You're smarter than that. You really gonna go for one of the biggest free speech overreaches we've ever seen? He's getting fired for critisizing Trump, not anything he said about Kirk. For all the complaining you guys did of Biden's administration asking twitter to take down a few posts, not even threatening like is happening now, I'm shocked this flies.
Business is Business. Deflecting, via inferring an attack by a Corporate Entity against Free Speech, reveals YOUR ignorance of the CONSTITUTION. Private Businesses are not required to adhere to the First Amendment in decisions concerning employees. Apparently, Mr. toughcoins is smarter than you assume, on the subject of the Constitution.
Kimmel didn't say anything particularly egregious, Trump is gloating about doing it, and his FCC chair quite literally threatened action on TV. Don't make me have to defend Kimmel, I'm not a fan haha
Your status as a non- fan is not important to rational business decisions, whose sole purpose is to answer to investors by what is known as PROFIT. Mr. Kimmel is paid the same as another recent removal by a business entity- Colbert, who had also tested the waters of non-professionalism. The individual had lost a significant viewership ,and the economic losses to the business entity could no longer be ignored. The Kimmel situation is parallel...Kimmel has lost a greater percentage of viewership, the losses to continue to support his network presence reached a non-acceptable level, and although there was hope that the losses would be offset by business arrangements, audience share is what it is. Some Threshold loss tolerance can't be ignored, and considering the impact of Sinclair declining to air, that was more elephant weight on corporate coffers than was acceptable, to maintain financial health. The DISNEY/ABC/SINCLAIR business relationship can not be ignored. Consider that CBS-Paramount had to pay 15 Million to settle a lawsuit brought by POTUS for similar improper actions.' Consider ABC had to pay 15 Million to POTUS because of similar infractions by Stephanopoulos. Kimmel is not worth the loss that can only be envisioned (hint: Multiples of the CBS AND PARAMOUNT settlements0 considering the assassination of Mr. Kirk, that, emotionally, is much more impactful to the Public Psyche. I would opine that Mr. Kirk's family would file a multi-billion DOLLAR lawsuit against ABC/DISNEY/SINCLAIR----AND WIN. That is how real life works, clown. Suggestion: I refer you to the Tyson Rule on the consequences of mouthing off.
Where'd I say he got fired for talking about Kirk? Let's stop mincing words, shall we? . . . A House Judiciary Committee report in May 2024 claimed that the Biden White House pressured major tech companies to censor content, including posts critical of the administration. How does one bring "pressure" to bear without the implication (threat) of some downside for the recipient of that pressure?
Let's accept that finding at face value. I agree a message from the executive branch has some impicit weight afterall. Do you think that's wrong and a violation of the first amendment?
I don't think the pressure is wrong if the expression eliciting the pressure threatens to harm the nation in a meaningful way. When Kimmel said, “The MAGA Gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it”, he was fanning the flames . . . flames that threaten the security of our union. Was it right to influence Disney to retract the Kimmel messaging? With the alternative being the implicit Disney message that a violent offender must be a MAGA follower, you bet it was right.
That's not what he said. He said they were trying to call the shooter anything but themselves. Which is objectively true. There were loads of conjectures being made in the wake of the shooting by MAGA people, without any evidence, mostly wrong. It's clearly a misrepresentation to say he was accusing the killer of being MAGA. He was making a joke about the frantic and panicked finger pointing of the MAGA people.
MAGA followers were not trying to call the shooter anything but themselves. They weren’t trying to characterize him as a moderate conservative, a centrist or even a moderate liberal. They were expressing their belief that he was a liberal extremist. Americans in general were pissed, and calling Robinson what he was believed to be, what attempts on prominent conservatives have historically led us to believe, and what turned out to be correct. That, while Robinson had no voting history, his political trajectory clearly defines him as exactly that . . . a liberal extremist. A drive to score political points was not what I saw. The pursuit of retribution is what I saw . . . The desire to see liberals cease damning political opponents for their views. An end not only to the overt support of political violence, but to the quiet wishes for same. Liberals should be no less tolerant of conservatives for the views they hold than should conservatives of the views of liberals. We may never agree, but resorting to violence is . . . uncivilized.
Ah, gods forbid a comedian hyperbolize. You're right, he didn't include blaming martians either, therefore exact the full weight of the FCC on them as you like. The first amendment dies in technicalities
You either have principles, or like Trump and his fanbase, you're fine shredding the constitution as long as he's hurting the correct people. Pick a lane
Fired at the pressure of Trump and the FCC. Not even obscured pressure. Threatening licenses while being interviewed on live TV. The network can fire them for anything, the government can't openly coerce it.
So, there's the rub . . . Liberal politicians coerce behind the curtain so no one knows see's going on, and Trump transparently does the same, and you get all pissy about what he does and not what they did? I get it . . . finally .
