Abc Yanks Jimmy Kimmel’s Show ‘indefinitely’ After Threat From Fcc Chair
Posted4 months agoActive4 months ago
cnn.comOtherstoryHigh profile
heatednegative
Debate
90/100
CensorshipFree SpeechCancel Culture
Key topics
Censorship
Free Speech
Cancel Culture
ABC pulls Jimmy Kimmel's show 'indefinitely' after FCC chair Brendan Carr threatens action over Kimmel's comments on Charlie Kirk's death, sparking debate on censorship and free speech.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
13m
Peak period
129
0-6h
Avg / period
22.9
Comment distribution160 data points
Loading chart...
Based on 160 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Sep 17, 2025 at 7:00 PM EDT
4 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Sep 17, 2025 at 7:13 PM EDT
13m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
129 comments in 0-6h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Sep 20, 2025 at 7:15 AM EDT
4 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45282482Type: storyLast synced: 11/22/2025, 11:47:55 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
The real danger here is that ABC did it before the White House ordered or told them too.
Fascists rise in power the more scared we are to speak.
We've sure come a long way from The Man Show.
One of the defining characteristics of the right is not placing any value on logical consistency. Being a hypocrite will not lose you any support with them.
You can go a lot further back than that. McCarthyism was a powerful cancel culture and vestiges of that still manifest today. Linguistically, the weird and inexplicable way anything to the left of fascism in America can be described as "communism" if someone is in the mood to be pejorative is a vestige of McCarthy, or something even further back from the First Red Scare, I think.
There have been a number of studies around the world, plus some real world examples (Utah gubernatorial 2020) where showing your opponents in a sympathetic light can make a big difference in reductions in political polarization.
It’s especially effective when signaled by the “elite”: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00323217241300...
Edit: I hear plenty of stories of people abandoning family members over a difference of political opinion. My MIL won’t talk to a niece of hers after the niece made the same decision. I won’t go so far as to say that’s never warranted, but it seems these days that it’s happening a lot more.
To me, this implies we’re losing acceptability of political “others”.
Turn on the largest mainstream media "news" channel, and you'll hear nothing but mindless hate for 20 hours a day, without consideration for what actual news is occurring.
So up until this point it was perfectly acceptable? Or is this only an issue when the wrong side does it in a fairly moderate way (since the other side regularly and openly embraces and encourages political violence).
However, some people support and vote for, a president who has told his supporters to perform acts of violence against those whose speech he disagrees with, clearly a portion of the population doesn't mind.
All you’re doing is ensuring the strength of their beliefs.
Edit: You don’t have to like someone to not actively attack them at every opportunity, even if what they believe is reprehensible to you.
I think this is being seriously accelerated by Trump. Why should I treat those I disagree with with dignity and respect when the President (who theoretically is a leader for all Americans, not just the people who voted for him) says things like this?
"And when you look at the agitator, you look at the scum that speaks so badly of our country, the American flag burnings all over the place, that’s the left. That’s not the right."
When Trump and Vance start setting a positive example for others to follow, maybe I'll rethink my position, but leadership and accountability start at the top.
Have you been in a coma for that decade?
He’s definitely right with that sentence. Do you not think it’s generally true that the right has been on the defensive with regards to cancel culture, and thus is constantly preaching about how cancelling is wrong?
The few times they’ve gotten to go on the offensive, they play the same game, cancelling whoever it is they’re upset about. It’s horseshoe theory all over again.
Ezra Klein, who I generally respect, said he got more crap over
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/11/opinion/charlie-kirk-assa...
than anything else he’s written but I think it was unfortunate that he chose the words because Kirk, among other things, promoted Trump’s lies about the 2000 election, bussed people to the Jan 6 riot, and had a hit list of professors he wanted to punish just like David Horowitz, dad of the Andressen-Horowitz Horowitz. That bit about “prove me wrong” was always disingenuous, it would fool the pearl clutching parents who read The Atlantic and the likes of Ezra Klein. Probably the most harmful thing about illiberal campus leftists is that they allowed illiberal rightists to appear to take the high ground.
To push a domestic metaphor
(Or are the gender roles switched)
I might be off my rocker on this, but!
>prove me wrong
Is such a right-wing to say.
