They didn't threaten action, it's very different. Not necessarily better, but way more grey. Do you believe it's wrong?
And if anyone fails to understand (on purpose ...as Wright enjoys doing, driven by his never-ending penchant of attention- 'lookatme I'm relevant') the connection of Fiduciary Responsibility of the entity to shareholders as it relates to the person being paid by the entity AND TEMPORARY SUSPENSION UNTIL THE INDIVIDUAL APOLOGIZES TO THE FAMILY WITH A MEANINGFUL CONTRIBUTION, IS A LEGAL ACTION. The entity has offered a cure. The entity could have ended the employment in lieu of a temporary suspension, and that action is also legal. Who influenced what and how does not matter, at all. Fiduciary Responsibility to the shareholders trumps any other blahblah. The employee may believe the action was a violation of the First Amendment. The employee has the Constitutional Right to present the violation grievance to the judicial Branch at State and/or Federal Level, and if the person has an estimated net worth of $50 Million, the person can certainly afford to do so. MISDIRECTION, OBFUSCATION, DEFLECTION of the central issue-FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION and RESPONSIBILITY TO THE SHAREHOLDERS IS THE PRIMARY DUTY OF ANY BUSINESS ENTITY- does not lower the legal responsibility of the Entity. If a person is employed and/or paid by a business entity, and the person expresses opinions in a public manner that negatively effects profits, the person should not be surprised when the entity SUSPENDS OR ENDS THE EMPLOYMENT. JESUS... The rest of the blahblah is a useless distraction.
Legally, emotionally, morally, politically, or corporately? Be specific. Each has a different possibility of responses. See how it works in the real world? Your personal opinion is meaningless without clarity of context and intent. 'Lookatme I'm relevant' is not a serious choice.
Prove it . . . they were definitely found to have pressured various online entities, and succeeded in censoring online communications and books. As we agreed earlier, implicit in such pressure is the threat that noncompliance brings other actions.
Yeah . . . And we're finally seeing Trump level the playing field to where it should be. Here's what I think . . . if Jimmy Kimmel owned the network and controlled the programming it would be his decision to risk his license or not. He didn't . . . Not only that, but after he'd offended enough viewership, and was asked to apologize, he refused, and offered only to defend his prior statements. Again, that's not his license. You also know how I feel about Freedom of speech in other scenarios , unless you forgot or simply ignored the logic behind my position. No one, and I mean no one has the right to get in the faces of others with a contrary view. They have the right to say anything they want to those wanting to listen . . . that is all.
Apparently you're taking the "it's right for Trump to attack freedom of speech because vengeance" rather than actually believing in the principle. At least that's what I'm seeing here:
Okay, I'll give up on that if you'll quit on restitution, student loan forgiveness and no cash bail. I didn't think so . . .
Hmmmm. So you DO see the bill of rights as bargaining chips rather than inalienable rights. Throw in some concessions on the 2nd amendment and you may have a deal cooking there.
https://www.politico.com/live-updat...out-fcc-for-taking-down-jimmy-kimmel-00573159 ‘Dangerous as hell’: Cruz blasts FCC’s Jimmy Kimmel takedown The Texas Republican called Brendan Carr’s actions “right out of ‘Goodfellas.’” Cassandra Dumay 09/19/2025, 1:05pm ET Sen. Ted Cruz on his podcast Friday admonished Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr for demanding ABC suspend Jimmy Kimmel’s late night show over comments regarding Charlie Kirk — calling Carr’s actions “dangerous as hell” and “right out of ‘Goodfellas.’” “If the government gets in the business of saying, ‘We don’t like what you, the media, have said; we’re going to ban you from the airwaves if you don’t say what we like’ — that will end up bad for conservatives,” said the Texas Republican. And while Cruz said he liked Carr and was “thrilled” to see Kimmel’s show taken off the air, he cautioned that leveraging the FCC’s power to punish certain speech creates a concerning precedent that could leave conservatives vulnerable in a future Democratic administration. “They will silence us,” said Cruz. “They will use this power, and they will use it ruthlessly.” The comments are notable coming from Cruz – both as a loyalist of President Donald Trump and as chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, which has oversight authority over the FCC. He also joins other prominent GOP lawmakers warning about how the FCC wields its power, as Democrats continue to decry the pressure to suspend Kimmel’s show as a free speech violation. Earlier this week, Cruz said at a POLITICO AI & Tech summit that the First Amendment “absolutely protects hate speech,” although he added that it doesn’t make people “immune from consequences” from their employers. During his Monday evening monologue, Kimmel said Republicans were trying to mischaracterize the background of Kirk’s killer for political points and compared Trump’s reaction to the killing as that of a 4-year-old mourning a goldfish. ABC announced Wednesday he would be taken off the air following Carr’s reprimand. While Kimmel is the most high profile public figure so far to lose his job for how he characterized the Kirk assassination, multiple academics and a Washington Post columnist have also been let go as a result of their remarks.
