have his TV show suspended based on the comments he made in that monologue.
- davesque 1y agoI believe this is the clip in question? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j3YdxNSzTk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j3YdxNSzTk As much as I can tell, they're mad because Kimmel pointed out a couple of instances where Trump seemed to care more about his new ballroom at the WH than about the recent murder of Kirk. I've been reluctant to toss around the f-word, but it doesn't feel like an exaggeration to call this fascism. Kimmel said nothing that should have warranted a suspension.
- rubyfan 1y agoIt’s a pretext.
- mrtesthah 1y agoIn that case, going by the FCC's complaint against Kimmel, I wonder if my pointing out that Trump furthermore skipped Kirk's vigil to go golfing, is similarly "too offensive to be protected by the first amendment"? https://people.com/donald-trump-misses-charlie-kirk-vigil-11810283 https://people.com/donald-trump-misses-charlie-kirk-vigil-11...
- davesque 1y agoBy this precedent, it would be!
- dylan604 1y agoBut mrtesthah has no audience that makes him dangerous to the establishment. He's just a random voice in the wind.
- Rapzid 1y agoI wouldn't go posting about that under your real name unless you want people pressuring your company to fire you on Twitter.. What a time.
- mrtesthah 1y ago
- Sparkle-san 1y ago> The ABC late-night host’s remarks constituted “the sickest conduct possible,” FCC chair Brendan Carr told right-wing podcaster Benny Johnson on Wednesday. Carr suggested his FCC could move to revoke ABC affiliate licenses as a way to force Disney to punish Kimmel. Regardless of what Kimmel said and if you think it was appropriate or not, we are seeing this administration use this as an opportunity to trample on the free speech rights of everyone they disagree with. If everyone's rights are not protected, then nobody's are.
- _9za9 1y ago[flagged]
- afavour 1y agoNot quite as simple as that. The FCC chief threatened ABC just today: https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/brendan-carr-abc-fcc-jimmy-kimmel-charlie-kirk-1236522406/ https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/brendan-carr-abc-fcc-jimmy-... If Nexstar was acting in reaction to what Carr said there’s a First Amendment argument to be made. They also require FCC approval for a merger right now, it’s not difficult to see the quid pro quo potential. The argument would at least be heard by a judge.
- _9za9 1y ago[flagged]
- afavour 1y ago> First Amendment ‘coercion’ requires a concrete threat backed by government power and a causal link to the station’s decision. Yeah. How about this direct quote from Carr? > I mean, look, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct to take action on Kimmel or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.
- kelnos 1y ago
- nabla9 1y agoThe era of TV-talk shows is already ending, so it's easy for companies to agree to censorship. These moves just quicken the end of the talk-show era. More profitable and successful shows seem to be immune for now, and South Park goes harder than ever.
- JLO64 1y agoI'm somewhat convinced that (at least among the younger generation) the role that these talkshow hosts held has already been replaced by live streamers and podcasters. Even Conan has transitioned into primarily focusing on podcasts while others refused to adapt and stuck to the networks. 10 years ago I'm fairly certain these moves would have been met with a strong reaction from the public, but now nobody cares...
- suzdude 1y agoIt seems like there is, and will be, a strong reaction from the public (I may, of course, be hoping for something I'd like to see). This thread is certainly active with those critical of the administration. Note, the public at large did not know what Kimmel said until now. The Streisand effect is coming into play, because it was so uncontroversial. The podcast part, I agree, although it's sad in someways, as it demolishes the national conversation, and makes easier to appeal to "your group" rather than "all groups".
- breatheoften 1y agoPersonally i cancelled my disney+ subscription for this (paid for via verizon) and made sure to explicitly say why. I encourage others to do the same. I don't care about Jimmey Kimmel's jokes nor do I watch his show with any regularity -- but I sure as hell care about his right to make jokes.
- abustamam 1y agoMaybe I'm a dinosaur but I like late night TV. I don't have cable so I just caught Colbert and The Daily Show on YouTube the next day but for some reason podcasts just don't jive with me. I can't exactly say why. There are some podcasts I'll tune into sometimes (like Ramit Seth's money for couples, or Strike Force Five which had the Jimmy's and Colbert) but other than that, nada. Rather listen to an audio book.
- potato3732842 1y agoThe desire to not catch a (arguably deserved in some individual cases) bullet is an incredibly unifying sentiment on both sides of the isle and between the elected officials, the permanent bureaucracy and those aspiring to be either. It just baffles me that people think they can say things that "turn up the heat" or "endorse the furtherance of current trends" and not expect some part of system (including big companies that more or less operate at the pleasure of regulators/government) to turn right back around and attack them. I'm not saying I expect everyone to be as jaded as me, but know where your pay comes from. Edit: Looks like Kimmel didn't say anything specific endorsing it and my last sentence was accurate more than I wanted it to be.
- bix6 1y agoThe FCC doesn’t pay Kimmel.
- potato3732842 1y agoABC, who pays Kimmel, would be financially very, dis-served to have the FCC or IRS or any other big bit of government up their ass, even if it does ultimately come to nothing.
- throw310822 1y agoAre you saying that the government might seriously harass and damage a media company for speech they don't like? And this is normal?
- bix6 1y agoMaybe ABC could stand up for freedom of speech instead of caving to a wannabe dictator?
- jacquesm 1y agoWhat a refreshingly novel idea. I wonder if it will get any uptake.
- 1y ago
- jjfoooo4 1y agoI expected Kimmel to have somehow criticized Kirk, a dubious enough reason to pull the show. But this isn’t even that. Comments quoted in stories assert that the shooter was MAGA - maybe that’s somewhat controversial, but it’s ludicrous to suggest it’s offensive. That paired with comments criticizing the Dear Leader were enough. This is a new low in corporate cowardice toward Trump bullying.
- throwmeaway222 1y agoIt's extremely relevant. The person grew up "conservative" and was radicalized to the left in college. The reason this is important is that it's a trend. If the trend isn't acknowledged on the left, then it will just continue.
- jleyank 1y agoNo, he was in a multi-year trade school after a semester of university. He was radicalized on-line...
- romellem 1y agoIn his one singular semester in college? Going to need a source for your fact there. Pretty sure no one has all the info yet.