Because it signals that a conservative believes that
(Their actions tend to suggest otherwise-- Thiel and Wolfram are my go-to not even mala (fide) examples. Lack of faith in learning happens in liberals or self-styled moderates, but we'd call that pessimism ("depression" in the empathetic or clinical). With thinking right wingers it's normally narcissism..Ezra is a pessimist but he carelessly assists the own goals)Calling out cancel culture today: the youngest kid signals that they give up on self-improvement in favor of acting out, so the elder sibling, who used to be punished for a very similar thing, jumps (gleefully) on it . "Mama look at what she just did!" knowing the parents gonna wring their hands
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAqG00FUOK8
who covers a lot of ground: Shapiro seems rather strong when it comes to articulating that idea of personal responsibility but his satanization of the economic left (e.g. Bernie Sanders) seems forced and unreasonable and Klein sorta "owns" him when it comes to pointing out that many of Trump and Vance's policies and viewpoints are examples of the envy and resentment-based "scavenger" thinking that Shaprio discusses in a dehumanizing way.
Shapiro's attempt to foreclose any difference on economic issues is mirrored, I think, by a certain wish on the left to foreclose difference on cultural issues. One one hand there is an axis that runs through Trotskyites to centrists like Klein who would like to shut down the culture wars because as soon as the culture wars started we started losing [1] [2] but the leftist who enjoys the culture wars is more inclined to satanize the "christofascist" as opposed to the likes of Milton Freedman [3]
There's a tendency on the right to say there is an "objective" reality (the Bible, Ayn Rand's philosophy) whereas Marxism leads you to see there are "two sides" to any issue. It gets the left in no end of trouble thinking about Blacks because if you go talk to Black people you will find they really do see things differently from white people in the aggregate but that they also see things differently from one another.
So like Rhett Butler or Han Solo if I'm asked to take a side on something like "cancel culture" I'm going to say "my side". I'm sure someone got canceled who deserved it and someone got canceled who didn't deserve it. There is no "due process" but there's also a feeling (see Klein) that due process is as much a problem as it is a solution. I sure as hell hate the "debate" over it.
[1] that theory would say that Reagan's economic policies didn't have any appeal to a mass base
[2] to be fair, almost always white male although sometimes gay
[3] and it's a credit to the rise of financialization: when I grew up I learned the financial advice that if I take care of my bank account my credit score will take care of itself; the paradigm for financial advise on both the internet and in magazines has been "(1) stop people from stealing your identity, and (2) use this one weird trick to raise your FICO score" since 2010 -- leftists once might have cared about labor, opportunity, taxes and such, today they care about insurance (e.g. health insurance) and credit (student loans). The idea that you might have your own money to spend on something you want to spend it on is right out of the 1950s like the stay at hom emome.
Ah, here was a great place to substitute your coinage "identarian"-- Ime I can't distinguish the identarians who enjoy the culture wars in terms of left from right (unless we equate right with white, & that's something we have to amicably agree to disagree :) one could forgiveably id the killer of Kirk as a right-identarian, eg, but that still feels less correct than simply "identarian" (normal folks would not resort to moderately planned violence).. you can see by the shell engravings TR sort of took pleasure in the planning vs Luigi..
(Yes, in other words, the economic left, or more precisely the nonpractising left, was too welcoming of identarians in precisely the same way the churchgoing center wasnt- 1970s to mid 1980s)
Now as for "leftist" in [3] I'd assume you mean "what passes for a classic leftist (like Bernie & 2000s Paul) amongst the millennials/gen z". More to say here, insurance over taxes is imho the correct Marxist valuation.. ? After all "from each according to his ability etc etc" is a succinct description of insurance
>due process is as much a problem as it is a solution
Now this is an interesting take, well, I can see Klein saying it in exasperation (in the podcast-to-be-read-- thanks!), but what is your emotional-valence here? (I can guess, but the guess would be more intricate than I can jot down from the hip :)
A mini-shot though.. if one truly enjoys hard work, problems would be as much of a joy as solutions. Centrists (like PG and "functional" Grothendieck) would be careful to tolerate schlep without seeing value in labor-in-itself.. schizos right+epsilon of center, or stoics* left+epsilon a-ways.. however..
*I would substitute "epicureans" here, but "stoics" would do fine for pedantry
https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/notes-on-the-heavenly-a...
https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/constituent-parts-of-a-...
I can't approve completely of his appropriate of dynamical systems theory but the idea that Kirk was "killed by memes" appeals to me as does Fred's description of these as "brainrot". People on the right are likely to see some transfurry in there [1] whereas left-leaning women are going to see anything coded young male as right wing. The FBI profile of the postmodern shooter is that he had a copy of The Communist Manifesto but he kept up his neighbors listening to Rush (the Canadian band) and people will make what they want of it.
