1 edit
@Mott-The-Hoople said"The agency is prohibited by law from engaging in censorship or infringing on First Amendment rights of the press. "
Oh but it does have an obligation to prevent broadcast news distortion
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/fcc-and-speech
"The FCC will only investigate claims that include evidence showing that the broadcast news report was deliberately intended to mislead viewers or listeners. Evidence may include testimony from persons who have direct personal knowledge of an intentional falsification of the news (for example, written or oral instructions from station management, outtakes, or evidence of bribery). Without such documented evidence, the FCC generally cannot intervene. The FCC does not investigate claims of collateral inaccuracy in news reports or differences of opinion over the truth or validity of aspects of a news program."
https://www.fcc.gov/broadcast-news-distortion
@no1marauder saidWhy do you keep implying that the right to free speech also means the right to not be fired by an employer because of that speech?
Sometimes you have to make an unequivocal stand and not play the "whataboutism" game.
The FCC's role in getting Kimmel cancelled was a textbook violation of the 1st Amendment. That's all that was needed to be said, not a rambling discourse trying to find blame to even things out.
You act like Kimmel made a post on his day off and was then fired.
He was at work and on screen when he made his comments and after it was known the shooter was a tranny lover and recently turned left radically.
The network asked him to apologize and he said no.
Quit trying to tell everyone here that his rights were violated. You look foolish.
1 edit
@no1marauder said“showing that the broadcast news report was deliberately intended to mislead viewers or listeners. ”
"The agency is prohibited by law from engaging in censorship or infringing on First Amendment rights of the press. "
"The FCC will only investigate claims that include evidence showing that the broadcast news report was deliberately intended to mislead viewers or listeners. Evidence may include testimony from persons who have direct personal knowledge of an intentional ...[text shortened]... ruth or validity of aspects of a news program.[/b]"
https://www.fcc.gov/broadcast-news-distortion
Thx for proving my point
@Mott-The-Hoople saidA) It wasn't a broadcast news report;
“showing that the broadcast news report was deliberately intended to mislead viewers or listeners. ”
Thx for proving my point
B) There's no evidence Kimmel was deliberately misleading anyone.
1 edit
@chessgirlzzz saidHe was fired only after the head of the FCC threatened retaliatory regulatory action against his employer and their affiliates.
Why do you keep implying that the right to free speech also means the right to not be fired by an employer because of that speech?
You act like Kimmel made a post on his day off and was then fired.
He was at work and on screen when he made his comments and after it was known the shooter was a tranny lover and recently turned left radically.
The network asked him t ...[text shortened]... nd he said no.
Quit trying to tell everyone here that his rights were violated. You look foolish.
Stop pretending otherwise.
EDIT: Technically, he wasn't fired; his show was taken off the air.
@no1marauder saidThat is the FCC's job.
He was fired only after the head of the FCC threatened retaliatory regulatory action against his employer and their affiliates.
Stop pretending otherwise.
EDIT: Technically, he wasn't fired; his show was taken off the air.
You want them to not do their job?
Kimmel was blatantly lying about known facts.
He's also been lying for years and his ratings are abysmal. Only 100k for the 18-49 age group.
@chessgirlzzz saidI'll remind you what the SCOTUS said last year (in a case favoring the NRA BTW):
Why do you keep implying that the right to free speech also means the right to not be fired by an employer because of that speech?
You act like Kimmel made a post on his day off and was then fired.
He was at work and on screen when he made his comments and after it was known the shooter was a tranny lover and recently turned left radically.
The network asked him t ...[text shortened]... nd he said no.
Quit trying to tell everyone here that his rights were violated. You look foolish.
"" Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish
or suppress views that the government disfavors." https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-842_6kg7.pdf
@chessgirlzzz saidThe FCC's own publications show otherwise; they consistently admit they cannot censor First Amendment protected speech.
That is the FCC's job.
You want them to not do their job?
Kimmel was blatantly lying about known facts.
He's also been lying for years and his ratings are abysmal. Only 100k for the 18-49 age group.
His ratings are none of the FCC's business.
@no1marauder saidLying about known facts and trying to make people think that tranny lover was Maga is not a "difference of opinion"
I'll remind you what the SCOTUS said last year (in a case favoring the NRA BTW):
"" Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish
or suppress views that the government disfavors." https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-842_6kg7.pdf
1 edit
@chessgirlzzz saidHe should sue. He'd win the case easily. And it would send a message to the thugs in this administration.
He's gone.
Get over it.
@no1marauder saidOh ya?
He should sue. He'd win the case easily. And it would send a message to the thugs in this administration.
A waiter presents food and says "this is what fat people eat"
The restaurant fires him.
He can sue and win?
2 edits
@chessgirlzzz saidYou guys throw the words "lie" and "lying" around a lot.
Lying about known facts and trying to make people think that tranny lover was Maga is not a "difference of opinion"
You still don't know what it means.
There was plenty of speculation about the shooter's motives in the days following the killing - heck we even had posters suggesting Israel might have done it because Kirk wasn't sufficiently supportive of its war. Robinson is a Mormon, comes from a very conservative family, likes guns, etc. etc. so there was speculation he might have shot Kirk for not being MAGA enough. That turns out not to be true - though he has no ties to any leftist organization and doesn't even vote - but it's unclear what was known AS A FACT when Kimmel taped that show. From the FCC:
"The FCC does not investigate claims of collateral inaccuracy in news reports or differences of opinion over the truth or validity of aspects of a news program."
The comment was too off-hand and vague to actually be trying to convince people anything except you guys are trying to score political points for Kirk's killing - which is obviously true. ""We hit some new lows over the weekend with 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."
Actually, it doesn't even claim he's MAGA, just that you guys were desperate to characterize him as not being so. A weak implication at best.
1 edit
@chessgirlzzz saidLook over the SCOTUS case I gave a link to before you make some more idiotic comments.
Oh ya?
A waiter presents food and says "this is what fat people eat"
The restaurant fires him.
He can sue and win?
That this administration would stoop to such extreme measures against an entertainer who spends 90% of his show's time in banal chit chat with celebrities shows what petty fascists they are.
@no1marauder saidSue for what? Being suspended?
He should sue. He'd win the case easily. And it would send a message to the thugs in this administration.
His contract is up in the spring.
ABC will pay him until then and no more contracts.
Sue them for what exactly?