3 ms·

> No. The issue is who is doing that action. I wholeheartedly disagree. If you are excluded in research for your opinion, we could just as well install the chu

> No. The issue is who is doing that action. I wholeheartedly disagree. If you are excluded in research for your opinion, we could just as well install the church again. The vanity is the same. This time it is Trump directly. Sure, that is also a problem. Previously it was the handlers of government, so it didn't need to intervene directly. NGOs or just companies getting government grants, didn't matter. > I can throw a tantrum, publicly decry you as an asshole and go no-contact with you. That’s legal, and part of my freedom of expression and association. Of course and I welcome you to do so. We are not talking about instances where people were rude to their bosses. We are talking about instances where people had the wrong political opinion and some faculties are in dire need of reform because of the structures they formed by excluding everyone not in line. That is a problem, obviously. A problem best described as a violation of freedom of expression. You can look up the definition on wikipedia. In the first sentence there is something about repercussions. Easy concept, you would think... > Wiki: Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction What do think retaliation would mean, hm?

ceejayoz 1y ago
If you make your church the government, it is... the government. Again, "I think your speech sucks" and "I have the authority to jail you for your speech because I think it sucks" are vastly different things. > We are not talking about instances where people were rude to their bosses. We're talking about Jimmy Kimmell's employer being threatened by the government to punish him for his speech. Which wasn't even particularly rude.
- raxxorraxor 1y ago
  He was fired by Disney. In the same way others were fired from their position due to political pressures. I don't see a difference.
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    > He was fired by Disney. After very clear threats of official action from the FCC chair up to and including revocation of their broadcasting licenses. For protected speech. That is a very, very clear First Amendment violation. 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-... "FCC chairman Brendan Carr has threatened to take action against ABC after Jimmy Kimmel said in a monologue that 'the MAGA gang' was attempting to portray Charlie Kirk‘s assassin as 'anything other than one of them.' '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.'... 'You could certainly see a path forward for suspension over this,' Carr said." > I don't see a difference. Well, we don't have a cure for blindness.
  - queenkjuul 1y ago
    The FCC threatened to revoke ABC's license, that's the difference

ceejayoz 1y ago

If you make your church the government, it is... the government. Again, "I think your speech sucks" and "I have the authority to jail you for your speech because I think it sucks" are vastly different things. > We are not talking about instances where people were rude to their bosses. We're talking about Jimmy Kimmell's employer being threatened by the government to punish him for his speech. Which wasn't even particularly rude.

raxxorraxor 1y ago
He was fired by Disney. In the same way others were fired from their position due to political pressures. I don't see a difference.
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  > He was fired by Disney. After very clear threats of official action from the FCC chair up to and including revocation of their broadcasting licenses. For protected speech. That is a very, very clear First Amendment violation. 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-... "FCC chairman Brendan Carr has threatened to take action against ABC after Jimmy Kimmel said in a monologue that 'the MAGA gang' was attempting to portray Charlie Kirk‘s assassin as 'anything other than one of them.' '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.'... 'You could certainly see a path forward for suspension over this,' Carr said." > I don't see a difference. Well, we don't have a cure for blindness.
- queenkjuul 1y ago
  The FCC threatened to revoke ABC's license, that's the difference