44 ms·

FCC orders review of ABC licenses after Kimmel joke offends Trump and First Lady

10 points by SilverElfin 6mo ago

SilverElfin 6mo ago
This is a blatant free speech violation and corrupt abuse of power. Even though Kimmel’s joke was in bad taste, he’s allowed to make jokes. This isn’t North Korea. And yet here we are.
- throwaway787899 6mo ago
  [flagged]
  - smt88 6mo ago
    If this is true, why didn't Trump do anything during his first term? Why did this only become important once they started talking about the Epstein files?
    - deleted 6mo ago
      [deleted]
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- AnimalMuppet 6mo ago
  He's even allowed to make jokes that are in bad taste. Nobody's trying to pull licenses over, say, the Oscars, or the Super Bowl halftime show, or any of a thousand other things that were in poor taste going back the last several decades. So either it's in poor taste, in which case, deal with it by growing a thicker skin, or else it's actually against the law, in which case, prosecute it. But instead, it's intimidation for speech that the administration doesn't like, and I have zero sympathy. We don't have lese majeste laws for the same reason we don't have kings.
  - saltyoldman 6mo ago
    But do we have kings? Biden's admin was forcing Twitter to censor people saying the word "lab" instead of "wet market". And they did it without telling the public. And then when his admin ended, they protected everyone involved with a pardon that covers time before he was even President! I'm not defending Trump's move here, but let's not live in a vacuum. Both are bad.
    - oenton 6mo ago
      Whenever I read an extraordinary claim, no matter how implausible, I try to make an effort to at least Google it and steelman it as best I can. I do this as a sanity check and also to catch myself from falling victim to my own echo chambers. Here's what I found: 1. White House officials from the CDC, FBI, and CISA urged platforms to remove or suppress content deemed "misinformation" including "lab-leak theory. [1] 2. Missouri and others sued the Biden admin and requested an injunction for "federal interference" against social media companies.[2] That injunction was granted.[3] 3. The injunction was appealed to the 5th circuit[4]. Notably, while the the 5th circuit upheld the injunction, they didn't agree that the Biden admin was "coercive", which is why their ruling significantly narrowed the scope of the injunction. From that ruling: "Generally, the State Department officials did not flag content, suggest policy changes, or reciprocally receive data during those meetings." "...although CISA flagged content for social-media platforms as part of its switchboarding operations, based on this record, its conduct falls on the “attempts to convince,” not “attempts to coerce,” side of the line." "There is not sufficient evidence that CISA made threats of adverse consequences— explicit or implicit—to the platforms for refusing to act on the content it flagged." "Nor is there any indication CISA had power over the platforms in any capacity, or that their requests were threatening in tone or manner. Similarly, on this record, their requests— although certainly amounting to a non-trivial level of involvement—do not equate to meaningful control." ------- You wrote the Biden admin was "forcing" Twitter to censor people but even the 5th Circuit, which was sympathetic to this complaint, disagrees. Sadly my original assumption was true: this is another false comparison. Trump using or even threatening to use the FCC's licensing authority to revoke licenses of private companies that don't fire a comedian for speech the president found upsetting is not the same. Now, if the Biden admin used (or threatened) the DOJ's authority to seize Twitter or Facebook's domain name if they don't take down legal, 1st amendment protected content the Biden admin disagrees with i.e. "lab leak", then I might agree with you. My question to you is - do you agree these things are not the same or do you simply not see a meaningful distinction? Why or why not? [1] https://reason.com/2023/09/11/the-5th-circuit-agrees-that-federal-officials-unconstitutionally-coerced-or-encouraged-online-censorship/ https://reason.com/2023/09/11/the-5th-circuit-agrees-that-fe... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murthy_v._Missouri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murthy_v._Missouri [3] https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/4/23783822/free-speech-ruling-missouri-v-biden-dhs-fbi-cisa https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/4/23783822/free-speech-rulin... [4] https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-30445-CV0.pdf https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-30445-CV0.pd...

10 points by SilverElfin 6mo ago

This is a blatant free speech violation and corrupt abuse of power. Even though Kimmel’s joke was in bad taste, he’s allowed to make jokes. This isn’t North Korea. And yet here we are.

throwaway787899 6mo ago
[flagged]
- smt88 6mo ago
  If this is true, why didn't Trump do anything during his first term? Why did this only become important once they started talking about the Epstein files?
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
AnimalMuppet 6mo ago
He's even allowed to make jokes that are in bad taste. Nobody's trying to pull licenses over, say, the Oscars, or the Super Bowl halftime show, or any of a thousand other things that were in poor taste going back the last several decades. So either it's in poor taste, in which case, deal with it by growing a thicker skin, or else it's actually against the law, in which case, prosecute it. But instead, it's intimidation for speech that the administration doesn't like, and I have zero sympathy. We don't have lese majeste laws for the same reason we don't have kings.
- saltyoldman 6mo ago
  But do we have kings? Biden's admin was forcing Twitter to censor people saying the word "lab" instead of "wet market". And they did it without telling the public. And then when his admin ended, they protected everyone involved with a pardon that covers time before he was even President! I'm not defending Trump's move here, but let's not live in a vacuum. Both are bad.
  - oenton 6mo ago
    Whenever I read an extraordinary claim, no matter how implausible, I try to make an effort to at least Google it and steelman it as best I can. I do this as a sanity check and also to catch myself from falling victim to my own echo chambers. Here's what I found: 1. White House officials from the CDC, FBI, and CISA urged platforms to remove or suppress content deemed "misinformation" including "lab-leak theory. [1] 2. Missouri and others sued the Biden admin and requested an injunction for "federal interference" against social media companies.[2] That injunction was granted.[3] 3. The injunction was appealed to the 5th circuit[4]. Notably, while the the 5th circuit upheld the injunction, they didn't agree that the Biden admin was "coercive", which is why their ruling significantly narrowed the scope of the injunction. From that ruling: "Generally, the State Department officials did not flag content, suggest policy changes, or reciprocally receive data during those meetings." "...although CISA flagged content for social-media platforms as part of its switchboarding operations, based on this record, its conduct falls on the “attempts to convince,” not “attempts to coerce,” side of the line." "There is not sufficient evidence that CISA made threats of adverse consequences— explicit or implicit—to the platforms for refusing to act on the content it flagged." "Nor is there any indication CISA had power over the platforms in any capacity, or that their requests were threatening in tone or manner. Similarly, on this record, their requests— although certainly amounting to a non-trivial level of involvement—do not equate to meaningful control." ------- You wrote the Biden admin was "forcing" Twitter to censor people but even the 5th Circuit, which was sympathetic to this complaint, disagrees. Sadly my original assumption was true: this is another false comparison. Trump using or even threatening to use the FCC's licensing authority to revoke licenses of private companies that don't fire a comedian for speech the president found upsetting is not the same. Now, if the Biden admin used (or threatened) the DOJ's authority to seize Twitter or Facebook's domain name if they don't take down legal, 1st amendment protected content the Biden admin disagrees with i.e. "lab leak", then I might agree with you. My question to you is - do you agree these things are not the same or do you simply not see a meaningful distinction? Why or why not? [1] https://reason.com/2023/09/11/the-5th-circuit-agrees-that-federal-officials-unconstitutionally-coerced-or-encouraged-online-censorship/ https://reason.com/2023/09/11/the-5th-circuit-agrees-that-fe... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murthy_v._Missouri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murthy_v._Missouri [3] https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/4/23783822/free-speech-ruling-missouri-v-biden-dhs-fbi-cisa https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/4/23783822/free-speech-rulin... [4] https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-30445-CV0.pdf https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-30445-CV0.pd...