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

[marvin martian]

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

LOL! Should they have waited for him to get to zero?

 

[martybegan]

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.

Well the latest SC decision says otherwise.

Justices side with Biden over government's influence on social media content moderation

 

[Papageorgio]

So, ABC should be above the law?

Never said that, I am saying the pressure Carr put on ABC is unconstitutional.

 

[martybegan]

LOL! Should they have waited for him to get to zero?

View attachment 1163545

What the data shows is it is a dying format in general.

 

[odanny]

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

Yea, it is kind of different. People didn't know who the murderer was, but we know that Kimmel wasn't canceled for his ratings.

You're part of the problem.

 

[Papageorgio]

Well the latest SC decision says otherwise.

Justices side with Biden over government's influence on social media content moderation

The Court didn’t clear the government — it said: we’re not ruling on the First Amendment claim because plaintiffs lack standing. But it reaffirmed the principle: persuasion is okay, coercion is unconstitutional.

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

 

[Darkwind]

Never said that, I am saying the pressure Carr put on ABC is unconstitutional.

It is not.

An action might be unconstitutional, but sending a warning shot about not breaking the law is not.

 

[Papageorgio]

Yea, it is kind of different. People didn't know who the murderer was, but we know that Kimmel wasn't canceled for his ratings.

You're part of the problem.

The suspect’s online behavior and message content suggesting opposition to Kirk’s views.

The discovered engravings or ideological references (anti-fascist, etc.).

Official preliminary statements by the governor and law enforcement hinting at that ideological leaning.

These combine to give a plausible narrative that the suspect was ideologically motivated along lines that are more associated with left or progressive ideas.

Your silly “you are part of the problem” Bull shit is just that and a way to demean, and negate a differing opinion.

 

[Papageorgio]

It is not.

An action might be unconstitutional, but sending a warning shot about not breaking the law is not.

What law did ABC or Kimmel break?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Does these words you chose to use to describe your fellow Americans considered "hate speech" under Trump's American Reich?

^^More hateful rhetoric by the left ie nazi terminology. Can you not learn, Marc?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Under the table or over the table, our government has not right business interfering with the free speech of anyone. The FCC used a weapon to cancel Kimmel, and that is wrong. The idea behind the 1st Amendment is a basic right of being able to express our opinion, no matter how disgusting, hateful, or depraved it maybe, the government cannot censure us.

If ABC wanted to fire Kimmel, not a problem, but a government ultimatum is wrong.

How so? ABC wanted to fire Kimmel because two major broadcast firms were dropping his show. What did the FCC have to do with that?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Where are you dreaming this stuff up from? None of that happened! You are just assuming based on nothing!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Never said that, I am saying the pressure Carr put on ABC is unconstitutional.

Well, except he did nothing of the sort.

 

[Papageorgio]

How so? ABC wanted to fire Kimmel because two major broadcast firms were dropping his show. What did the FCC have to do with that?

Nexstar the largest of the two companies, is acquiring a company and they need FCC approval to make the move and they waited to pull the show right after the FCC chairman made his comments. Seems obvious as to why, all of a sudden they wanted to drop Kimmel.

 

[Edgetho]

I'm not celebrating. I haven't watched him since the Man Show.

Maybe he should go back to girls on Trampolines.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Nexstar the largest of the two companies, is acquiring a company and they need FCC approval to make the move and they waited to pull the show right after the FCC chairman made his comments. Seems obvious as to why, all of a sudden they wanted to drop Kimmel.

The one FCC commissioner doesn't make that decision. Also, wouldn't that be a concern of the FTC also?

Got a link?

 

[justoffal]

Kimmel was a ratings disaster and about as funny as bone cancer. The anti-Free speech narrative is laughable since everyone on the Left was tromping all over free speech during the George Floyd Mania.

I mean the other late night assholes are easily just as bad.....

Jo

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

That's a girl OFF a trampoline!

 

[justoffal]

Nexstar the largest of the two companies, is acquiring a company and they need FCC approval to make the move and they waited to pull the show right after the FCC chairman made his comments. Seems obvious as to why, all of a sudden they wanted to drop Kimmel.

They were looking for a reason .....
It actually bailed them out.