5 ms·

This, alongside the cancelling of Jimmy Kimmel today, raises all kinds of red flags. We're about to find out just how well the First Amendment holds up under an

This, alongside the cancelling of Jimmy Kimmel today, raises all kinds of red flags. We're about to find out just how well the First Amendment holds up under an autocrat.

billy99k 1y ago
[flagged]
- CodingJeebus 1y ago
  > J6 protestors that just showed up and were let in by police, arrested in front of their friends and families and sent to prison for years J6'ers ransacked the Capitol building and killed a cop, we all watched it unfold live on TV. I'd love to read more on the debanking thing, I can't find anything that materially supports the claim that lots of people are being debanked for their political views. > the government colluding with major social media companies to censor American citizens on anything that changes the government narrative This is exactly what is happening right now with broadcasters and with those speaking out about Kirk. Trump and Kimmel have feuded for years. Why do you see this situation as justified (i.e. "Speech has consequences"), but when it's social media, you see big bad government suppressing speech illegally? It's like we just tolerate it when it's our party in charge, otherwise we ignore it. I have no idea where that path leads us, but I can't fathom it's good.
  - AnimalMuppet 1y ago
    J6ers didn't just ransack the building and kill a cop. Some of them were shouting "hang Mike Pence". Why were they shouting that? Because Pence wouldn't recognize the "alternate electors" as legitimate. That is, they (at least some of them) were literally protesting that Pence wouldn't cooperate with a scheme to steal the election. And they were breaking into the building where Mike Pence was, and where the Electoral College vote was. That - and not merely breaking into the building and doing vandalism - is the fundamental issue with J6.
  - billy99k 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - grumio 1y ago
      Did Biden's FCC threaten to revoke a license for speech they didn't like? Could you please share a source?
- hypeatei 1y ago
  You understand that the Twitter Files was an absolute nothingburger, correct? It showed that they needed a special database to keep track of the same requests from Republicans because they were submitting so much. There was no "collusion" as you put it. The "hunter biden laptop" story is a dead horse that keeps being revived by the right wing fearmonger media which you're clearly very entrenched in.
  - billy99k 1y ago
    "You understand that the Twitter Files was an absolute nothingburger, correct? It showed that they needed a special database to keep track of the same requests from Republicans because they were submitting so much. There was no "collusion" as you put it." Even left-leaning AI can't hide the fact that you are horribly incorrect. I will let you do the research yourself. "The "hunter biden laptop" story is a dead horse that keeps being revived by the right wing fearmonger media which you're clearly very entrenched in." Actually, it's pretty well known that the laptop was real. You are the one 'entrenched' in left-wing media: It is now widely confirmed by multiple sources, including federal prosecutor and media outlets, that the laptop that was the subject of a 2020 New York Post story did belong to Hunter Biden. It has been used as evidence in his 2024 criminal trial. Key developments and verifications FBI and Justice Department confirmation In December 2019, the FBI seized the laptop from a Delaware computer repair shop via a grand jury subpoena. -FBI investigators concluded in 2019 that the laptop genuinely belonged to Hunter Biden and had not been manipulated. -During Hunter Biden's 2024 federal gun trial, the Justice Department's special counsel, David C. Weiss, introduced the laptop as evidence. An FBI agent testified about its contents, which were used to demonstrate Biden's drug use at the time of the firearm purchase. -Several news organizations have reported on the authenticity of content from the laptop. -The New York Times stated in March 2022 that it had obtained and authenticated some emails from a cache believed to be from the laptop. Did you forget that Biden pardoned his entire family before he left office for past and future crimes?
    - hypeatei 1y ago
      Since when is AI an arbiter of truth? I never said the laptop didn't exist, just that the reaction by right wingers is consistently over the top. Hunter and the Biden family were investigated for years by Congress and all he got was a tax charge and a gun form charge. > Did you forget that Biden pardoned his entire family No, I didn't. After all the political witch hunts and a vengeful Trump DOJ coming into power, I don't blame him.
- bigyabai 1y ago
  Literally every example you cited is either a) without evidence or b) a private institution. Nothing you just said bears resemblance to the FCC-directed censorship we just saw today. Cite some sources if you think otherwise.