- mrtesthah 1y agoI see nothing wrong with people acquiring a left-wing political lens as a result of their own independent thought process (which, by the way, has nothing to do with universities, regardless of what the right-wing talking points you're referencing say; the shooter went to a trade school). And in any case, a significant majority of political violence is caused by right-wing extremists. Of course the DOJ just deleted that report because it was inconvenient to their narrative. https://people.com/department-of-justice-quietly-deletes-study-after-charlie-kirk-death-that-says-right-wing-extremists-engage-in-far-more-political-violence-11811580 https://people.com/department-of-justice-quietly-deletes-stu...
- 1y ago
- coldtea 1y ago[flagged]
- helf 1y ago[dead]
- paulpauper 1y agoReminds me of the Bill Maher cancellation after he made a 9/11 remark
- nerevarthelame 1y agoHis show was cancelled 8 months after that remark, after viewership and ad sales declined. It was not requested by the Bush administration. It doesn't seem too similar to me.
- djmips 1y agoThere are parallels. Most Americans were united after 9/11 so they might not have noticed but there was an incredible chilling effect on free speech after 9/11.
- enlightens 1y agoThe summary at the top of the page says > ABC said it was pulling the “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” show off the air “indefinitely” after controversial comments by its host about the slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk. but the article says the following, which is entirely different: > “The MAGA Gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,” Kimmel said. > > “In between the finger-pointing, there was grieving,” he added.
- pogue 1y agoThe 2nd part is the quote from Jimmy Kimmel that he said on air that caused the "controversy", that resulted in the FCC commissioner, Brendan Carr to go on a podcast and threaten ABC/Disney with retaliatory action if they refused to take Kimmel off the air. CNN doesn't show a clip, but explains what was said & the events that caused this. https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/17/business/video/abc-jimmy-kimmel-fcc-charlie-kirk-digvid https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/17/business/video/abc-jimmy-kimm... Never believe those who claim to be in favor of free speech, but then use threats of legal intervention against those who practice it.
- typeofhuman 1y ago[flagged]
- FranzFerdiNaN 1y agoSo right wing extremists?
- typeofhuman 1y agoThe irony of your comment on this of all posts is not lost on me.
- cebert 1y agoThis isn’t a free-speech issue. Kimmel was free to say what he said, and I personally don’t find his comments egregiously offensive. However, clearly some people did. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences. In this case, his employer responded to partner backlash over his remarks.
- ProllyInfamous 1y agoI am largely neutral on this particular assassination, as I knew almost nothing about Mr. Kirk prior to his departure (just name recognition & basic political associations). But I do think, after decades of reflection, that comedians are correct when they point out that stereotypical humor shouldn't be off limits to any performer (of any background/color), but is... e.g. Owen Benjamin, Chappelle, Seinfeld.
- pessimizer 1y ago[flagged]
- ProllyInfamous 1y agoI edited my above-comment to better incorporate multiple comedian's POV on off-color humor ("x-isms," to use PG's terminology) >Where was the joke? If any comedian's attempt at any "joke," however tactless, led to any two+ people sitting down and having discussion of real-world realities... then I think the jokester has exceled professionally (honestly I haven't seen this Kimmel clip; I always just remember him as black-face-guy from 90s Comedy Central™ — which was as appropriate/funny/accepted as Downey in Tropic Thunder). So in this particular case, Kimmel continues his professionalism as Jester.
- boznz 1y ago[flagged]
- Waterluvian 1y agoI’ve never seen this interpretation of the word before. Usually that’s a “hit.” An assassination is a murder if someone notable, often for political reasons.
- ProllyInfamous 1y ago¿por que no los dos? In this particular assassination, there's currently nothing more than official allegations & captured footage.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- good8675309 1y agoRelevant: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
- DeRock 1y agoActually not relevant, the pulling came after threats from the FCC: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/fcc-jimmy-kimmel-charlie-kirk-monologue-1236373708/ https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/fcc-jimmy-kimme...
- Sparkle-san 1y agoThis effort is being lead by the FCC commissioner threatening to pull licenses so you just need the first panel.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- jjfoooo4 1y agoI expected Kimmel to have somehow criticized Kirk, a dubious enough reason to pull the show. But this isn’t even that. Comments quoted in stories assert that the shooter was MAGA - maybe that’s somewhat controversial, but it’s ludicrous to suggest it’s offensive. That paired with comments criticizing the Dear Leader were enough. This is a new low in corporate cowardice toward Trump bullying. Terrible precedent aside, how could Disney think that capitulating here will result in anything other than more attempts to control their programming in the short term?
- Gee101 1y agoIs it possible that they wanted to pull the show and this was just the excuse they were looking for?
- thedougd 1y agoUnlikely they’d want to politicize the canceling of their show. Quiet and uncontroversial is better for ABC.
- ndsipa_pomu 1y agoWhy would a broadcaster want to pull a show and need an excuse to do so? Shows get cancelled all the time if the broadcaster decides that they're too expensive etc.
- davesque 1y agoHe didn't even assert that the shooter was MAGA, only that MAGA did their best to distance themselves from him.
- rattlesnakedave 1y ago“Comments quoted in stories assert that the shooter was MAGA - maybe that’s somewhat controversial” It was counter to what was reported by federal investigators the day before the show. He was deliberately spreading misinformation.
- 1y ago
- mrangle 1y ago[flagged]
- romellem 1y ago> The overall message of the democrats has been "we didn't do it, but he had it coming". Please give examples of this.
- thatswrong0 1y agoYou're saying the left is more radicalized than the right? The stats don't pan out: https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/3UFUWZQEZFDXTFAV5XTGLLZTLA.png https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.c... Are you just going to ignore stuff like, I don't know, January 6th? When has the left done ANYTHING approaching what Trump and his followers did there? Trump himself has made COUNTLESS violent remarks himself: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/10/trump-violent-rhetoric-timeline/680403/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/10/trump-v... For example: > We pledge to you that we will root out the Communists, Marxists, fascists, and the radical-left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country, that lie and steal and cheat on elections … The threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous, and grave than the threat from within. Our threat is from within.” And yet you're going to say that violating the Constitution (the 1st freaking amendment) is a deradicalization effort by this administration?