Throwing Kimmel to the dogs has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech. Kimmel worked for a network (a corporation) whose bottom line was being threatened by his vile hatred of Donald Trump. Simply put, his lies and far-Left rhetoric was turning viewers off. The network saw the problem and fired his ass. It's as simple as that. I am very happy about it, btw.
Oh, far be it from me to say the Constitution is malleable. Trump can always pursue justice as an individual, rather than employing departmental influence.
At least you acknowledge going after Kimmel was about himself, not Kirk. I would love it if he stuck to individual suits rather than using departmental influence. Nevertheless, that's simply not the reality we live in
Don’t misinterpret what I’ve written. There’s no way that Trump going after Kimmel was all about either Kirk or Trump individually. While a strong personal dislike of Kimmel had undoubtedly welled up in Trump over the past decade, he had never before tried to leverage his position and exact an apology or reversal of position from him. Suddenly, the remarks Kimmel made following the assassination struck a chord. His on-air comments, in a time when we are as divided as we’ve been in 160 years, serve to further split this nation. There’s too much of that going around. We all have the right to speak our minds, but to use the bullhorn of one’s employment situation to do so, a la Colin Kaepernick is wrong. So, why the change, and why right then? Likely, because Trump also had such a personal connection with Kirk, he couldn’t help himself. Do I think it’s wrong of Trump to follow precedent set by the Democrats and weaponize a government agency to influence Kimmel? Sure I do if, and this is important, if he wasn’t convinced by the FCC that the Kimmel commentary was out of line. I have seen no questioning of that possibility, and do not discount it. Kimmel is a divisive character, knows it, and refused to back down when called on it. Regardless of why Kimmel’s employer was approached, his future was in his hands, and he blew it
I'll give you that, he sure is an emotional guy and lacking in impulse control. Continue... maybe the word your looking for is "greatly expand" by chance? I might buy your spin, if Trump wasn't currently going around saying networks explicitly should lose their licenses for being too critical of him personally. As you said before he simply can't help himself.
Untrue . . . he speaks impulsively, but acts after deliberation. His days-long decision not to bomb Iran for shooting down our drone over the Straight of Hormuz back in 2019 is a case in point, as was his case-based negotiated structuring of tariffs after his bombastic threat to impose them across the board . . . there are plenty more. I daresay the decision to pressure Disney was not driven by emotion-based impulse alone, but by the recognition that the Kimmel message was destructive of what little national unity remains as well. Again, he shoots off his mouth and thinks better before acting. Have we seen evidence that he's similarly pressured other networks to the same extent?
He said he wants too. So i guess I'm just taking his word for it? Would it even change your mind if he did it again? Why is once okay but twice is over the line? It seems you're finally deep enough in you'd back rationalize anything he did.
He says a lot in haste that he thinks through later on and acts upon differently. The stuff you hear only a few times in the span of a few days might be taken a little less seriously. I think you only know he's serious about something when he repeats it time and again over an extended period. Donald Trump is certainly not my favorite person, but if you learn to process his reactions and communications that way, you might actually learn to dislike the guy less than you do . . .
Perspective, gentlemen.... Perspective... If the ship is sinking, plug the hole. (Ben Sellers,Headline USA) A massive decline in ratings was likely the true reason behind the recent “cancellation” of ABC late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, despite Democrats’ disinformation campaign attempting to blame President Donald Trump.