  - SilverElfin 1y ago
    Biden literally had, and used, back door channels to compel private companies to censor speech online. These companies complied either due to ideological alignment or fear of regulatory attacks from the Biden administration. To the extent that the FCC (which is more than just the one commissioner) were to take some action, it may have been less of an issue than Biden’s explicit violation of constitutional rights, because the Supreme Court has upheld the FCC’s ability to regulate content to some extent.
    - Braxton1980 1y ago
      The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Biden administration on June 26, 2024, in the case Murthy v. Missouri. The 6-3 decision rejected the argument that the federal government violated the First Amendment by coercing social media companies to remove posts related to COVID-19 and the 2020 election.
      - SilverElfin 1y ago
        You’re misinterpreting the ruling. The ruling was that the states that brought the case (Missouri and Louisiana) didn’t have standing to bring the case forward, not that the Biden administration acted legally. The majority in the court said a plaintiff who was directly a victim of the censorship would have to bring the case, rather than states on behalf of unspecified citizens. In other words, the case was dismissed on a technicality without ruling on the merits of government censorship that is done via a private third party.
        Braxton1980 1y ago
        Then the lower court ruling is held because this was dismissed
hypeatei 1y ago
> cancelling of Jimmy Kimmel today Just to clarify for anyone skimming: ABC faced pressure from FCC chair Brendan Carr after he said their broadcasting license was at risk from Kimmel's statements on Tyler Robinson, the alleged Kirk assassin. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/17/charlie-kirk-jimmy-kimmel-abc-disney.html https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/17/charlie-kirk-jimmy-kimmel-ab...
- CodingJeebus 1y ago
  I highly suggest watching the clip in question. Pod Save America just covered this and included the FCC's explanation for why they're going after shows like Kimmel. Really chilling stuff[0] 0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIFuvI2ruS8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIFuvI2ruS8
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- SilverElfin 1y ago
  I don’t think FCC pressure was what led to this. Nexstar, which owns stations that are affiliates of ABC, made a choice to remove the show from their stations. Their reasoning has nothing to do with the government or first amendment. Here is what they said: > “Mr. Kimmel’s comments about the death of Mr. Kirk are offensive and insensitive at a critical time in our national political discourse, and we do not believe they reflect the spectrum of opinions, views, or values of the local communities in which we are located,” said Andrew Alford, President of Nexstar’s broadcasting division. “Continuing to give Mr. Kimmel a broadcast platform in the communities we serve is simply not in the public interest at the current time, and we have made the difficult decision to preempt his show in an effort to let cooler heads prevail as we move toward the resumption of respectful, constructive dialogue.” This decision and their public statement about it, coupled with social media pressure, led ABC to making a decision afterwards about the show.
  - hypeatei 1y ago
    So Brendan Carr threatening their license and them cancelling the show is a coincidence? Is that what you're arguing?
scheeseman486 1y ago
You're talking as if the rubicon hasn't been crossed. These aren't "red flags", they're concrete actions. It isn't the first amendment that needed to hold up, that is just a piece of paper. It's institutions like the Supreme Court that are supposed to stop these kinds of actions and they did not, since it's been stacked with those who uncritically support everything Trump does. The United States is a fascist dictatorship. It's not turning into one, it has already happened.
ModernMech 1y ago
When you say "red flag" that's usually meaning a warning indicating future danger ahead. Those red flags were (literally and figuratively) raised on January 6, 2021. After the events of that date, everyone had all the information and warnings to know what kind of person Trump is (wannabe dictator willing to use violence to achieve his ends) and what kind of movement MAGA is. We all had the opportunity to vote after that date, and people still chose Trump / MAGA. Now we see blatant authoritarianism, illiberal government actions, and rising political violence. It's not surprising that the same guy who tried to violently overthrow the government would also try to overthrow the Constitution. What's happening today was predicted by people paying attention. The constitution is literally not operative right now, as there's no one to enforce it -- not the DOJ, not the FBI not the Congress, not the courts, not the press, not corporations, not the army, and certainly not the President.