As for Klein and due process I can say I am very frustrated not least because due process is frustrating but because we're in a dilemma because the alternatives are worse. (I can see how Curtis Yarvin's crypto-degrowth philosophy of "just wait until the dieoff and we can go back to solar-economy feudalism" could appeal to some) Of course that frustration with due process is the subject of his recent book Abundance which I have ambiguous feelings about: part of me wants to believe it, but I think it is a tough sell to many people who see it as warmed over neoliberalism [3] who think rent control is a good idea, like the populism of Matt Stoller, never mind this sort of usually unstated issue
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/good-cities-cant-exist-without...
as it is people will complain that somebody else complains about not being safe downtown while they (1) live a hikkiomori lifestyle or (2) live in the suburbs and/or order a private taxi for their burrito instead of going to a restaurant.
[1] my take though is furries are even-headed, as a committed kemonomimi [2] I always trying to bait them based on their bad taste in art
[2] https://safebooru.donmai.us/posts/3773068
[3] "but wait... we're not talking liberating the private sector from the government, we're talking about liberating the government from the government!"
Thanks for the Klein pointers, I see the sections on rent are precisely what I require to formulate copy for an insurance-market-based ad to thoughtful Marxists :) TODO-- close-read those with a postulate that Klein has read & wrestled with late era Jacobs
Decarlos Brown is someone I'd ID as right-identarian & more specifically that kind of center-right+epsilon schizo I was hinting at (if I put myself in a Martian's shoes)
But reflecting on that with FredDeBoer freshly paged in: the left-identarians (predominantly women plus a smattering of depressive gays who haven't mustered the courage to experiment with hormone replacement therapy)
Just do a better job of publicly suppressing their glee vizavis less emotionally adroit young cis-males, black or white
Hikkikomori culture in the US is only barely an appropriation-- I'm sure the HKs in ah Saitama dont get distracted by young women loitering in the backstreets of Shibuya/Shinjuku: rather it's the superior habits in moral hygiene (outsiders would say it's indoctrination, but why then would the mtgow-equivalent in Tokyo proper not succeed?)
Yep this is the disingenuity. If i were Ezra I'd have rehearsed with a unrepentant Randian 10x to come up with something more aggressive.
Dems will get that he's weaseling, but Republicans will have it go over their heads.. Mamdani-style listening would be marginally better; to throw Shapiros phrase back at him, it's the "praise" that he pretends not to notice that should be the most concerning
Self-help for Shapiros would not be writing Randian "bronze-age" fairytales (self-help as practiced by "narcissist by nurture" trivially succumbs to Kohutese infernos), but to get as far away from Rand and the Iron Age as sanely possible. (but that'd require some hormonal injections or dissociative research substances ?)
we have a right wing and then a righter wing. bernie sanders is an anomaly, elizabeth warren is just left of center, and i can't think of too many other current politicians at the national level who actually lean left. i guess nominally "the squad" but they mostly present fairly centrist platforms by worldwide standards. no current politicians at the national stage are talking about meaningful economic reform (as in, away from capitalism), police abolition, nationalized health care, or any other typical leftist ideas - not that i'm trying to argue any of these points in this thread - just providing examples of what i mean by "leftist".
whether or not "the left" weaponizes commitment to free expression, "the right" is the only side of that binary who has ever wielded serious political power, and they use it to extremely destructive ends at all times.
maybe someday if we ever have a political party that actually represents leftwing politics we can judge them as harshly. i'll wait.
And that's my cue to take yet another hit to my HN karma by asking, incredulously, "WTF are they teaching kids in school these days?"
> During World War II, the United States forcibly relocated and incarcerated about 120,000 people of Japanese descent in ten concentration camps operated by the War Relocation Authority (WRA), mostly in the western interior of the country.
> During World War II, the camps were referred to both as relocation centers and concentration camps by government officials and in the press. Roosevelt himself referred to the camps as concentration camps on different occasions, including at a press conference held on October 20, 1942.
> In a 1961 interview, Harry S. Truman stated "They were concentration camps. They called it relocation but they put them in concentration camps, and I was against it. We were in a period of emergency, but it was still the wrong thing to do."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_camp
> Not to be confused with Extermination camp. A concentration camp is a prison or other facility used for the internment of political prisoners or politically targeted demographics, such as members of national or ethnic minority groups, on the grounds of national security, or for exploitation or punishment.
