Was Kimmel's firing a threat to democracy or did he just have bad ratings because he told half of his audience not to watch the show and refused to cooperate when the owners of the network told him to quit being a problem? Two top distributors who controlled major markets told ABC they would stop showing Kimmel's show in those markets, costing ABC a big chunk of ad dollars. Money talks.

Might be worth reading a few different stories to find out all aspects.

By MarkSHoyle (Bolo) on Friday, September 19, 2025 - 02:37 pm: Edit

Someone posted that the sponsors of at least two locals threatened to pull out, the stations contacted the network and refused to broadcast his show....
How much that action accounted for the firing wasn't stated...

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Friday, September 19, 2025 - 03:40 pm: Edit

WebMom? I would like to apologize in advance if this is too political. Please feel free to delete it.....

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Friday, September 19, 2025 - 05:26 pm: Edit

When the FCC Chair declares that "we can do this the easy way or the hard way...These companies can find ways to change conduct to take action on Kimmel or, you know, there's going to be additional work for the FCC ahead," and two hours later the target of his ire is suspended, we have a problem. When the President of the United States says that networks that are critical of him "maybe should lose their licenses", we have a problem.

The First Amendment isn't there to protect popular speech; no protection of such is necessary. It's there to protect unpopular speech, and is specifically there to protect speech critical of those in power. Likewise the freedom of the press, which is also under assault, from the same FCC Chair and the same President.

To quote from a certain starship captain on a certain television show: These words and the words that follow were not not written written only for the Yangs, but for the Kohms as well! They must apply to everyone, or they mean nothing!

By Roger Rardain (Sky_Captain) on Friday, September 19, 2025 - 05:49 pm: Edit

Must.

Not.

Respond.

(With recent examples of freedom of speech issues. I like my feet and legs...)

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, September 19, 2025 - 07:10 pm: Edit

I'll respond.

Being a lawyer, I'm a huge fan of the 1st amendment. You don't have it in most of the "free" world - like in European countries, for example, and they limit what they call "hate speech" all the time.

The result is a lot of anger and, ironically, their divisions may actually be worse because of the oppression. So, limiting speech unnecessarily is a bad idea.

Yes, there are limits to the 1st amendment. The classic example is you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. You can't call for direct and immediate violence.

However, I STRONGLY believe that even speech that is deemed "hateful" by one side or another should be permitted. People should not lose their jobs over unpopular positions, unless those jobs are directly related to being popular (e.g., politician, entertainer, etc.) and even then they're not fired - they lose their jobs simply because they're out voted (politician) or don't get enough fans (entertainer).

I will defend the right of the KKK to speak peacefully in public.

I will defend the right of radical communists to speak peacefully in public.

I will defend the right of Christians to speak peacefully in public.

I will defend the right of atheists to speak peacefully in public.

I will defend the right of liberals to say what they want in public, and conservatives to say what they want in public.

I may disagree with some of that speech, but the solution to "hateful" ideologies is not to oppress them - but rather to bring them into the open and then do our logical best to show at least others that they are not correct or not helpful, or both.

Who knows. Maybe you'll change hearts and minds. It does happen, even to civilizations.


My speech is this: Unless we back off from the demonization of other human beings we will devolve to the laws of physics (i.e., the Law of the Gun). And *that* is a place we should not go and - if there already - leave forthwith. A rather sardonic quip sums it up nicely: War does not determine who is right, only who is left.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Friday, September 19, 2025 - 07:33 pm: Edit

Well said, Ted. Or as one of my former squadron-mates put it in somewhat more entertaining fashion, "I will gladly fight and die for your right to burn in **** if you want to."

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, September 19, 2025 - 07:53 pm: Edit

Jessica: There is a difference between hateful speech and outright lies to mislead the public, which is what the FCC cited. The FCC did not threaten Kimmel for being hateful or critical; they threatened him for lying to the public, deliberately misleading them, in violation of the requirement to serve the public interest.

Kimmel has been saying hateful things about Trump and MAGA for a decade and Trump never tried to shut him down. Kimmel got fired when he deliberately lied specifically to deceive the public, then refused to say what ABC told him to say: “I am sorry, the information I gave was found to be incorrect. Actually it was known to be incorrect hours before I said it and we just didn’t check. We will do better.” This gave the network an excuse to exercise a clause in his contract and get rid of a money losing show. Hours of negotiations between ABC and Kimmel had deadlocked. ABC has been trying to tone him down for over a year. I suspect that ABCis negotiating cuts in his pay and budget and changes to his subject matter before relaunching his show. Johnny Carson went decades with getting into politics, and Kimmel’s THE MAN SHOW was hilarious and never political.