This, alongside the cancelling of Jimmy Kimmel today, raises all kinds of red flags. We're about to find out just how well the First Amendment holds up under an autocrat.

billy99k 1y ago

[flagged]

CodingJeebus 1y ago
> J6 protestors that just showed up and were let in by police, arrested in front of their friends and families and sent to prison for years J6'ers ransacked the Capitol building and killed a cop, we all watched it unfold live on TV. I'd love to read more on the debanking thing, I can't find anything that materially supports the claim that lots of people are being debanked for their political views. > the government colluding with major social media companies to censor American citizens on anything that changes the government narrative This is exactly what is happening right now with broadcasters and with those speaking out about Kirk. Trump and Kimmel have feuded for years. Why do you see this situation as justified (i.e. "Speech has consequences"), but when it's social media, you see big bad government suppressing speech illegally? It's like we just tolerate it when it's our party in charge, otherwise we ignore it. I have no idea where that path leads us, but I can't fathom it's good.
- AnimalMuppet 1y ago
  J6ers didn't just ransack the building and kill a cop. Some of them were shouting "hang Mike Pence". Why were they shouting that? Because Pence wouldn't recognize the "alternate electors" as legitimate. That is, they (at least some of them) were literally protesting that Pence wouldn't cooperate with a scheme to steal the election. And they were breaking into the building where Mike Pence was, and where the Electoral College vote was. That - and not merely breaking into the building and doing vandalism - is the fundamental issue with J6.
- billy99k 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - grumio 1y ago
    Did Biden's FCC threaten to revoke a license for speech they didn't like? Could you please share a source?
hypeatei 1y ago
You understand that the Twitter Files was an absolute nothingburger, correct? It showed that they needed a special database to keep track of the same requests from Republicans because they were submitting so much. There was no "collusion" as you put it. The "hunter biden laptop" story is a dead horse that keeps being revived by the right wing fearmonger media which you're clearly very entrenched in.
- billy99k 1y ago
  "You understand that the Twitter Files was an absolute nothingburger, correct? It showed that they needed a special database to keep track of the same requests from Republicans because they were submitting so much. There was no "collusion" as you put it." Even left-leaning AI can't hide the fact that you are horribly incorrect. I will let you do the research yourself. "The "hunter biden laptop" story is a dead horse that keeps being revived by the right wing fearmonger media which you're clearly very entrenched in." Actually, it's pretty well known that the laptop was real. You are the one 'entrenched' in left-wing media: It is now widely confirmed by multiple sources, including federal prosecutor and media outlets, that the laptop that was the subject of a 2020 New York Post story did belong to Hunter Biden. It has been used as evidence in his 2024 criminal trial. Key developments and verifications FBI and Justice Department confirmation In December 2019, the FBI seized the laptop from a Delaware computer repair shop via a grand jury subpoena. -FBI investigators concluded in 2019 that the laptop genuinely belonged to Hunter Biden and had not been manipulated. -During Hunter Biden's 2024 federal gun trial, the Justice Department's special counsel, David C. Weiss, introduced the laptop as evidence. An FBI agent testified about its contents, which were used to demonstrate Biden's drug use at the time of the firearm purchase. -Several news organizations have reported on the authenticity of content from the laptop. -The New York Times stated in March 2022 that it had obtained and authenticated some emails from a cache believed to be from the laptop. Did you forget that Biden pardoned his entire family before he left office for past and future crimes?
  - hypeatei 1y ago
    Since when is AI an arbiter of truth? I never said the laptop didn't exist, just that the reaction by right wingers is consistently over the top. Hunter and the Biden family were investigated for years by Congress and all he got was a tax charge and a gun form charge. > Did you forget that Biden pardoned his entire family No, I didn't. After all the political witch hunts and a vengeful Trump DOJ coming into power, I don't blame him.
bigyabai 1y ago
Literally every example you cited is either a) without evidence or b) a private institution. Nothing you just said bears resemblance to the FCC-directed censorship we just saw today. Cite some sources if you think otherwise.
- SilverElfin 1y ago
  Biden literally had, and used, back door channels to compel private companies to censor speech online. These companies complied either due to ideological alignment or fear of regulatory attacks from the Biden administration. To the extent that the FCC (which is more than just the one commissioner) were to take some action, it may have been less of an issue than Biden’s explicit violation of constitutional rights, because the Supreme Court has upheld the FCC’s ability to regulate content to some extent.
  - Braxton1980 1y ago
    The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Biden administration on June 26, 2024, in the case Murthy v. Missouri. The 6-3 decision rejected the argument that the federal government violated the First Amendment by coercing social media companies to remove posts related to COVID-19 and the 2020 election.
    - SilverElfin 1y ago
      You’re misinterpreting the ruling. The ruling was that the states that brought the case (Missouri and Louisiana) didn’t have standing to bring the case forward, not that the Biden administration acted legally. The majority in the court said a plaintiff who was directly a victim of the censorship would have to bring the case, rather than states on behalf of unspecified citizens. In other words, the case was dismissed on a technicality without ruling on the merits of government censorship that is done via a private third party.
      - Braxton1980 1y ago
        Then the lower court ruling is held because this was dismissed