- mrangle 1y ago[flagged]
- thatswrong0 1y agoDonald Trump also openly mocked Nancy Pelosi and her husband after the attack on them, which was done by a Trump supporter who believed Pelosi was trying to steal votes from Trump (which, for the record, was a FAILED assassination attempt). He did nothing to condemn this violence: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/29/trump-mocks-pelosi-family-as-he-rallies-conservative-support-in-california-00119243 https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/29/trump-mocks-pelosi-... Which left wing politician in recent memory has said anything even REMOTELY as violence endorsing as this? I'll be waiting for ANY sources besides just calling what I'm saying "misinformation"
- rajup 1y agoIdk should he be allowed to peddle unhelpful, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories?
- cosmicgadget 1y agoSaying the shooter was "one of them" has been the most common commentary from both sides. It's inaccurate to call either conclusion a conspiracy.
- catlover76 1y agoShouldn't most of Fox News be off the air then? And most podcasts, left or right?
- adamredwoods 1y agoFox news was rightfully sued. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Voting_Systems_v._Fox_News_Network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Voting_Systems_v._Fox...
- kelnos 1y agoAnd what's changed because of it? Nothing?
- peterashford 1y agoHoly doublestandards, Batman!
- apstls 1y agoShould Fox, Newsmax, OANN, Alex Jones, Tucker, Bannon, the deputy director the the FBI (in a prior gig, to be fair), the president of the United States (current & prior gigs), members of congress, MAGA influencers like Tim Pool, the company paying Tim Pool, the people paying the company that pays Tim Pool, etc, etc, etc, and etc, be allowed to?
- rajup 1y ago
- Waterluvian 1y agoThe left wing cancel culture era was stupid, annoying, and wrong, and this upcoming right wing era is bound to be much more stupid, annoying, and wrong.
- mingus88 1y agoListen, we are allowed to not support businesses or personalities that we find odious. Everyone does it. This collaboration between corporations and the government to silence political dissent is something else entirely so can we please not “both sides” this ?
- snitty 1y agoI, too, remember when Obama has the FCC commissioner threaten to revoke broadcast licenses for the coverage of his tan suit. This type of both-sides-ism is dumb, especially here when one side is using the power of the federal government to get dissenting voices taken off the air.
- arp242 1y agoI see this "high-ranking elected officials" vs. "A few anonymous nobodies on Reddit and Twitter (now Bluesky I guess)" type of false equivalence all the time.
- asdff 1y agoAbout a dozen times in this very thread alone, so far in my scrolling.
- themaninthedark 1y agoIn the 2019 through at least 2022, Government agencies were "recommending" and "cautioning" social media companies on topics such as COVID and stories about laptops.
- snitty 1y agoTwo things here. 1. Trump was president in 2019 and 2020. 2. There is an important difference between a bureaucrat calling up someone at Facebook at arguing a position about policy and the chair of the FCC threatening to remove broadcast licenses. Notable, Supreme Court has even weighed in on the former and found it well within the rights of the government to do.
- nipperkinfeet 1y agoAll these late-night shows are terrible anyways. Cancel all of them and make room for actual shows.
- andrewchambers 1y agoI've seen a large number of comments online saying the shooter was a trump supporter - I don't really understand where that information comes from. I feel like this is the sort of thing a prediction market might be able sort out.
- seanw444 1y ago[flagged]
- andrewchambers 1y agoMy point isn't really about what is correct or incorrect in this case. My point is about making it so that you have to actively risk money to push the truth needle in the wrong direction.
- otterley 1y agoOr the right direction, depending on your point of view.
- ceejayoz 1y agoConfused politics isn’t all that unusual; look at Caitlyn Jenner for a concrete example. Add in the usual bad blood between well-armed groups and it certainly happens. I wish everyone would wait a week for actual reliable info to come out. I wish we weren’t getting a bunch of said info from deeply partisan and untrustworthy fuckwits. Neither end result would shock me.
- throwacct 1y agoAccording to the latest iteration, his right-wing family said he was left-wing and even neighbors saw him with his roommate. Freedom of speech is protected. That people are celebrating a man's death, and worse yet, justifying it, is evil but still protected. But what's not protected is the consequences of these actions. I don't want to live, work, etc... next to someone who thinks that it's ok to commit acts of violence against others just because we don't share the same views.
- realz 1y agoWow, Kimmel getting canceled wasn’t on my 2025 bingo card.
- ajross 1y agoThe pedantic correction is important in this case: "cancellation" is a private action between citizens, this is "censorship", which is done at the behest of the government. The former can be arguably but reasonably understood as a market finding a balance between two opposing arguments, both of which have a first amendment right (i.e. I don't have to repeat others' words if I don't want to, even if I'm doing it out of self interest). The government has no such right. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
- dylan604 1y agoYou didn't update your card after Colbert? Of course Jimmy was next to go. Just look at the comments from Trump directly at Kimmel. Nothing happened after Colbert which just emboldened for this move. This move will also go unchallenged which makes me think the next two shows will be right around the corner.
- jihadjihad 1y agoComing soon: broadcast is pulled after host’s comments disparage the current administration.
- jszymborski 1y agoThat is unironically what happened here. The comments Kimmel made here did not disparage Kirk, but rather the administration's reaction to his shooting.
- TowerTall 1y ago“The Maga Gang [is] desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,” Kimmel said.
- nullocator 1y agoWhat is incorrect about that statement? The shooter grew up in a MAGA/Republican household. There are lots of examples over the last week of the Trump admin and MAGA personalities using Charlie Kirks death for political gain. In fact I would say them using Charlie Kirk's death to cancel Jimmy Kimmel is literally them using his death for political gain.
- TowerTall 1y agoThere is nothing incorrect about that statement
- jszymborski 1y agoRight, which part of that, especially if you are a republican, is disparaging to Kirk? What part of that is ethically or morally objectionable let alone warranting the FCC to intervene? You forgot the rest of the quote: “In between the finger-pointing, there was grieving.” That, however, is criticism of the administration.