People are more contradictory than pure theory. FDR was progressive in some aspects, regressive in others. A leftie, he wasn’t, and there’s more to politics than mere left/right, or we wouldn’t have trans Trump supporters.
They - and Hitler - are notable for their totalitarianism. I bear no illusions that folks like Stalin wanted anything more than power.
FDR’s era, the furthest left the U.S. has been, true to form had this element... showing how concentrated state power, left or right, risks curtailing freedom.
In modern times, we've seen Guantánamo survive multiple admins on both sides.
Education?
Religious values?
Neanderthal versus Cro-Magnon genelines?
A more-enlightened electorate?
Nothing but your own empty prejudices and comforting assumptions?
It can happen here, and it can happen to your party, too. It just didn't this time.
During Jim Crow, at the State level in the south, it would be applicable, but that doesn't mean much in today's terms.
I consider myself a leftist, but it's a bit naive to think that "this bad, horrible thing" must be associated only with right-leaning ideology. Leftists can do bad, horrible things just as much as right-wing folks can. "Putting people in concentration camps" isn't a right-wing or left-wing thing, it's a totalitarian/anti-human-rights thing. We can argue that, as of late, right-wing people seem to have more of an appetite for that sort of thing, and I'd probably agree, but that doesn't make concentration camps a "right-wing thing".
I would absolutely consider FDR to be one of the most (if not the most) leftist presidents the US has had. His putting people in concentration camps doesn't change that; it just makes him a racist piece of shit, like so many others of his time (not that the time period excuses it).
Well.. if you exclude all the very successful political movements which considered themselves “leftist”.
Bit of a no true Scotsman thing.
These are not even close to the same.
It's devoid of proportionality & it accepts a narrative crafted by the right-wingers themselves through repetition for exactly this purpose. There was never ever any doubt that all the hyperbolic outrage from the right about grassroots "cancel culture" was going to be used by the authors to excuse actual censorship as far as their current power and societal normalization allows them to. Preparing the ground for a "You did it first!" is not exactly innovative, it's fascism 101.
If you are going to morally judge the actions behind cancellation attempts, "I don't find Dave Chappelle's jokes funny" is not morally equivalent to "I don't think people should celebrate the murder of those they disagree with."
Also, lets ignore the fact that there is a difference between consumers boycotting something and a government agency outright threatening a private company.
The right has consistently tried to cancel people, has tried to censor people, has complained/played the refs about moderation saying their rights to say racist stuff was being infringed even when it was a moderation decision by a private company not the government
And then under Trump it's only gotten worse/more divorced from any principles
It's a nonsensical argument that the attack was random. It's farfetched that it was for some unrelated-to-politics reason given that these men as far as we know had no connection to each other, and it's nonsensical to believe that someone beloved by most people in the right wing would be targeted by a fellow right-winger.
If someone like AOC or Bernie Sanders was viciously attacked at an event, you can't tell me that you would accept an unsourced assertion that "it was actually a marxist that harmed them."
Look up groypers and Nick Fuentes - he's a right winger who was NOT a fan of Charlie Kirk and amassed a following about it. There is _some_ very mild evidence to believe that it's possible (I personally don't think that's the case FWIW)
While searching for more information on this I found an interesting link to something Grok wrote, answering the question of whether the shooter followed Loomer. It was quite interesting. No idea if any of it is true but given Musk's well known efforts to get Grok to favor the right it is sure amusing it would say this:
> Yes, based on reports and social media discussions following the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025, the shooter, identified as 22-year-old Tyler Robinson from a "good Christian gun-loving MAGA family," followed Laura Loomer on X (formerly Twitter). Robinson was a vocal supporter of Donald Trump and appeared to have been influenced by far-right online rhetoric, including potential inspiration from Loomer's recent criticisms of Kirk as a "traitor" and "charlatan" who betrayed Trump. This detail emerged as investigators reviewed Robinson's social media activity after his capture on September 12, 2025. Loomer, a prominent far-right influencer, had posted multiple times in July 2025 attacking Kirk for hosting guests critical of Trump and engaging in "dialog with Democrats," which some speculate may have radicalized followers like Robinson. While the exact motive remains under investigation, the follow relationship aligns with broader patterns of intra-conservative online feuds escalating into real-world violence.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/12/laura-loomer...
[2] > I don’t ever want to hear @charliekirk11 claim he is pro-Trump ever again. After this weekend, I’d say he has revealed himself as political opportunist and I have had a front row seat to witness the mental gymnastics these last 10 years.