hypeatei 1y ago

> cancelling of Jimmy Kimmel today Just to clarify for anyone skimming: ABC faced pressure from FCC chair Brendan Carr after he said their broadcasting license was at risk from Kimmel's statements on Tyler Robinson, the alleged Kirk assassin. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/17/charlie-kirk-jimmy-kimmel-abc-disney.html https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/17/charlie-kirk-jimmy-kimmel-ab...

CodingJeebus 1y ago
I highly suggest watching the clip in question. Pod Save America just covered this and included the FCC's explanation for why they're going after shows like Kimmel. Really chilling stuff[0] 0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIFuvI2ruS8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIFuvI2ruS8
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
SilverElfin 1y ago
I don’t think FCC pressure was what led to this. Nexstar, which owns stations that are affiliates of ABC, made a choice to remove the show from their stations. Their reasoning has nothing to do with the government or first amendment. Here is what they said: > “Mr. Kimmel’s comments about the death of Mr. Kirk are offensive and insensitive at a critical time in our national political discourse, and we do not believe they reflect the spectrum of opinions, views, or values of the local communities in which we are located,” said Andrew Alford, President of Nexstar’s broadcasting division. “Continuing to give Mr. Kimmel a broadcast platform in the communities we serve is simply not in the public interest at the current time, and we have made the difficult decision to preempt his show in an effort to let cooler heads prevail as we move toward the resumption of respectful, constructive dialogue.” This decision and their public statement about it, coupled with social media pressure, led ABC to making a decision afterwards about the show.
- hypeatei 1y ago
  So Brendan Carr threatening their license and them cancelling the show is a coincidence? Is that what you're arguing?

scheeseman486 1y ago

You're talking as if the rubicon hasn't been crossed. These aren't "red flags", they're concrete actions. It isn't the first amendment that needed to hold up, that is just a piece of paper. It's institutions like the Supreme Court that are supposed to stop these kinds of actions and they did not, since it's been stacked with those who uncritically support everything Trump does. The United States is a fascist dictatorship. It's not turning into one, it has already happened.

ModernMech 1y ago

When you say "red flag" that's usually meaning a warning indicating future danger ahead. Those red flags were (literally and figuratively) raised on January 6, 2021. After the events of that date, everyone had all the information and warnings to know what kind of person Trump is (wannabe dictator willing to use violence to achieve his ends) and what kind of movement MAGA is. We all had the opportunity to vote after that date, and people still chose Trump / MAGA. Now we see blatant authoritarianism, illiberal government actions, and rising political violence. It's not surprising that the same guy who tried to violently overthrow the government would also try to overthrow the Constitution. What's happening today was predicted by people paying attention. The constitution is literally not operative right now, as there's no one to enforce it -- not the DOJ, not the FBI not the Congress, not the courts, not the press, not corporations, not the army, and certainly not the President.