- 1y ago
- mrandish 1y agoWe really need to stop the cancelling of people for saying controversial, disagreeable and even deeply offensive things. I don't agree with what Kimmel said and I wouldn't have said it myself but it also wasn't outside the bounds of opinions which should be able to be expressed. If you're nodding along in agreement, then you should also know my long-term commitment to consistency in tolerating factually wrong, distasteful, divisive and even hateful speech has also left me in the uncomfortable position of defending (at least in part) the right of Charlie Kirk, JK Rowling and many others I don't agree with to be heard without anyone calling for silencing them. I'm 100% supportive of disagreeing, debating, peacefully protesting, ignoring and even mocking ideas we don't agree with but I draw a hard line at shouting down, deplatforming or canceling them. If you just stopped nodding along, and instead started coming up with reasons why Kimmel should be heard but Charlie Kirk shouldn't, then you might be part of the problem. IMHO, the only truly defensible ethical high-ground on this requires consistency regardless of the person, politics or offense their speech might cause.
- kylebenzle 1y ago[dead]
- iamdelirium 1y ago[flagged]
- rubyfan 1y agoPeople can cancel and boycott all they want, that’s not what this is. This is government censorship of an individual they want to punish which is not okay.
- fdschoeneman 1y agoIt's unclear that was why he was fired.
- SimbaOnSteroids 1y ago
- StumpChunkman 1y agoWhat causes very active discussions like this to drop off the front page so quickly? I saw another newer post that was probably made because the poster didn't see this post, and a comment made in there linked to this discussion.
- afavour 1y agoThey get flagged. Eventually flagging removes a post entirely but even a couple of flags cause it to slide down the rankings pretty quickly.
- baobun 1y ago> What causes very active discussions like this to drop off the front page so quickly? Supposedly posts with very high comments/upvote ratio are automatically classified as toxic and downranked. That combined with random users flagging it, presumably. In any case, seems more algorithmic than editorial (which is not to say that the latter never occurs around here in general)
- cloverich 1y agoActually fascinating to really think of it as the inverse of what most social media platforms do these days, which is the opposite. HNs is a fairly typical "lock threads that degrade to flamewars" strategy that i first encountered more than 20 years ago.
- rolph 1y agoan elegant weapon from an older, less civilized time.
- alsetmusic 1y ago> What causes very active discussions like this to drop off the front page so quickly? One answer might be the same cowardice seen at ABC. But that's just one of the possibilities.
- panarchy 1y ago
- alsetmusic 1y agoMy comment was slightly too late to get migrated, so apologies for reposting it: And yet, my mother, who voted for this admin, would stand by the statement that we live in the free'est country in the world. The truly horrific thing is that it's death by a thousand cuts, rather than the huge tyrannical violation that would cause people to stream out into the streets for change.
- DengistKhan 1y agoYeah nobody is going out into the streets over this, but I suspect the one that does is anytime from tomorrow to 1 year from now.
- RF_Enthusiast 1y agoI’m at a loss of what to watch as far as television goes in the US, between the government threatening to intervene in content, corporations that own television networks with little regard for journalistic integrity, and PBS downsizing. I’m pretty much exclusively watching NHK from Japan through a Roku app.
- mrtesthah 1y agoBuy a PBS Passport streaming subscription to support your local station. https://help.pbs.org/support/solutions/articles/5000692392-what-is-pbs-passport- https://help.pbs.org/support/solutions/articles/5000692392-w...
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- troad 1y agoSo, hear me out, books are pretty great! Lots of people say things like "I know I should read, but it's this whole thing..." and then you find out they've been stuck on page 3 of Wuthering Heights for forty years, because someone convinced them they ought to be reading that, and it's haunted them from their night-stand ever since. Don't let anyone tell you what to read, pick up something that sounds fun to you, and read it. Choosing to read something is always and in every circumstance better than sitting in front of a screen and passively yielding to whatever evening the advertisers have planned out for you.
- mextrezza 1y agoAND: you don't have to finish a book. you can skip ahead. you can roll the dice on a better one. i'm saying: reading is like gambling, it's a lot of fun!
- Esophagus4 1y agoWow… sounds like you’ve been reading my diary! If I pick something up and it sucks, I feel bad stopping and force myself to finish it (which will take 8 months because I hate it). And that stops any reading progress.
- AfterHIA 1y agoThis is the reaction from the part of the political consciousness that just realized it/its children are not safe anywhere. They're going to continue to use this as a justification for retaliation. You have to realize that the correct answer to this is, "conversions not killings" but the uppity software developer, "middle class" either needs to mobilize itself or the next wave is you getting fired from your dev job because you criticized the nascent regime. This isn't a drill. It's also not a real fire. Half truths are a grifter's greenbacks.
- d0gsg0w00f 1y agoBut it's already like this. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have survived in tech if people knew I was a conservative. I've always felt like I would be punished if people knew.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- lojban 1y agoThere's a huge difference between top down cancellation and bottom up cancellation. Do you think the CEO would have fired you for being conservative? Or do you think your career wouldn't have advanced because people wouldn't want to associate with someone who's always saying things they find abhorrent?
- d0gsg0w00f 1y agoI think people wouldn't have wanted to work with me or listen to my opinions. I don't think the CEO would care, but down at my level, what the CEO thinks doesn't matter. It's all about peers and adjacent teams. And I never voice any political opinions at work because I don't want to say anything my peers would perceive as "abhorrent".
- nobody9999 1y ago>I think people wouldn't have wanted to work with me or listen to my opinions. If I was your co-worker, I wouldn't want to know your non-work related opinions, especially your political opinions. That assumes we're not working on someone's political campaign. Your opinions that don't relate to your job are irrelevant -- at work. And as such, why would anyone, whether they agree with you or not, want to hear you (or anyone else) pontificate about how you "Like Ike" and that his Vice President would make a much better President than that (gasp!) Catholic, rum-runner/gangster's son from Massachusetts. Yes, I'm deliberately using examples from 65+ years ago. Because it doesn't matter what the content of those opinions are. Unless you work for the RNCC or the DNC, etc. those opinions have no value or meaning in the workplace. I'm not afraid to express my opinions, but I choose not to do so while I'm actively on the job. That you do it out of fear is, on the one hand, unfortunate but, on the other hand, a good thing as no one really wants to hear them anyway. Keep up the good work! >And I never voice any political opinions at work because I don't want to say anything my peers would perceive as "abhorrent". Good. I'm sure that, regardless of how you think your peers would perceive your opinions, they are much less interested in those opinions than they are about the quality and quantity of your work, your opinions of the work and work environment, and how you interact on a personal level with others. Edit: Fixed typo.
- adamredwoods 1y agoRebels on television all the time! Billionaires control the networks. “I'm sorry, ladies and gentlemen, there's no reason to do this song here.”