> Lately, Charlie has decided to behave like a charlatan, claiming to be pro-Trump one day while he stabs Trump in the back the next.
> TPUSA was only able to thrive thanks to the generosity of President Trump.
> On the one year anniversary of the assassination attempt on Trump’s life, Charlie hosted @ComicDaveSmith at @TPUSA ’s SAS conference where Dave Smith was able to speak to a bunch of conservative youth at an organization that claims to be Pro-Trump.
> 3 weeks ago, Dave Smith called for President Trump to be IMPEACHED and REMOVED from office over his decision to blow up Iran’s nuclear facilities.
> Charlie played both sides of the Iran issue on his show as we all saw, because he wants to play to both sides of the aisle.
> The honorable thing to do is to have a position and actually defend it to the death instead of flip flopping.
> Smith said all of MAGA “should turn on Trump” and abandon him. He said this 3 weeks ago.
> See the clip below.
> TPUSA is definitely not pro-Trump. If they were, they certainly aren’t anymore.
> Out of all of the incredible pro-Trump voices out there who support the President, Charlie decided to host Dave Smith?
> It really is shameful. And I am honestly just disgusted by the nonstop flip flopping on the right.
Mr. Kimmel does not assert Mr. Robinson was "MAGA". Simply that the, "MAGA gang" is trying to distance themselves from Mr. Robinson.
He absolutely did insinuate just that.
Dunno if English is your second language or what but that definitely insinuates the killer is MAGA and is the quote people have an issue with.
Given Mr. Robinson's upbringing being very similar to many MAGA, it would make sense for them to attempt to distance themselves from him, no?
The same way non-maga would distance themselves by asserting how unusual his access to firearms and firearms training is compared to the general public?
Maybe English is not your first language? Critical reading skills are important.
It's a classic deliberate line skate but it clearly states what the "MAGA Gang" is asserted to have done without actually claiming the killer to be be part of that "Gang".
It wouldn't pass muster in an English libel Court and it's a milquetoast sentence in the US first amendment free speech world.
Further it is a bald matter of demonstrable fact that multiple voices that could be characterised as "MAGA" were indeed making numerous assertions about the killer and their motives before any facts other than the shooting itself were known.
This makes the Kimmel statement little more than a dull piece of observational social commentary.
So, first, both of those two (AOC in particular) have been the subject of extreme criticism from the tankie/accelerationist bits of the leftophere. It's 100% not out of the realm of possibility to imagine them being the target of an individual loon motivated by the right combinations of freakouts.
But also, it's not "unsourced" to say that Robinson comes from a conservative background, that he was a church-going-enough Mormon to be recognizable to his pastor, that he's informed by and involved in right-leaning edgelord/groyperist meme culture (that halloween costume was a pretty smoky gun), that he executed the murder with a family weapon to which he had easy access and apparently solid familiarity, etc...
I mean, his background looks extremely Trumpy. He's also apparently a closeted gay man with a hatred of Kirk in particular. And that doesn't make a lot of sense in total. But then that's the way it is with murderers. It's not a philosophy for the consistently rational.
https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/charlie-kirk-assassination-w...
That article doesn't substantiate your statement. The single quote in the charging document it's talking about is that he had become "more pro-gay and trans-rights-oriented", which is obviously not the same thing. Otherwise Thiel and Jenner would be "left wing" in your world view.
Real people's views are complicated, especially those of an insane murderer.
Although in the end, the most chilling thing isn't the killer, it's the thousands of progressives who have been openly celebrating the murder[1], just based on the fact that he disagreed with their beliefs.
[1] if you think I'm exaggerating, just watch the supercut of them in Sh0eonhead's latest video. It goes on for a long time.
What I've come to realise is that few are prepared to bell the cat and prosecute unconstitutional behaviour.
Did anyone ask the FCC chair to do this? Is it on record? Do you imagine the FCC chair to be cat that needs to be belled?
The FCC chair isn't the cat that needs to be belled.
Ballistics is a pseudoscience.
> Did anyone ask the FCC chair to do this?
Why did anyone have to ask him? He spoke in his capacity as a government official, and he has the power to do what he threatened. That's sufficient to say "the government is suppressing free speech".
COVID is still fresh enough that people should remember. If you were pro or anti anything 5 years ago it probably hurt you since sentiment swung both ways and both positions look silly in hindsight.
Except that he was fired right after the FCC chair threatened ABC. That feels more like government censorship than business.
