1 edit
@chessgirlzzz saidSue the FCC, not his employer, for violating his civil rights.
Sue for what? Being suspended?
His contract is up in the spring.
ABC will pay him until then and no more contracts.
Sue them for what exactly?
"The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” The clause applies to any government action, whether federal, state, or local. Individuals may be able to challenge violations of their free speech rights in a variety of ways. One basis
for such a challenge may be that an official took adverse action against an individual in response to the individual engaging in protected speech—often known as a First Amendment retaliation claim."
https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB11338/LSB11338.1.pdf
EDIT: Might also get a Congressional investigation even with a Republican Congress; Ted Cruz lashed out at FCC chief Carr for acting like he was in Goodfellas. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ted-cruz-compares-fcc-chair-to-mafia-boss-over-his-kimmel-warning/ar-AA1MUViq?ocid=BingNewsSerp
@no1marauder saidIm pretty sure you know that many kinds of speech is not protected under the first ammendment .. here are some examples from Google,
Sue the FCC, not his employer, for violating his civil rights.
"The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” The clause applies to any government action, whether federal, state, or local. Individuals may be able to challenge violations of their free speech rights in a variety of ways. [b ...[text shortened]... ation claim.[/b]"
https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB11338/LSB11338.1.pdf
Incitement to Imminent Lawless Action: Speech that directly encourages people to commit unlawful acts.
True Threats: Statements that express a serious intent to commit an unlawful act of violence.
Fighting Words: Speech that is personally abusive and likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction.
Obscenity: Speech that is deemed obscene under strict legal standards.
Defamation: False statements about an individual that harm their reputation (libel for written, slander for spoken).
@Rajk999 saidYes, I know that.
Im pretty sure you know that many kinds of speech is not protected under the first ammendment .. here are some examples from Google,
Incitement to Imminent Lawless Action: Speech that directly encourages people to commit unlawful acts.
True Threats: Statements that express a serious intent to commit an unlawful act of violence.
Fighting Words: Speech that is personally ...[text shortened]... e statements about an individual that harm their reputation (libel for written, slander for spoken).
Kimmel's sentence doesn't go anywhere near any of those categories.
@no1marauder
Sue the FCC?
You do realize that the FCC can use any comments Kimmel made, even in the past, against him right?
Kimmel has no grounds for any lawsuits.
@chessgirlzzz saidAgainst him ............................ for what?
@no1marauder
Sue the FCC?
You do realize that the FCC can use any comments Kimmel made, even in the past, against him right?
Kimmel has no grounds for any lawsuits.
Did you bother to look at that SCOTUS case? He has the same grounds the NRA did but public statements by the dimwitted FCC chairman proving it unlike that one.
@chessgirlzzz saidBut why would they, except at the direction of our child president?
@no1marauder
Sue the FCC?
You do realize that the FCC can use any comments Kimmel made, even in the past, against him right?
Kimmel has no grounds for any lawsuits.
And isn't the primary avenue for resolving a government entity denying your rights the courts?
This is why we have three government branches, yeah?
@Suzianne saidHey burrito face,
But why would they, except at the direction of our child president?
And isn't the primary avenue for resolving a government entity denying your rights the courts?
This is why we have three government branches, yeah?
Obama and his partner Big Mike, had Rosanne cancelled. It's all over X.
Rosanne herself posting about it.
Thanks to Elon Musk for real free speech.
@chessgirlzzz saidX is Elon Musk's mouthpiece.
Hey burrito face,
Obama and his partner Big Mike, had Rosanne cancelled. It's all over X.
Rosanne herself posting about it.
Thanks to Elon Musk for real free speech.
Rosanne is free to get employment wherever she can.
Maybe she'll learn to keep her heinous comments to herself. Not interested in the slightest in anything she has to say. And people on X are free to respond to the crap she says in any way they see fit. The First Amendment stands. It's only violated when the government silences you by threat or intimidation. By definition, citizens are free to criticize the president. He's not free to silence them by any and all means at his disposal.
Tired of all the thin-skinned far right idiots. Including the one in the Oval Office. Be a man, Donald.
@no1marauder saidI would guess it would come close to defamation.
Yes, I know that.
Kimmel's sentence doesn't go anywhere near any of those categories.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidYou seriously asking that question? FCC was cow towing to Trump, Trump hates Kimmel, Carr goes, I can fix that for you. So much for independence from POTUS.
what was the fcc role?
Trump wants to control every aspect of ALL our lives. When the economy takes a big dump because of Tariff's Trump will just blame democrats, he is incapable of of responsibility. That word is for anyone else on the planet, NOT Trump.
2 edits
@sh76 saidApologize to who? Multiple reports from where?
Multiple reports are now saying Kimmel was suspended by ABC because he refused to apologize for his patently absurd statements about the Kirk death... and that his continuing suspension might be based on his continual refusal.
"Patently absurd"? It was accurate to say MAGA types were anxious to score political points if the shooter wasn't right wing, inaccurate to weakly suggest he might be.
And none of that changes the fact that the FCC acted unconstitutionally under clear SCOTUS precedent reaffirmed unanimously just last year.
The "two sides are equally to blame" game doesn't work here.
EDIT: Sinclair, run by a big Trump supporter, wants him to apologize (again to who?) AND give a sizable donation to Kirk's right wing organization, Of course, Kimmel refused to do that though he offered to "clarify" his remark according to the NY Post. https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/jimmy-kimmel-digs-in-refuses-to-apologize-for-charlie-kirk-comments-after-abc-pulls-his-show-indefinitely/ar-AA1MRzhq
I'm sure its been said, but just in case.
Cancel culture cancelled people because they flouted accepted societal standards. Roseanne was cancelled because she conflated a black person with a character from the planet of the Apes. Her supporters claimed she got cancelled because she supported Trump. Most people disagreed.
Colbert and Kimmel were cancelled for making political comment and because Trump is so sensitive he can influence the awarding of mergers and licenses through the FCC.
Now if you can't see the difference then me arguing about it won't make a difference. But there you have it.
5 edits
@sh76 saidUgh. Apologize to the fascists for a joke that didn't even come close to "patently absurd."? It wasn't even about Kirks death at all. It was about the rights absurd rush to say the shooter was this or that or whatever without any information.
Multiple reports are now saying Kimmel was suspended by ABC because he refused to apologize for his patently absurd statements about the Kirk death... and that his continuing suspension might be based on his continual refusal.
In fact the MAGA response to his joke proved exactly what he was talking about about. They are obsessed with characterizing the shooting was motivated by left wing hatred, because doing that helps them politically.