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- phendrenad2 1y agoThis feels like an overreach, maybe. The FCC does have the strange task of regulating "false information" [1], but in practice I don't think that gets invoked very often (I'm sure morning DJs would be fired en masse if they were actually held to the standard of proven, objective truth!) I'm hoping that this is just the high watermark, and not the new standard. [1] - https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/broadcasting_false_information.pdf https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/broadcasting_false_i...
- kccoder 1y agoIt’s absolutely an overreach and there’s no chance this is the high water mark. Things are going to get much, much worse before there’s any hope of things calming down.
- foogazi 1y ago> feels like an overreach, maybe How can it not be an overreach ?
- zzzeek 1y agothat "maybe" could power a medium sized city
- ggregoire 1y agoThe chair of the FCC went live on Fox News, of all channels, to argue that ABC is alienating his audience. [1] You can't make this stuff up. [1] https://www.foxnews.com/media/fcc-chair-brendan-carr-defends-abc-affiliates-pulling-jimmy-kimmel-show-after-monologue-mocking-charlie-kirk https://www.foxnews.com/media/fcc-chair-brendan-carr-defends...
- sigwinch 1y agoAlmost sounds like a canned reaction to, say, threatening a network over covering leaked Epstein details. Other late night hosts better watch themselves or the FCC might accuse them of “alienating their audience”.
- daveguy 1y ago
- boxerab 1y ago[flagged]
- shruubi 1y agoI'm of two minds on this, I think all comedians should be able to make fun of anything, but at the same time, just because you have the right to free speech doesn't mean you get to avoid the consequences of what you say. Whether I agree with the outcome or not, if ABC don't like what Jimmy Kimmel said, they are free to pull his show off the air and fire him all they want, Kimmel is not entitled or owed TV time nor is ABC required to broadcast his show. But, by the same token, ABC must then be willing to accept the consequences of doing that and any bad PR that comes from it. That all being said, what I don't like is that even if ABC execs decided that they found what Kimmel said distasteful or offensive, this still looks an awful lot like acting out of fear of a president who famously is very spiteful to anyone who says anything bad about him.
- tootie 1y agoIt was the CEO of Disney and it happened after threats from the head of the FCC. Edit: to clarify, the CEO of Disney caved to pressure from affiliates owned by a Nexstar who are actively petitioning the FCC to relax media ownership rules so they can buy more affiliates than the law allows.
- kelnos 1y agoNot even just that, the FCC chair directly threatened ABC's broadcast license if they didn't do something about Kimmel. If that's not infringing on first amendment rights, I don't know what is. The right will of course support this; they tend to treat the constitution and laws as flexible whenever their ideology requires it.
- fzeroracer 1y agoFor reference, Sinclair is now demanding that Jimmy Kimmel not only apologize to Charlie Kirk's family but also make a donation to said family as well as a meaningful donation to TPUSA. You could not get more blatantly corrupt than this.
- panarchy 1y ago"You could not get more blatantly corrupt than this." Oh I'm sure they'll figure it out.
- FireBeyond 1y agoApart from the principle of the thing - a donation to his family? I’m sure they’re struggling, what with his net worth being estimated at a nearby-impoverished $15-20M…
- tho2342343ff24 1y ago"Freedom" apparently. Perhaps the morons running the US need to first look at their first amendment, before moving to the second. Extremely disappointed that even Rand Paul is for such moves.
- dang 1y agoCould you please stop creating accounts for every few comments you post? We ban accounts that do that. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. You needn't use your real name, of course, but for HN to be a community, users need some identity for other users to relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be a different kind of forum. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix&page=0&query=community%20identity%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
- shirro 1y agoKimmel discussed the political response to Kirk's death, not the man, which is a class move that respects his family and the law. I can't see the problem. How many companies, media people and politicians need to bend the knee before someone stands up and says this has all gone far enough?
- discordance 1y ago> I can't see the problem. lese majesty /s
- Pxtl 1y agoThe problem is that he gave Trump a fig leaf of an excuse to go after him, and that's all they needed.
- shirro 1y agoAn Australian reporter recently asked Trump how much money he has made since returning to office and if it is ethical for a person in his position. His org got locked out of a press conference in retaliation and we get the mafia boss threats about it not being good for our country to ask those sorts of questions. Anyone living in the USA should by now have made a decision where their line in the sand lies. Without a free press or opposition things can move quickly so decide now. If I was a member of a minority likely to be a target I would want to know I had an exit strategy.
- bayesianbot 1y agoTrump also said he's gonna tell Australia's prime minister about the reporter, which is kinda nuts (and hilarious?) Old track, but just hard to imagine what would have happened if Biden was asked about his corruption and answered like that. But it's hypothetical anyway, since no previous president would ever be rug-pulling crypto scams or selling watches and bibles. I just can't believe how weekly, or sometimes daily, I share these wild stories and videos with some friends and they keep behaving like anything about this is normal. There are so many things that would make me go WTF even without the context of the constant grift it all comes with.
- BLKNSLVR 1y agoComedian makes joke on television. Sensitive much? Not really the emotional intelligence and maturity one wants from an establishment running a country of 300 million people and all the problems that encapsulates. The US is in all kinds of trouble and, unfortunately, the rest of the world is going to get some of it on them.
- davesque 1y agoAll it took was for one psychopath to find his way into office. Who knew?
- billfor 1y agoFCC aside, how is it any different from ABC canceling Rosanne Barr because of something she said? They may cancel whomever and whatever they want, which in the past has been due to pressure from the outside, justified or not. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/roseanne-barr-obama-adviser-baby-muslim-brotherhood-planet/story?id=55504982 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/roseanne-barr-obama-adviser-...
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- daveguy 1y agoThe first amendment of our Constitution explicitly protects against the government as the censor. The head of the FCC going on Fox to call for it, is an overreach. You do realize the FCC is part of the executive branch, right?
- billfor 1y agoBut it’s not just the government even assuming your comment about the first amendment is correct. Sinclair + Nexstar are about 80% of the stations and they both refused to carry it, so there’s a financial component. I believe their affiliates were the first to cancel even before the FCC comments. Why should ABC lose 80% of their income. https://x.com/WeAreSinclair/status/1968471160359645658 https://x.com/WeAreSinclair/status/1968471160359645658
- daveguy 1y agoThe first amendment restricts the government.