Unless now "business" encompasses "it's better for business to not criticize the government". Which I suppose it does, under Trump. But that's not something we should accept or allow in a free society, under the constitution we have.
I think it's too easy to sort of anthropomorphize these kinds of conflicts --- Kimmel's show has a large staff, and he's responsible for their livelihoods --- but it wouldn't be totally out of the question that Kimmel steered right into this.
There's nothing new about this, though: ABC also took Bill Maher off the air, 20 years ago, almost identical circumstances. Maher wound up at HBO. Kimmel will wind up on a podcast, and, like Conan, probably gain in relevance.
Moments later
I think some people here might be too young to immediately get the Maher reference, but the point there was: he was forced off the air for political reasons as well.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
(The quote they created is also nowhere close to what I was saying or what I believe, but I'm not interested in litigating that.)
Edit: Funnily enough, I can't actually find this policy in the guideline. I see now that dang said it's actually not a guideline but telling people not to do it anyway is apparently a thing, which I find really fucking weird. Also funny that the same 'quote as framing' device (which I'm now avoiding) is used to paraphrase a position in the guidelines!
> Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that".
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
like in Haskell-ish terms:
If you think your position was misunderstood then that’s that’s the real issue, not punctuation usage. IMO it would be better addressed by engaging with the substance of the post (including the salient point that the Maher case is not comparable) rather finding some technical violation of HN common law to pick at. I’m sure there’s also a guideline against derailing substantive discussions into irrelevant picking over minor guidelines.
Threats from the head of the FCC bandied about on a far-right podcast? Hello?
I get why this is all activating and like I guess I agree, it's obviously bad, but it's also really stupid. These are programs written for middle-aged suburban professionals that air primarily to elderly customers who still watch linear television. Kimmel would have drastically more reach on an indie show online (who would you rather be, just in terms of reach, Kimmel or Hinchcliffe?).
The fact is it's not Kimmel's air, it's corporate air. Late-night hosts getting fucked over for crossing the interests of their corporate owners is a very old story; one of the great sitcoms of all time is based entirely off the premise (in fact, two of the great sitcoms of all time are).
Kimmel's got a good writing team. He's talented. He should have gotten off this dead time slot a long time ago.
Who cares about Kimmel.
You think they will stop at television? They'll deplatform people on the alternate media next, YouTube, Twitch, Kick, etc. They've already started to look at Twitch this very week.
Will you even notice when your train has arrived at the Gulag?
You acknowledged it was bad (sorta, kinda), but the rest is IMO completely irrelevant. "Galactic-scale complaints" or not (we don't know), the head of the FCC appearing on Benny Johnson's podcast threatening to pull their broadcast licence (he probably could not) is unprecedented. And one can wonder how many of the aforementioned complaints his comments incited.
Now they'll lose subscribers anyway.
Welcome aboard. We left the station a few months ago.
(Obviously it won't be a literal train given the state of our rail infrastructure but more likely a van in practice :p)
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
—Martin Niemöller
Sure, but shouldn't we continue to call out the fact that this administration is wielding power to censor? I do agree with you that late-night talk shows are a dying format, and maybe Kimmel would have been out (for whatever reasons, perhaps his own) in the next year or so, but to me, that's besides the point.
How is this relevant ? Are the Presidency and FCC now giving career advice?
> The fact is it's not Kimmel's air, it's corporate air.
not even corporate air - it’s government air obviously
His comments were not a fireable offence. He can’t steer into something if there’s nothing to steer into.
That is a stretch, "similar" is a better characterization. The Wikipedia article says he made the comments days after 9/11, and advertisers withdrew and the show suffered as a result, but the show wasn't cancelled until the following June.
Keep in mind also that Trump threatened getting Kimmel of the air a couple of months ago
Additionally, the FCC chief also threatened affiliates today
Is it all a coincidence ? Could be.
But absent a statement from Kimmel we can conclude that pressure was applied to ABC or it’s affiliates to censor speech
Kindly, your post reads like a variation of the “Broken window fallacy”
Hey, who needs late night comedy shows any more
You have way too much karma for this
Maher, like the Dixie Chicks and Garofalo, criticized a deeply popular war (regardless of what you think of it) and were ostensibly cancelled pre-cancellation era. The government didn't issue a statement through a right-wing podcast stating that the network better toe the line or get it's affiliate license revoked.
You are right, this has happened before. This is far more like the purges of the red scare. People were just (perhaps naively) hoping society had progressed from where we were ~70 years ago.
910 more comments available on Hacker News