Then again, Gutfeld is the top rated show with 1/20th of Kimmel’s budget.

I will certainly agree that it is wrong for a president or anyone in government power to threaten a tv show for just being critical or hateful. Deliberately lying to influence the public is wrong and the FCC is right to stomp on it.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, September 19, 2025 - 10:27 pm: Edit

Martin Sheen has offered to take over as host of Kimmel’s show. Gutfeld admitted that Martin would beat him in the ratings.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, September 19, 2025 - 10:29 pm: Edit

Mark H: actually it was not two local stations but two companies that owned 62 of the approx 266 affiliated local stations. I don’t think two local stations would convince ABC of anything, but those two companies generate a sizable fraction of their profit.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, September 20, 2025 - 12:03 am: Edit

Lots has been said that Jimmy Kimmel freedom of speech has been limited.

Not true, his comments were broadcast, and it appears very few viewers actually heard what he said.

The United States Constitution guarantees mr Kimmel's right to free speech.

What the constitution does not guarantee, is mr. Kimmel's job. He has no right to force his employer to continue broadcasting his program at a loss.

He is welcome to find another employer or do his own podcast.

Look at Colbert for another example.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, September 20, 2025 - 02:31 am: Edit

Well said, Ted, but that isn't what Kimmel was suspended for.

I swore an oath to defend the constitution and by that I am obliged to fight to the death to defend Kimmel's right to say "Trump is a bad president" but I am not obliged to defend his right to deliberately mislead the public or his right to a multi-million dollar salary and budget to put on a show that loses money because his audience didn't think he was funny any more.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, September 20, 2025 - 05:22 am: Edit

From someone looking in and from my laymans point of view, isn't the issue

1) What person X says is designed to cause harm (yelling Fire in the crowded theatre is an excellent example from Ted - and the more modern version shouting 'bomb' in an Airport).

Perhaps 'stupid' and/or "likely to cause harm" covers this?

2) The second is perhaps the harder one - at what point does 'free speech' become incitement to commmit violence?

Hopefully the following example is OK

A) I don't like people from Mars
B) I hate people from Mars
C) I want to kill people from Mars
D) We should kill people from Mars
E) You should kill people from Mars


The added complexity I think is HOW you pass that information on.

If I speak loudly in a Coffee Shop - 20 people might hear and 1 person might take what I say wongly - they may or may not take it further.

If I say it on the TV or Radio and 1,000,0000 hear and the same 5% what I say wrongly... that 50,000 who may or may not take it further AND crucially, some may be in a position actually do something.

A to C is perhaps up to the limit for the Coffee Shop - but C and over crosses the line on the latter?

Although not in the same league = - but in the UK last year we had something similar with Gary Linekar - a (now Ex-) BBC Sports Presenter.

Depending on what your own view are would dictate how far 'off piste' he went - but the average person I think said "I pay for his Salary (The BBC is paid for by a 'TV Licence' - and Gary was the highest paid BBC employee) and he can say what he likes - but he can do that on his own time and not while he is paid to do an actual job".

So very much along the lines of SVC Entertainer comment - he used HIS Freedom of Speech to say what he liked - but everyone else used their rights to say commercially "Bye Bye".

So it up to a certain level, the sensibility question remains - 'don't bite the hand that feeds you' - but above that level, care about not being stupid or causing incitement comes into play.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, September 20, 2025 - 09:34 am: Edit

Major earthquake near Kamchatka caused huge tsunami waves.

By MarkSHoyle (Bolo) on Saturday, September 20, 2025 - 09:54 am: Edit

Checking out after breakfast Monday morning....
Tuesday at lunch, first thing, the waitress came to the table and related to me, the guys behind me in line were Gay....
I was discussing that the shooters roommate/bf was trans....
Apparently they were unhappy with the discussion, though nothing hateful or anti anything was being discussed....

In a related theme.... Have caught several discussions where Gays (The LGB part) are not happy about the rest of that alphabet salad, saying their activism makes the whole group look bad....

