4 ms·

> But that meant having to defend making up stuff about a murder What was Kimmel making up? The fact that the shooter was conservative, from a conservative fa

> But that meant having to defend making up stuff about a murder What was Kimmel making up? The fact that the shooter was conservative, from a conservative family? The fact that Kirk openly advocated for gun violence? Please do tell us exactly what was being "made up," here.

rdtsc 1y ago
> The fact that the shooter was conservative, from a conservative family? He implied it was trump maga head or some kind. Not just implied, he made it sound like it's a sure thing. Moreover, it applied to a crime that was just committed. When FCC threatened them ABC knew they couldn't appeal or fight. It wasn't worth it, it would have been a PR disaster. This guy is nothing like a maga whatever, he as trans girlfriend, leftist views, parents said that much (they are the ones who turned him even), wrote "Bella ciao" on bullets and "catch, fascist" and most importantly heshoots a trump-loving personality like Kirk. How did Kimmel arrive at him being some trump fan, I don't see it. That's the intentionally spreading misinformation related to a crime, good enough for FCC to threaten him and good enough for ABC to realize they'll be in a losing game defending him.
- zzrrt 1y ago
  > That's the intentionally spreading misinformation related to a crime Looking forward to Rep. Mike Lee, Nancy Mace et al also being fired for spreading misinformation about politically-motivated killings. Also waiting for Trump’s public address denouncing political violence against MN Rep. Melissa Hortman.
  - rdtsc 1y ago
    Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. It's specific corner case of FCC licensing. ABC didn't have to cancel Jimmy and could have called FCC's bluff and tried to file a lawsuit based on 1st Amendment. But the PR look was pretty bad. Instead of saying "condolences for the family, etc" now they are defending Kimmel's phrasing. > Looking forward to Rep. Mike Lee also being fired for spreading misinformation about a politically-motivated killing. It's going to happen once the democrats are in power and fox or whatever channel broadcast lie and it's related to a crime. I don't see it happening in congress though. > MN Rep. Melissa Hortman. Sadly I don't know if anyone there knows who Hortman is.
    - danaris 1y ago
      > It's specific corner case of FCC licensing. No, it's not. It's fascism punishing those who don't bend the knee. FCC licensing is only the specific excuse they're using this time. > But the PR look was pretty bad. Instead of saying "condolences for the family, etc" now they are defending Kimmel's phrasing. Boo fucking hoo? It's a blatant First Amendment violation. They didn't have to "defend Kimmel's phrasing". All they had to do was say "no, it's protected political speech, and you can't do anything about it."
      - rdtsc 1y ago
        > Boo fucking hoo? I think that's exactly the look they didn't want. > They didn't have to "defend Kimmel's phrasing". All they had to do was say "no, it's protected political speech, and you can't do anything about it." Not when it comes to broadcasting and FCC. They control the frequencies/channels allocated so they have some control about the speech there. They should have fought it and called their bluff, it's exactly the "boo fucking hoo" look ABC didn't want. Who would they be grandstanding for? Younger generation doesn't sit at home watching ABC, there is nobody they'd be impressing with their fight. They should have done it on principle, but their money and ratings would be going down and these companies are not ideological unless they can profit from it. So the folded faster than a broken lawn chair.
        ThrowMeAway1618 1y ago
        >Not when it comes to broadcasting and FCC. They control the frequencies/channels allocated so they have some control about the speech there. Where did you get your law degree? Email your ConLaw professor and ask them about it. Because there's hundreds of years of precedent protecting political speech, whether true or not, regardless of the platform (including broadcast media). This is a blatant attempt to silence political speech the current regime doesn't like -- it was literally "cancel this guy or we'll make things hard on you." They didn't even try to couch it in the terms you're using to defend this entirely authoritarian attempt to chill free speech. Why are you being an apologist for these folks? Or do you support having a lawless government?

rdtsc 1y ago

> The fact that the shooter was conservative, from a conservative family? He implied it was trump maga head or some kind. Not just implied, he made it sound like it's a sure thing. Moreover, it applied to a crime that was just committed. When FCC threatened them ABC knew they couldn't appeal or fight. It wasn't worth it, it would have been a PR disaster. This guy is nothing like a maga whatever, he as trans girlfriend, leftist views, parents said that much (they are the ones who turned him even), wrote "Bella ciao" on bullets and "catch, fascist" and most importantly heshoots a trump-loving personality like Kirk. How did Kimmel arrive at him being some trump fan, I don't see it. That's the intentionally spreading misinformation related to a crime, good enough for FCC to threaten him and good enough for ABC to realize they'll be in a losing game defending him.

zzrrt 1y ago
> That's the intentionally spreading misinformation related to a crime Looking forward to Rep. Mike Lee, Nancy Mace et al also being fired for spreading misinformation about politically-motivated killings. Also waiting for Trump’s public address denouncing political violence against MN Rep. Melissa Hortman.
- rdtsc 1y ago
  Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. It's specific corner case of FCC licensing. ABC didn't have to cancel Jimmy and could have called FCC's bluff and tried to file a lawsuit based on 1st Amendment. But the PR look was pretty bad. Instead of saying "condolences for the family, etc" now they are defending Kimmel's phrasing. > Looking forward to Rep. Mike Lee also being fired for spreading misinformation about a politically-motivated killing. It's going to happen once the democrats are in power and fox or whatever channel broadcast lie and it's related to a crime. I don't see it happening in congress though. > MN Rep. Melissa Hortman. Sadly I don't know if anyone there knows who Hortman is.
  - danaris 1y ago
    > It's specific corner case of FCC licensing. No, it's not. It's fascism punishing those who don't bend the knee. FCC licensing is only the specific excuse they're using this time. > But the PR look was pretty bad. Instead of saying "condolences for the family, etc" now they are defending Kimmel's phrasing. Boo fucking hoo? It's a blatant First Amendment violation. They didn't have to "defend Kimmel's phrasing". All they had to do was say "no, it's protected political speech, and you can't do anything about it."
    - rdtsc 1y ago
      > Boo fucking hoo? I think that's exactly the look they didn't want. > They didn't have to "defend Kimmel's phrasing". All they had to do was say "no, it's protected political speech, and you can't do anything about it." Not when it comes to broadcasting and FCC. They control the frequencies/channels allocated so they have some control about the speech there. They should have fought it and called their bluff, it's exactly the "boo fucking hoo" look ABC didn't want. Who would they be grandstanding for? Younger generation doesn't sit at home watching ABC, there is nobody they'd be impressing with their fight. They should have done it on principle, but their money and ratings would be going down and these companies are not ideological unless they can profit from it. So the folded faster than a broken lawn chair.
      - ThrowMeAway1618 1y ago
        >Not when it comes to broadcasting and FCC. They control the frequencies/channels allocated so they have some control about the speech there. Where did you get your law degree? Email your ConLaw professor and ask them about it. Because there's hundreds of years of precedent protecting political speech, whether true or not, regardless of the platform (including broadcast media). This is a blatant attempt to silence political speech the current regime doesn't like -- it was literally "cancel this guy or we'll make things hard on you." They didn't even try to couch it in the terms you're using to defend this entirely authoritarian attempt to chill free speech. Why are you being an apologist for these folks? Or do you support having a lawless government?