- intended 1y agoThere is no real engagement with your core point. What you are going to see is an evolutionary approach to finding which message is the most able to defuse umbrage, and further right leaning interests. If it’s useful to argue for free speech in one breath, then for censorship in the next, followed by “its just words” - it will be argued in that order. The utility function is politics, not reason or logic. Getting people to engage, and get tied up in the logic, is a feature not a bug. It wastes energy and creates the impression that this is an issue resolved with words and understanding.
- ofrzeta 1y agoThis is bad. Watching Jimmy Kimmel was the one thing that kind of kept my spirit up.
- zeven7 1y agoI agree it's bad. Hopefully he will start an internet show (a la Tucker) and could even have more success and greater reach in a new medium.
- ofrzeta 1y ago"I absolutely love that Colbert’ got fired. His talent was even less than his ratings," Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on Friday morning. "I hear Jimmy Kimmel is next. Has even less talent than Colbert!" https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/trump-absolutely-love-stephen-colbert-fired-jimmy-kimmel-next-1236464640/ https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/trump-absolutely-love-steph... Make no mistake, this is a witch hunt. Very soon there will be no one left who publicly speaks out against Trump.
- ndsipa_pomu 1y agoThat's what you get when you elect a known felon and rapist to be president.
- ofrzeta 1y agoThere's a Jimmy Kimmel show end of Sep / start of Oct in Brooklyn https://1iota.com/show/250/kimmel-in-brooklyn https://1iota.com/show/250/kimmel-in-brooklyn . I wonder if that gets cancelled as well.
- amradio1989 1y agoABC was certainly complicit in what Jimmy Kimmel was doing. But they are now throwing Jimmy under the bus. Jimmy was wrong to say what he said. At best it was a bad-faith assertion, at worst it was propaganda. It wasn’t even true, or likely to be true given what we knew. The fact is that someone is dead. That is the strongest form of censorship. That is the strongest attack on “free speech”. Jimmy pulled indefinitely? In my opinion it’s unfair. ABC is not innocent here. But at least Jimmy didn’t have a bullet put into his neck.
- suzdude 1y agoHe showed a clip of the president. And he said: > We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it Which is factual. It does not make assertions about Mr. Robinson. It represents a factual observation that many of the "MAGA gang" are attempting to distance themselves.
- amradio1989 1y agoAh but you see theres the rub. It’s not factual. It’s almost all supposition. I don’t think he should be pulled from the air by the way. Let’s go line by line. > We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately -snip- Pretty loaded statement. Desperately? On what basis? The “fact” is that MAGA didn’t have the slightest fear the shooter was one of them. They all assumed he wasn’t bc it made the most sense given context and available evidence. Anger? Sure. Desperation? No lol. > trying to characterize this kid That shooter is 22. That’s a full blown adult. Calling him a kid is not only false but also gross in this context. It’s an attempt to evoke sympathy for a murderer. > as anything other than one of them Another false supposition. They are actually trying to characterize him as a far left nutjob. Not just “anything”, but “Liberal”. The thing about propaganda is certain words aren’t allowed in certain contexts. Second, it implies the shooter was likely one of them which was highly improbable to all concerned — most especially to MAGA. > and doing everything they can to score political points for it What political points Jimmy? It’s more likely they are just upset that a good friend got shot and killed in broad daylight for speaking his views. Charlie Kirk was a huge ally of MAGA and a friend to many of them. So they want justice. Of course Jimmy can’t say that (propaganda has rules), so here he is acting saying it’s about vague political points (sounds convincing) and not genuine grief/outrage.
- Gud 1y agoI’ve seen a lot of right wingers celebrating this. What happened to freedom of speech?
- breatheoften 1y agoWhy the heck is this 600+ comment thread not on the front page?
- xyzal 1y agoProbably penalized due to political themes being discouraged on HN. Which is IMO a bad decision. You can ignore politics, but politics won't ignore you.
- breatheoften 1y agoKirk's murder itself made the front page ... so we clearly don't always ignore politically adjacent topics here
- malfist 1y agoWe're apolitical when it: A) doesn't matter, or B) it serves the interest of the tech bro hustle culture. We're political when: it serves the tech bro hustle culture
- FranzFerdiNaN 1y agoEspecially with how tech companies and tech billionaires influence politics.
- GeoAtreides 1y agoit's on the real frontpage: https://news.ycombinator.com/active https://news.ycombinator.com/active
- esalman 1y agoThanks, bookmarking this.
- Jackson__ 1y agoBecause it is off topic, as the descent of the US into fascism will not impact the tech sphere in any way whatsoever. Do I even need the sarcasm mark?
- suzdude 1y agoMel Brooks had the right of it. Fascism and Authoritarianism is defeated by satire and mockery. The ideology is too outrageous to survive any such scrutiny. Why else would the administration be so afraid of a few jokes?
- atoav 1y agoI have read that the Joe Rogan school of comedy, that has grown popular in the past decade, did so on the grounds on fighting liberal "cancel culture". Back then they were rebelling against what was painted as a predominant culture, now that they have overachieved, one wonders if they would also fight cancle culture when it is coming from thr political right. I am not very optimistic about that. But maybe we get new generations of comedians that will.
- karmakurtisaani 1y agoTheir mediocre humor relies on punching down and bashing "cancel culture". That's their only trick and what their audience wants to hear. Without it their "comedy" has no edge, and picking on trans people is a lot less funny when the president is already doing it on national news.
- LeafItAlone 1y ago>Joe Rogan school of comedy Joe Rogan, the Fear Factor host turned Right Wing podcaster? Is he know for comedy? I thought his brief failed stint of stand up comedy is why he switched to podcasting.
- tim333 1y agoI've watched Rogan a bit and don't recall him telling jokes. He generally seems quite a neutral interviewer though his guests lean right wing.
- tstrimple 1y agoYeah, no. Not neutral at all. https://www.newsweek.com/joe-rogan-mocked-botching-joe-biden-takedown-1855098 https://www.newsweek.com/joe-rogan-mocked-botching-joe-biden... One of many examples. Joe is outraged because he thinks Joe Biden talked about airports during the revolutionary war. He goes on to state that someone who makes such comments shouldn't have a job. When it's revealed that it's a Trump statement he pivots to "oh he just made a mistake when speaking". It's so blatantly obvious and happens constantly.
