6 ms·

We 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

We 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 ago
  People 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 ago
    It's unclear that was why he was fired.
    - SimbaOnSteroids 1y ago
      It's not unclear. Oma has had the 1000 yard stare for the last 10 years. None of this is unclear.
    - an0malous 1y ago
      Trump had Colbert cancelled and said Kimmel was next on Truth Social back in July: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114874422468516376 https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1148744224685... The FCC chairmen threatened ABC: 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-...
    - Esophagus4 1y ago
      I’m not sure you’re ever going to get the smoking gun you’re looking for to make a conclusive statement here. In lending, there’s a legal concept of disparate impact, which means even if your policy didn’t explicitly intend to harm this group of people, you implicitly / indirectly impacted them, and that also counts as a bad thing just like explicit impact. Basically, you don’t have to prove intent, you only have to prove outcome. …It was a roundabout analogy, but I think the same thing applies here. I don’t need the administration to say, “we did that because we don’t like him.” There is enough impact for me to conclude culpability, regardless of whether I can prove intent. (Edit: maybe a better concept here is circumstantial evidence)
    - cocacola1 1y ago
      Seems like a clear cut case of jawboning.
  - typeofhuman 1y ago
    As a matter of consistency, did you also feel this way about the US and many foreign governments censoring (either directly or indirectly through social/media companies) those who spoke out against either the COVID response or the vaccines?
- ytoawwhra92 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - non_aligned 1y ago
    I mean, yes? You're not violating the 4th. We have plenty of other laws, including laws against trespassing, that might apply here.
    - ytoawwhra92 1y ago
      Yeah, exactly, human rights exist independently of the bill of rights.
- kcplate 1y ago
  > In this case, it is the FCC, an arm of the government, that is pressuring ABC to do this rather than other private citizens. Actually it was a couple of big ABC affiliate owners that started the avalanche, and ABC followed…not any government pressure. You can certainly speculate that the these affiliates had an ulterior motive in their actions to curry favor with the Trump administration, but it’s not unreasonable nor unheard of for station affiliates to make decisions about content and programming to avoid alienating or offending a large portion of the markets they serve or the advertisers that pay their bills. In the end this is about eyeballs and advertising dollars and it’s no more nefarious than that.
  - lovich 1y ago
    > Actually it was a couple of big ABC affiliate owners that started the avalanche, and ABC followed…not any government pressure. Brah. Brendan Carr, the current head of the FCC publicly threatened to go after ABC for his speech, then ABC pulled the show.[1] Walks, talks, and acts likes government pressure being used for censorship against views they don’t agree with [1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/fcc-chair-threatens-jimmy-kimmel-193328029.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/fcc-chair-threatens-jimm...
    - gertlex 1y ago
      Something called Nexstar, which owns a subset of ABC whatevers was maybe first? I stopped trying to understand it after a while; notably, the yahoo article which (I skimmed/searched before I came to HN) doesn't mention this I guess? https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/fcc-jimmy-kimmel-charlie-kirk-monologue-1236373708/ https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/fcc-jimmy-kimme... So yes, seems there was a middle step between Brendan Carr on a podcast, and top level ABC decision making.
      - acdha 1y ago
        The key thing is that Nexstar’s owners are hoping to make a lot of money from a merger which the FCC is currently ruling on. That makes threats from the FCC considerably more real: https://www.poynter.org/business-work/2025/nexstar-tegna-fcc-ownership-rules-media-consolidation/ https://www.poynter.org/business-work/2025/nexstar-tegna-fcc...
- mrandish 1y ago
  > Sorry but people are entitled to pressure other private citizens when they say disagreable things. I said > 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. So we agree. What's there to be "Sorry" about? > What First Amendment is trying to protect My post doesn't mention the First Amendment or the troubling matter of the FCC chair comments about individual speech. I chose not to post about those because I wanted to focus on the other kind of free speech which doesn't involve the government or the First Amendment and isn't even a matter of law. It's about the morality and ethics of how consistently we as private citizens actively support fellow citizens we disagree with in being heard - even when they're offensive, hateful and wrong. It's about whether we should support or oppose private citizens canceling other citizens. Frankly, I can't tell if we agree or not. I suspect it depends on exactly what you mean by the word "pressure". If "pressure" is limited to "disagreeing, debating, peacefully protesting, ignoring and even mocking" then we are in total agreement. If "pressure" includes "shouting down, deplatforming or canceling" then you're a canceler and we disagree. If it includes wiggle room which might lead to silencing viewpoints you oppose, you're a closet canceler - in which case the vagueness of the term "pressure" and being "sorry" make more sense. On the other hand, if "pressure" includes opposing even those you agree with most the moment they want to silence those you disagree with (instead of debating and countering their bad, wrong ideas) - then we're soulmates.
  - rezonant 1y ago
    > I chose not to post about those because I wanted to focus on the other kind of free speech which doesn't involve the government or the First Amendment and isn't even a matter of law. It's about the morality and ethics of how consistently we as private citizens... That is what the GP took issue with and I do as well. The protection of free speech from government reprisal is a right in this country, and it has a certain meaning. Trying to equivocate it with your vision of civility and politeness only serves to muddy the waters when it comes to discourse about these issues. If the right wing has had its free speech (your definition) impinged by rational people before Trump took office again, then why wouldn't they be able to take away free speech (the constitutional definition) now?
- tootie 1y ago
  The head of the FCC isn't people. The recent Paramount merger was preceded by Paramount conceding multiple times to unreasonable demands by Trump personally. This is definitely abuse of power and official censorship.
fdschoeneman 1y ago
[flagged]
da_chicken 1y ago
[flagged]
- tomhow 1y ago
  We need you to avoid posting flame-war style comments to HN. We've had to remind you of this once, years ago, and now it's time to remind you again. The guidelines don't go out the window just because this is a topic people feel strongly about, in fact they become more important. Please heed the guidelines if you want ot participate here, especially these ones: Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes. Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity. Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that". https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
righthand 1y ago
Just because someone is allowed to freely express themselves doesn’t mean I have to support a platform for them to do it on. They can have their platform with their supporters, it doesn’t mean that the hateful rhetoric have to be constantly shoved in my face at a public level. And that the public has to constantly debate it. That is what cancelling is. No one wants to hear the hate. No one has died from being cancelled so spare everyone the pity story. If you want to spend your time defending JK Rowling, that’s on you. It doesn’t make you a hero for making sure people fully understand precisely what kind of a bigot JK Rowling is. What is deplatforming if not a group of people choosing to ignore that person? It is not fair that you get to decide at what level ignoring another is okay. Deplatforming and cancelling are just methods of taking away easy access to a platform for hateful bad faith arguments. Those affected by it can still can go build their own platform to host that rhetoric (Trump has done this with Truth social).
stavros 1y ago
What did he say, though? In the video he says that the killer is one of "them" (I'm not familiar enough to know who "them" are), and makes fun of Trump for apparently not caring at all. What was the offensive or disagreeable part? Seems like standard satire to me.

