Was Kimmel a sacrificial lamb to drum up outrage for the left?

[odanny]

They were threatened by an FCC acting at Trump's behest to persecute a critic.

The cult celebrates curtailing free speech by threats and intimidation.

You people are so pathetic.

 

[martybegan]

They were threatened by an FCC acting at Trump's behest to persecute a critic.

The cult celebrates curtailing free speech by threats and intimidation.

Show the actual threat.

 

[Papageorgio]

The FCC didn't cancel Kimmel.

Show me the document doing so.

No document, it was a verbal threat on a podcast.

The FCC commissioner Carr said, “Frankly, when you see stuff like this — I mean, we can do this the easy way or the hard way, 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.”

ABC responded to the pressure, just like social media responded to Biden pressure. Just because one side does it doesn’t mean the other side should do it. What if one day the government decides your speech is bad for America, then what, this is dangerous waters.

 

[martybegan]

No document, it was a verbal threat on a podcast.

The FCC commissioner Carr said, “Frankly, when you see stuff like this — I mean, we can do this the easy way or the hard way, 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.”

ABC responded to the pressure, just like social media responded to Biden pressure. Just because one side does it doesn’t mean the other side should do it. What if one day the government decides your speech is bad for America, then what, this is dangerous waters.

Soooo, just an opinion and no actual action. Not a government opinion, someone who works for government's opinion.

Get back to me when something actually gets done.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

SO you watched him?

His post does not even pretend to make that claim, but lets say he did watch him, what's the point?

 

[berg80]

O'Reilly made a good point this morning - he asserts the possibility that Kimmel was purposefully let go to create support for the left's claim of "censorship and cancel culture".

We don't need another baseless conspiracy theory.

 

[Papageorgio]

Soooo, just an opinion and no actual action. Not a government opinion, someone who works for government's opinion.

Get back to me when something actually gets done.

Coming from the commissioner of the FCC? That is not his opinion, he is saying we can do it the hard way or the easy way, he has the power, he to take away licenses.That is a threat, and it was directed at Kimmel and ABC, that is a violation of the 1st Amendment.

 

[martybegan]

Coming from the commissioner of the FCC? That is not his opinion, he is saying we can do it the hard way or the easy way, he has the power, he to take away licenses.That is a threat, and it was directed at Kimmel and ABC, that is a violation of the 1st Amendment.

It needs to be an actual action to be a violation.

Has any action been taken?

What law has he specifically broken?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

O'Reilly made a good point this morning - he asserts the possibility that Kimmel was purposefully let go to create support for the left's claim of "censorship and cancel culture".
What Kimmel said about Kirk's killer is both ignorant and stupid - but he has been pushing stupidity and ignorance for years. Why now all of a sudden do this? And by DISNEY?? Like they care!

Makes a good point and possibility.

REMEMBER - the right didn't pull Kimmel off the air - DISNEY did.

Nexstar were the ones who pulled Kimmel off. They own many of the ABC affiliates, and they are looking to merge with Tegna. They'll need the Trump administration's approval.

 

[ColonelAngus]

The show was losing millions and this was a good excuse for Disney to flush the piece of shit.

Plus a huge telecom company called Nexstar Media Group. operates a substantial number of local television stations across the United States, including several ABC affiliates and was going to stop carrying Kimmel.

Follow the money on this stuff. If Kimmel was making these companies millions, he would not have been cancelled.

 

[Darkwind]

No document, it was a verbal threat on a podcast.

The FCC commissioner Carr said, “Frankly, when you see stuff like this — I mean, we can do this the easy way or the hard way, 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.”

ABC responded to the pressure, just like social media responded to Biden pressure. Just because one side does it doesn’t mean the other side should do it. What if one day the government decides your speech is bad for America, then what, this is dangerous waters.

So, ABC should be above the law?

 

[Darkwind]

We don't need another baseless conspiracy theory.

You're leaving the forum?

 

[NetJedi]

O'Reilly made a good point this morning - he asserts the possibility that Kimmel was purposefully let go to create support for the left's claim of "censorship and cancel culture".

Kimmel wasn't "let go", his show "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" has been pre-empted (i.e. suspended) indefinitely, He's still under contract for the show and IMHO the show will most likely return for at least the balance of that contract.

According to ABC he'll still be on air hosting "Who wants to be a Millionaire?" as well.

 

[marvin martian]

Possibly the only time those two were remotely funny.

Corolla is still hilarious, and he got smarter. Kimmel just got dumb, bitter, and hateful.

 

[Darkwind]

Corolla is still hilarious, and he got smarter. Kimmel just got dumb, bitter, and hateful.

I don't really care for his type of humor. I've seen a few of his acts, and I'll admit, he had me laughing. But he really isn't my style.

 

[ColonelAngus]

The photo of Kimmel in blackface proves he is MAGA REPUBLICAN.

Look at the racist MAGA REPUBLICAN

 

[Cassandro]

The broadcast networks are scrambling to stay relevant. Their leftist comedians were undermining their credibility.

 

[odanny]

I love how the cult are saying Kimmel was fired over his ratings.

 

[Papageorgio]

It needs to be an actual action to be a violation.

Has any action been taken?

What law has he specifically broken?

The First Amendment does not just prohibit direct bans on speech. Courts have made clear that government threats, intimidation, or pressure that cause private actors to silence speech are themselves unconstitutional censorship. Two landmark cases show this principle across time:

1. Bantam Books v. Sullivan (1963): A Rhode Island commission sent “morality” notices to book distributors warning them about objectionable material. The notices carried no binding legal force, but implied prosecution if ignored. Distributors pulled books off shelves out of fear. The Supreme Court ruled this unconstitutional, holding that even “informal censorship” through threats violates the First Amendment.
2. Backpage v. Dart (2015): Sheriff Dart pressured Visa and MasterCard to stop serving Backpage.com by sending letters suggesting legal trouble. The Seventh Circuit struck this down, ruling that officials cannot “threaten or coerce” private intermediaries to shut down lawful speech. Judge Richard Posner wrote that when an official uses “actual or threatened imposition of government power” to close off avenues of expression, that is unconstitutional.

Together, these cases show a consistent principle across decades:

• Government cannot hide censorship behind private companies.
• Threats, even without formal legal action, are enough to chill speech and thus violate the First Amendment.

When an FCC commissioner tells ABC/Disney they can “do this the easy way or the hard way” over Jimmy Kimmel’s remarks, that is not just political bluster — it carries the weight of government authority. ABC’s broadcast licenses depend on FCC approval, so the threat has teeth.

Even if the FCC never follows through, the fear of retaliation can pressure ABC into silencing speech. Under Bantam Books and Backpage, that is unconstitutional censorship by indirect means.

Bottom Line

• Direct bans aren’t required for censorship — government threats alone can be unconstitutional.
• Courts have struck this down for books, for websites, and the same reasoning applies to broadcasters.
• If ABC suspended Kimmel because of FCC pressure, this situation fits squarely within the kind of unconstitutional coercion the courts have already condemned.

 

[Papageorgio]

I love how the cult are saying Kimmel was fired over his ratings.

No different than the left wing nuts, claiming Kirk’s murderer was a right wing, Christian.