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, September 20, 2025 - 10:13 am: Edit

On a lighter note, Jon Stewart produced a hilarious send up of Trump’s government crackdown on comedy shows, he was genuinely funny and uproariously political.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Saturday, September 20, 2025 - 11:34 am: Edit

As it happens, FCC standards regarding false information are posted at the FCC site, and are as follows:

The FCC prohibits broadcasting false information about a crime or a catastrophe if the broadcaster knows the information is false and will cause substantial “public harm” if aired.

FCC rules specifically say that the “public harm must begin immediately, and cause direct and actual damage to property or to the health or safety of the general public, or diversion of law enforcement or other public health and safety authorities from their duties.”

In no way did Mr. Kimmel's comments rise to this standard. For reference, this was the phrase which the FCC Chair found so objectionable as to call for his firing: "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." Is that phrase opinionated? You betcha. Is it a falsehood or misinformation? Uncertain, as we do not know the motives (or indeed, identity) of the referenced "MAGA gang" to which Mr. Kimmel referred. Is it something that the broadcaster knew to be a falsehood or misinformation? Even less certain. Does it in any way rise to the level of public harm that triggers FCC action? No.

The FCC Chair engaged in conduct which violated the First Amendment. In an unexpected and somewhat remarkable event, Sen. Tex Cruz (R-TX) has issued a statement to that effect, referring to the Chair's conduct as "unbelievably dangerous" and "right out of Goodfellas".

By MarkSHoyle (Bolo) on Saturday, September 20, 2025 - 12:07 pm: Edit

re: Comedy Crackdown...

Not a crackdown (though some may see it that way), the years around Covid where the Woke Activists went full cancel culture on Club Comedians...
It seemed Comedy was about to be buried...
Then Chappelle stepped up and told everyone to shove that.....

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, September 20, 2025 - 02:10 pm: Edit

Jessica is just wrong. The deliberately deceitful lies did indeed rise to the standard. Kimmel could not have not known he was lying. He would have had to be deliberately ignoring tons of information available to the public. At best, his staff would have had to be keeping him locked up away from information sources and deliberately keeping the truth from him. It was a lie when he said it, and he either knew it or his staff had programmed him to lie for the specific purpose of deceiving the public, which he was all too eager to do so. (Kimmel repeatedly bragged that his expert staff checked everything he said to be sure it was factual.) All he had to do to save his show was admit he was wrong (Which he repeatedly said he would do with any mistake) and by the time ABC told him to apologize or get suspended, there is no chance in any reality that he was not absolutely convinced that he had been caught in a lie, but he demanded the right to continue the deliberately deceitful lie.

The killer was not MAGA.

At this point, the Comedy Crackdown discussion is at an end.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, September 20, 2025 - 02:57 pm: Edit

On another matter, there was an incident at the Arizona stadium where Mr. Kirks funeral service is to be held. Both BP Vance and the president are said to be in attendance on Sunday.
An armed man who was allegedly posing as a member of law enforcement was arrested by Secret Service agents at the Arizona stadium where Charlie Kirk’s funeral will be held Sunday, according to reports.

Joshua Runkles – who was allegedly carrying a knife, a gun and expired law enforcement credentials –was detained inside State Farm Stadium, home to the NFL’s Arizona Cardinals, in Glendale on Friday, The Washington Post reported, citing a law enforcement official familiar with the incident.

Runkles, 42, told Secret Service agents he was at the site to provide private security and handed them “inactive law enforcement credentials,”

The incident occurred before the secret service established the security perimeter in and around the stadium.

May be nothing, but security for the funeral service has been put in the same category as a Super Bowl event.

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Saturday, September 20, 2025 - 05:47 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

May be nothing, but security for the funeral service has been put in the same category as a Super Bowl event.

---

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, September 20, 2025 - 06:31 pm: Edit

If the president is there, security will be high.

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Saturday, September 20, 2025 - 07:09 pm: Edit

Exactly, also note the Nelson Mandela funeral, there were a lot of important world leaders there, and the fake sign language guy still made it in.

EVERYTHING has to be gone over with a fine tooth comb.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, September 20, 2025 - 08:03 pm: Edit

UPDATE:

The individual arrested on Friday has been charged with a felony, impersonating a law enforcement officer, and a misdemeanor charge of carrying a fire arm in a prohibited area.

The weapons have been confiscated, and the person was released on bail. No information as to if a court date has been set.

There is concern about what the persons intent was.

By Robert Russell Lender (Rusman) on Sunday, September 21, 2025 - 07:54 am: Edit

Well it wasn't Private Security.