kylebenzle 1y ago

[dead]

iamdelirium 1y ago

[flagged]

rubyfan 1y ago
People 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 ago
  It's unclear that was why he was fired.
  - SimbaOnSteroids 1y ago
    It's not unclear. Oma has had the 1000 yard stare for the last 10 years. None of this is unclear.
  - an0malous 1y ago
    Trump had Colbert cancelled and said Kimmel was next on Truth Social back in July: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114874422468516376 https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1148744224685... The FCC chairmen threatened ABC: 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-...
  - Esophagus4 1y ago
    I’m not sure you’re ever going to get the smoking gun you’re looking for to make a conclusive statement here. In lending, there’s a legal concept of disparate impact, which means even if your policy didn’t explicitly intend to harm this group of people, you implicitly / indirectly impacted them, and that also counts as a bad thing just like explicit impact. Basically, you don’t have to prove intent, you only have to prove outcome. …It was a roundabout analogy, but I think the same thing applies here. I don’t need the administration to say, “we did that because we don’t like him.” There is enough impact for me to conclude culpability, regardless of whether I can prove intent. (Edit: maybe a better concept here is circumstantial evidence)
  - cocacola1 1y ago
    Seems like a clear cut case of jawboning.
- typeofhuman 1y ago
  As a matter of consistency, did you also feel this way about the US and many foreign governments censoring (either directly or indirectly through social/media companies) those who spoke out against either the COVID response or the vaccines?
ytoawwhra92 1y ago
[flagged]
- non_aligned 1y ago
  I mean, yes? You're not violating the 4th. We have plenty of other laws, including laws against trespassing, that might apply here.
  - ytoawwhra92 1y ago
    Yeah, exactly, human rights exist independently of the bill of rights.
kcplate 1y ago
> In this case, it is the FCC, an arm of the government, that is pressuring ABC to do this rather than other private citizens. Actually it was a couple of big ABC affiliate owners that started the avalanche, and ABC followed…not any government pressure. You can certainly speculate that the these affiliates had an ulterior motive in their actions to curry favor with the Trump administration, but it’s not unreasonable nor unheard of for station affiliates to make decisions about content and programming to avoid alienating or offending a large portion of the markets they serve or the advertisers that pay their bills. In the end this is about eyeballs and advertising dollars and it’s no more nefarious than that.
- lovich 1y ago
  > Actually it was a couple of big ABC affiliate owners that started the avalanche, and ABC followed…not any government pressure. Brah. Brendan Carr, the current head of the FCC publicly threatened to go after ABC for his speech, then ABC pulled the show.[1] Walks, talks, and acts likes government pressure being used for censorship against views they don’t agree with [1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/fcc-chair-threatens-jimmy-kimmel-193328029.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/fcc-chair-threatens-jimm...
  - gertlex 1y ago
    Something called Nexstar, which owns a subset of ABC whatevers was maybe first? I stopped trying to understand it after a while; notably, the yahoo article which (I skimmed/searched before I came to HN) doesn't mention this I guess? https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/fcc-jimmy-kimmel-charlie-kirk-monologue-1236373708/ https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/fcc-jimmy-kimme... So yes, seems there was a middle step between Brendan Carr on a podcast, and top level ABC decision making.
    - acdha 1y ago
      The key thing is that Nexstar’s owners are hoping to make a lot of money from a merger which the FCC is currently ruling on. That makes threats from the FCC considerably more real: https://www.poynter.org/business-work/2025/nexstar-tegna-fcc-ownership-rules-media-consolidation/ https://www.poynter.org/business-work/2025/nexstar-tegna-fcc...
mrandish 1y ago