- mleonarde-opv 1y agoAll Star
- mleonarde-opv 1y ago"...is the most iconic and timeless silhouette."
- atoav 1y agoFor those who are still indifferent about stuff like this, a short reminder of a historical timeline: - Month 0 (Jan 1933): Hitler appointed Chancellor - Month 1 (Feb 1933): Reichstag fire; Reichstag Fire Decree suspends key civil liberties - Month 2 (Mar 1933): Reichstag elections; Enabling Act passed; Dachau concentration camp opened - Month 3 (Apr 1933): nationwide boycott of Jewish businesses; Civil Service Law purges Jews and political opponents from state jobs - Month 4 (May 1933): independent trade unions seized and dissolved; replaced by the German Labour Front (DAF) - Month 5 (Jun 1933): Social Democratic Party banned nationally - Month 6 (Jul 1933): Law Against the Formation of New Parties makes Germany a one-party state - Month 8 (Sep 1933): Reich Chamber of Culture law brings arts and press under Propaganda Ministry control - Month 9 (Oct 1933): Editors’ Law (Schriftleitergesetz) excludes Jews from journalism and subjects editors to regime oversight - Month 10 (Nov 1933): one-list Reichstag “election” and referendum held with opposition already illegal - Month 12 (Jan 1934): Law on the Reconstruction of the Reich abolishes state parliaments and centralizes power - Months 17–18 (Jun–Jul 1934): Night of the Long Knives purge eliminates SA leadership and other rivals - Month 19 (Aug 1934): law merging President and Chancellor signed; Hindenburg dies; army swears personal oath to Hitler, Hitler becomes Führer - Month 32 (Sep 1935): Nuremberg Laws strip Jews of citizenship and outlaw marriages/relations with “Aryans”
- password321 1y ago[dead]
- ndsipa_pomu 1y agoIs this yet another distraction from Trump being all over the Epstein files?
- crises-luff-6b 1y ago[dead]
- dada78641 1y agoIt really is kind of incredible. I just saw the clip and there really is absolutely nothing there. This is not even 10% as poignant of what Jon Stewart would say in his day. He doesn't even say anything about Kirk himself, or even about the murder—he just talks about the reaction to it. I already thought it was very suspicious that Sinclair's official press release just talks about how the remarks were "inappropriate and deeply insensitive" without describing anything about the actual remarks. And it even calls for the FCC to get involved? What this really says is: you should be very afraid, because we will completely demolish if it suits us and we don't need a pretext.
- tharmas 1y agoIts a Reichstag fire/Horst Wessel moment all rolled into one. Right out of the play book.
- kiviuq 1y agothe 18th century nation-state model has always been open to fascism.
- emchammer 1y agoIt depends on where you draw the line for acting in good faith. Justice Antonin Scalia's opening statement before a 2011 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing is worth watching. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggz_gd--UO0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggz_gd--UO0 Even more worth reading are the Federalist Papers, cover-to-cover, as he suggested. The depth to which the Framers considered the kind of situations we are in today is amazing.
- tastyfreeze 1y agoAlso read the anti-federalist papers. Their criticisms of weaknesses in the Constitution predict exactly how those weaknesses have been abused. Both sides of the argument understood the nature of power and humans.
- ndsipa_pomu 1y agoThis kind of reminds me of February 4th 1939 when Goebbels ended the careers of five actors: https://www.nytimes.com/1939/02/04/archives/goebbels-ends-careers-of-five-aryan-actors-who-made-witticisms.html https://www.nytimes.com/1939/02/04/archives/goebbels-ends-ca...
- nemo44x 1y ago[flagged]
- sigwinch 1y agoIn death, Mr. Kirk has become more useful than he was in life. There’s so much more coverage of him compared to, say, routine Russian drone incursions over NATO states. And I haven’t heard anyone actually quote him; not a word of his supposed wisdom. But, this occasion gets to be scribbled into the blank for “________ takes down that Jimmy Kimmel”.
- drewbug01 1y agoThis is a false equivalency, unfortunately. We can discuss all we like about cancel-culture-on-the-left, but it misses the glaring difference: The left used their speech to encourage consequences for those whose speech they didn’t like. The right is now using the power of the government to silence speech they don’t like. That is a massive and important difference, and it is blindingly obvious.
- nemo44x 1y agoI don’t know if the means matter much - the outcomes are the same. One side could rely on their activist group networks to pressure decision makers and the other side is using their corporate connections to do the same. The government isn’t doing anything directly in either case. End of day the network made this choice.
- nemo44x 1y agoAnd I’ll say if it is overreach, which it well could be, it too will be punished in due time. Previous regimes largess is currently being punished. Endless cycle.
- drewbug01 1y ago> The government isn’t doing anything directly in either case. End of day the network made this choice. The kindest read here is that you are unaware of the FCC’s comments on the matter. Unfortunately, the government actually did do something - they put their thumb on the scale and implied severe consequences if the network did not follow through. This is a massive difference. It is extremely chilling.
- unzadunza 1y agoI canceled my espn/disney+ account. I hope lots of people are doing that too.
- insane_dreamer 1y agoAlready ahead of you! :)
- davesque 1y agoCancelled Hulu last night.
- morkalork 1y agoI'm going to echo a comment I saw elsewhere: It appears that this administration has found its Horst Wessel in CK's death
- bluecheese452 1y ago[flagged]
- dgrr19 1y ago"free speech absolutists" that will defend anything that benefits their narrative but not others'
- dogleash 1y agoYo. Free speech absolutist checking in. Sick of people racing to chirp that we're nowhere to be found. I'm too detached to doomscroll. Just saw the news now. Honestly, I'm tired of all of the snide remarks from both teams acting like you’re not equally guilty of opportunistically showing up for free speech. And you have the balls to make comments like this as I'm already dealing with the fact Jimmy Kimmel should have been canceled years ago for literally any other reason. At least when I'm defending detestable speech the number of people pretending it's meritorious is tiny. But now I have to hear his comedy praised? Fuck my life.
