Kimmel not fired and returning tomorrow

@no1marauder said
Government officials have the same right to freedom of speech as anybody else. Carr was free to say ABC should fire Kimmel; but he violated the First Amendment when he threatened governmental action if they didn't punish him for his speech.

Learn the difference.

But they were using their positions in the Administration to threaten it.....You claim to be a lawyer, what's that stuff about Agency and Vicarious Liability for the people you put in power to represent you?

@Mott-The-Hoople said
"By now, you know the FCC chief threatened ABC and its affiliates with retaliatory regulatory action'
a lie...no need to go any further

You don't seem to have any concept of what a lie is:

"Appearing on Benny Johnson’s podcast on Wednesday, Carr suggested that the FCC has “remedies we can look at.”

“We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr said. “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.”

https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/brendan-carr-abc-fcc-jimmy-kimmel-charlie-kirk-1236522406/

@Cliff-Mashburn said
But they were using their positions in the Administration to threaten it.....You claim to be a lawyer, what's that stuff about Agency and Vicarious Liability for the people you put in power to represent you?

Show the threat, please.

@no1marauder said
Show the threat, please.

No I'm not going around in circles with you on that, you are blind to what they were saying.
No matter what I come up with you will just say it didn't happen.

@Cliff-Mashburn said
No I'm not going around in circles with you on that, you are blind to what they were saying.
No matter what I come up with you will just say it didn't happen.

IF you can show it happened, show it. The SCOTUS doesn't seem to think anything the Biden administration did in the cases you are referring to amounted to 1st Amendment violations, however.

@Mott-The-Hoople said
"By now, you know the FCC chief threatened ABC and its affiliates with retaliatory regulatory action'
a lie...no need to go any further

I am not quite with snippy remarks, I am only putting out one hypocritical thin

For a platform or a station or a media to be taken off the air is called a fascist thing to do. They tried to make Trump off of the Twitter, but they, whoever they are, are saying today that Kimmel should not be taken off the air. So kick Trump off but dont kick Kimmell off. Can anybody say somethign about that. i just throw i out here.

@no1marauder said
IF you can show it happened, show it. The SCOTUS doesn't seem to think anything the Biden administration did in the cases you are referring to amounted to 1st Amendment violations, however.

THAT'S NOT what SCOTUS said....They just said it didn't meet their standards for reviewing it.
For a lawyer you seem to be wrong about a lot of things.

@Cliff-Mashburn said
No I'm not going around in circles with you on that, you are blind to what they were saying.
No matter what I come up with you will just say it didn't happen.

No matter what? How about anything?

There's a very detailed legal case, SCOTUS decision, and paper trail showing that the Biden administration did not do what you're claiming they did.

@Cliff-Mashburn said
THAT'S NOT what SCOTUS said....They just said it didn't meet their standards for reviewing it.
For a lawyer you seem to be wrong about a lot of things.

They did review it. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf

"The primary weakness in the record of past restrictions
is the lack of specific causation findings with respect to any
discrete instance of content moderation. The District Court
made none. Nor did the Fifth Circuit, which approached
standing at a high level of generality. The platforms, it rea
soned, “have engaged in censorship of certain viewpoints on
key issues,” while “the government has engaged in a years
long pressure campaign” to ensure that the platforms sup
press those viewpoints. 83 F. 4th, at 370. The platforms’
“censorship decisions”—including those affecting the plain
tiffs—were thus “likely attributable at least in part to the
platforms’ reluctance to risk” the consequences of refusing
to “adhere to the government’s directives.” Ibid.

We reject this overly broad assertion. As already dis
cussed, the platforms moderated similar content long before
any of the Government defendants engaged in the chal
lenged conduct.
In fact, the platforms, acting inde
pendently, had strengthened their pre-existing content
moderation policies before the Government defendants got
involved. For instance, Facebook announced an expansion
of its COVID–19 misinformation policies in early February
2021, before White House officials began communicating
with the platform. And the platforms continued to exercise
their independent judgment even after communications
with the defendants began. For example, on several occa
sions, various platforms explained that White House offi
cials had flagged content that did not violate company pol
icy. Moreover, the platforms did not speak only with the
defendants about content moderation; they also regularly
consulted with outside experts.
This evidence indicates that the platforms had independ
ent incentives to moderate content and often exercised their
own judgment. To be sure, the record reflects that the Gov
ernment defendants played a role in at least some of the
platforms’ moderation choices. But the Fifth Circuit, by at
tributing every platform decision at least in part to the de
ffendants, glossed over complexities in the evidence.4

pp. 11-12

Heck, even 2 of Trump's three appointees voted with the majority.

@MickeyD said
I am not quite with snippy remarks, I am only putting out one hypocritical thin

For a platform or a station or a media to be taken off the air is called a fascist thing to do. They tried to make Trump off of the Twitter, but they, whoever they are, are saying today that Kimmel should not be taken off the air. So kick Trump off but dont kick Kimmell off. Can anybody say somethign about that. i just throw i out here.

Twitter kicked Trump off Twitter without the government threatening them if they didn't do so.

@Mott-The-Hoople said
You are lying, Trump admin never said that.
Why do you lie all the time?

Of course he did say it, where do you think the quote came from?

-VR

@no1marauder said
You don't seem to have any concept of what a lie is:

"Appearing on Benny Johnson’s podcast on Wednesday, Carr suggested that the FCC has “remedies we can look at.”

“We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr said. “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.”

https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/brendan-carr-abc-fcc-jimmy-kimmel-charlie-kirk-1236522406/

Carr advised what could be done lawfully. Yes, the FCC does have responsibilities on broadcast television as much as you try to pretend they don’t.

Biden admin “pressured” media to take unlawful action. The FCC has no authority there. No govt agency should have contacted Facebook, twitter or google

That is your error.

@Very-Rusty said
Of course he did say it, where do you think the quote came from?

-VR

I didn’t claim he didn’t say it.

What is wrong with explaining the laws?

@Mott-The-Hoople said
I didn’t claim he didn’t say it.

What is wrong with explaining the laws?

I don't believe Trump knows the laws, he sure doesn't follow them or the 1rst Amendment which POTUS'S have went by for years!!!

-vR

@Mott-The-Hoople said
Carr advised what could be done lawfully. Yes, the FCC does have responsibilities on broadcast television as much as you try to pretend they don’t.

Biden admin “pressured” media to take unlawful action. The FCC has no authority there. No govt agency should have contacted Facebook, twitter or google

That is your error.

The FCC has no "responsibility" to suppress protected speech.

Government agencies can contact whoever they want.

Both of your arguments are ridiculous. For clarification:

" A government official can share her views freely and crit
icize particular beliefs, and she can do so forcefully in the
hopes of persuading others to follow her lead. In doing so,
she can rely on the merits and force of her ideas, the
strength of her convictions, and her ability to inspire others.
What she cannot do, however, is use the power of the State
to punish or suppress disfavored expression.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-842_6kg7.pdf at 8-9.