> Sorry but people are entitled to pressure other private citizens when they say disagreable things. I said > 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. So we agree. What's there to be "Sorry" about? > What First Amendment is trying to protect My post doesn't mention the First Amendment or the troubling matter of the FCC chair comments about individual speech. I chose not to post about those because I wanted to focus on the other kind of free speech which doesn't involve the government or the First Amendment and isn't even a matter of law. It's about the morality and ethics of how consistently we as private citizens actively support fellow citizens we disagree with in being heard - even when they're offensive, hateful and wrong. It's about whether we should support or oppose private citizens canceling other citizens. Frankly, I can't tell if we agree or not. I suspect it depends on exactly what you mean by the word "pressure". If "pressure" is limited to "disagreeing, debating, peacefully protesting, ignoring and even mocking" then we are in total agreement. If "pressure" includes "shouting down, deplatforming or canceling" then you're a canceler and we disagree. If it includes wiggle room which might lead to silencing viewpoints you oppose, you're a closet canceler - in which case the vagueness of the term "pressure" and being "sorry" make more sense. On the other hand, if "pressure" includes opposing even those you agree with most the moment they want to silence those you disagree with (instead of debating and countering their bad, wrong ideas) - then we're soulmates.
- rezonant 1y ago
  > I chose not to post about those because I wanted to focus on the other kind of free speech which doesn't involve the government or the First Amendment and isn't even a matter of law. It's about the morality and ethics of how consistently we as private citizens... That is what the GP took issue with and I do as well. The protection of free speech from government reprisal is a right in this country, and it has a certain meaning. Trying to equivocate it with your vision of civility and politeness only serves to muddy the waters when it comes to discourse about these issues. If the right wing has had its free speech (your definition) impinged by rational people before Trump took office again, then why wouldn't they be able to take away free speech (the constitutional definition) now?
tootie 1y ago
The head of the FCC isn't people. The recent Paramount merger was preceded by Paramount conceding multiple times to unreasonable demands by Trump personally. This is definitely abuse of power and official censorship.

fdschoeneman 1y ago

[flagged]

da_chicken 1y ago

[flagged]

tomhow 1y ago
We need you to avoid posting flame-war style comments to HN. We've had to remind you of this once, years ago, and now it's time to remind you again. The guidelines don't go out the window just because this is a topic people feel strongly about, in fact they become more important. Please heed the guidelines if you want ot participate here, especially these ones: Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes. Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity. Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that". https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

righthand 1y ago

Just because someone is allowed to freely express themselves doesn’t mean I have to support a platform for them to do it on. They can have their platform with their supporters, it doesn’t mean that the hateful rhetoric have to be constantly shoved in my face at a public level. And that the public has to constantly debate it. That is what cancelling is. No one wants to hear the hate. No one has died from being cancelled so spare everyone the pity story. If you want to spend your time defending JK Rowling, that’s on you. It doesn’t make you a hero for making sure people fully understand precisely what kind of a bigot JK Rowling is. What is deplatforming if not a group of people choosing to ignore that person? It is not fair that you get to decide at what level ignoring another is okay. Deplatforming and cancelling are just methods of taking away easy access to a platform for hateful bad faith arguments. Those affected by it can still can go build their own platform to host that rhetoric (Trump has done this with Truth social).

stavros 1y ago

What did he say, though? In the video he says that the killer is one of "them" (I'm not familiar enough to know who "them" are), and makes fun of Trump for apparently not caring at all. What was the offensive or disagreeable part? Seems like standard satire to me.