- slg 1y ago>Honestly, I'm tired of all of the snide remarks from both teams acting like you’re not equally guilty of opportunistically showing up for free speech. Yeah, a trans person asking you use their desired pronouns presents the same threat to free speech as the FCC threatening people over jokes. The reason for the "snide remarks" is that people like you are still drawing false equivalencies between "both teams".
- qzjxk 1y agoPeople have been fired from their jobs for refusing to refer to trans-identifying males as if they are women. Some have even been taken to court over it. This is quite clearly a threat to free speech.
- jrflowers 1y ago> People have been fired from their jobs This is a good point because a business choosing not to employ somebody is the exact same thing as the government mandating that a private company not employ somebody. Similarly, gummy bears and grizzly bears are the same thing: bears
- normalaccess 1y agoI am no fan of Jimmy's show but this seems out of line. My tinfoil hat thinks this might be a way for Sinclair to "justly" remove a show that has been loosing ratings by riding the popular wave and saving some face. According to sites like https://televisionstats.com/s/jimmy-kimmel-live https://televisionstats.com/s/jimmy-kimmel-live he wasn't even in the top 500 TV shows Band of Brothers a show from 24 years ago still gets more viewers that Jimmy get's now.
- allturtles 1y agoThat data appears to be nonsense based on "online audience engagement," not viewership. According to that very source, Jimmy Kimmel is the #6 tv show as of today!
- normalaccess 1y agoGood to know, it was quick back of napkin math. Slightly less tinfoil.
- lores 1y agoCome to Europe, friends, the pubs are cosy and the beer is fine indeed.
- rasz 1y agoExplains South Park canceling last episode. The great self censoring has began.
- nashashmi 1y agoMore power to independent media I guess.
- Gud 1y agoNo, just less power for the corporate media.
- gerash 1y agoTrump's team announced their plan for silencing their critics well in advance: https://globalnews.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/trump-the-late-show-truth-social.jpg https://globalnews.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/trump-the-l...
- rdtsc 1y ago> The MAGA Gang (is) desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them I've heard this before, but where did this originate? Did Jimmy just make it up or was he quoting some source? I heard the same thing but from people I interact with that this guy was crazy right wing nazi and killed Kirk because Kirk wasn't hard-line enough. But then the bullets said "Catch, fascist" which is kind of odd. Like, are fascists calling each other "fascists" as a meme, or was the killer signing his name like "catch, <signed by> fascist".
- aigen01 1y ago"Catch, fascist" is a reference to the Hell Divers 2 video game, it is less a political calling card and more of a reference to gaming.
- rdtsc 1y agoFair enough, but it's written on a bullet meant to assassinate someone in real life. Had it been in the context of playing video games, I would see it just being a game quote. Ok, fine, but then "Bella ciao" is an anti-Nazi and anti-fascist Italian folk song (at least according to wikipedia) [1], so, we got a hard right winger, mentioning killing fascists and listening to Bella ciao killing someone like Charlie Kirk. There was "notices bulges" comment which I didn't get. But given just those two clues and having to guess the affiliation of the shooter, not sure how people arrived at "this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them [maga gang]". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bella_ciao https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bella_ciao
- thrance 1y agoThe guy was at best confused in his ideological leanings. He held midly leftist ideas on some issues and right wing ideas on others, like on gun ownership. Typical of a young Utah white guy, I'd say. He was raised in a die-hard Trump Christian family. He allegedly had some LGBT friends too, and got angry at Kirk's rhetoric against them as a group. Which, if you knew Kirk before his murder, framing LGBT people as degenerate and dangerous freaks of natures was kind of his bread and butter. This doesn't justify the killing, but certainly explains it. I'm sure more will come of it, but I doubt there's much of interest in here. What's more important are the reactions of public figures, and so far, none on the right have called for de-escalation.
- JimmaDaRustla 1y agoIs this the optimism DHH spoke of? /s
- timcavel 1y ago[dead]
- insane_dreamer 1y agoFirst of all for the FCC to get involved is a shocking level of political interference in media coverage. It's one thing for ABC to do it because it's afraid of ratings or whatever, but the FCC should only get involve if there is some regulatory or legal issue. Second, look how Trump is pressuring the networks to get rid of other media personalities who are unfavorable to him: > “Congratulations to ABC for finally having the courage to do what had to be done,” Trump wrote in a post on his Truth Social platform. “That leaves Jimmy (Fallon) and Seth, two total losers, on Fake News NBC. Their ratings are also horrible. Do it NBC!!!” We have a serious problem.
- RickJWagner 1y ago[flagged]
- boxerab 1y agoI am heartbroken to see the way Jimmy Kimmel has been treated. I believe he is, in his heart of hearts, a good and decent fellow, devoid of malice and hate. Just kidding! He's a humorless scold who thought he could lie about Kirk's murder with impunity : it was viewer disgust and an advertiser revolt that drove the decision at ABC. It's FAFO time, Jimbo.
- abustamam 1y agoRepublican Senator Mike Lee when a democratic Minnesota lawmaker and her husband were assassinated: > This is what happens, when Marxists don’t get their way. [0] This is objectively much worse than what Kimmel said. Yet, no repercussions. When Charlie Kirk, an influential figure, is assassinated: > I have introduced a resolution condemning the assassination of Charlie Kirk, commemorating his outstanding patriotism and achievements. > I look forward to the Senate uniting to honor Charlie, his family, and his courageous legacy. [1] Both incidents are obviously horrific, and should be condemned, but our elected officials ought to be held to a better standard than a late night talk host, and we as a society should hold our elected officials accountable to such behavior. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/republican-senator-mike-lee-kirk-shooting-melissa-hortman https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/republican-s... [1] https://x.com/SenMikeLee/status/1966150996968747353 https://x.com/SenMikeLee/status/1966150996968747353
- arkis22 1y agocharlie kirk is not important enough to assassinate. jimmy kimmel is not important enough to cancel. bummer.
- _DeadFred_ 1y agoDisney should move Kimmel to ESPN. The FCC doesn't have the same authority because they don't broadcast over the air.
- nexawave-ai 1y agoJames Woods just tweeted (and Elon Musk retweeted) that Kimmel wasn’t bringing in the viewership numbers, and his network was simply looking for an excuse to drop him.
- shadowtree 1y agoSo now that Kimmel is coming back, it is clear that it was a ABC decision and the government has no say in this - will anything in this thread change? Of course not. The walls of our echo chamber are made out of titanium.