We really need to stop the cancelling of people for saying controversial, disagreeable and even deeply offensive things. I don't agree with what Kimmel said and I wouldn't have said it myself but it also wasn't outside the bounds of opinions which should be able to be expressed.
If you're nodding along in agreement, then you should also know my long-term commitment to consistency in tolerating factually wrong, distasteful, divisive and even hateful speech has also left me in the uncomfortable position of defending (at least in part) the right of Charlie Kirk, JK Rowling and many others I don't agree with to be heard without anyone calling for silencing them. I'm 100% supportive of disagreeing, debating, peacefully protesting, ignoring and even mocking ideas we don't agree with but I draw a hard line at shouting down, deplatforming or canceling them. If you just stopped nodding along, and instead started coming up with reasons why Kimmel should be heard but Charlie Kirk shouldn't, then you might be part of the problem. IMHO, the only truly defensible ethical high-ground on this requires consistency regardless of the person, politics or offense their speech might cause.
What did he say, though? In the video he says that the killer is one of "them" (I'm not familiar enough to know who "them" are), and makes fun of Trump for apparently not caring at all.
What was the offensive or disagreeable part? Seems like standard satire to me.
People can cancel and boycott all they want, that’s not what this is. This is government censorship of an individual they want to punish which is not okay.
I’m not sure you’re ever going to get the smoking gun you’re looking for to make a conclusive statement here.
In lending, there’s a legal concept of disparate impact, which means even if your policy didn’t explicitly intend to harm this group of people, you implicitly / indirectly impacted them, and that also counts as a bad thing just like explicit impact.
Basically, you don’t have to prove intent, you only have to prove outcome.
…It was a roundabout analogy, but I think the same thing applies here. I don’t need the administration to say, “we did that because we don’t like him.” There is enough impact for me to conclude culpability, regardless of whether I can prove intent.
(Edit: maybe a better concept here is circumstantial evidence)
As a matter of consistency, did you also feel this way about the US and many foreign governments censoring (either directly or indirectly through social/media companies) those who spoke out against either the COVID response or the vaccines?
> Sorry but people are entitled to pressure other private citizens when they say disagreable things.
I said
> I'm 100% supportive of disagreeing, debating, peacefully protesting, ignoring and even mocking ideas we don't agree with but I draw a hard line at shouting down, deplatforming or canceling them.
So we agree. What's there to be "Sorry" about?
> What First Amendment is trying to protect
My post doesn't mention the First Amendment or the troubling matter of the FCC chair comments about individual speech. I chose not to post about those because I wanted to focus on the other kind of free speech which doesn't involve the government or the First Amendment and isn't even a matter of law. It's about the morality and ethics of how consistently we as private citizens actively support fellow citizens we disagree with in being heard - even when they're offensive, hateful and wrong. It's about whether we should support or oppose private citizens canceling other citizens.
Frankly, I can't tell if we agree or not. I suspect it depends on exactly what you mean by the word "pressure". If "pressure" is limited to "disagreeing, debating, peacefully protesting, ignoring and even mocking" then we are in total agreement. If "pressure" includes "shouting down, deplatforming or canceling" then you're a canceler and we disagree. If it includes wiggle room which might lead to silencing viewpoints you oppose, you're a closet canceler - in which case the vagueness of the term "pressure" and being "sorry" make more sense. On the other hand, if "pressure" includes opposing even those you agree with most the moment they want to silence those you disagree with (instead of debating and countering their bad, wrong ideas) - then we're soulmates.
> I chose not to post about those because I wanted to focus on the other kind of free speech which doesn't involve the government or the First Amendment and isn't even a matter of law. It's about the morality and ethics of how consistently we as private citizens...
That is what the GP took issue with and I do as well. The protection of free speech from government reprisal is a right in this country, and it has a certain meaning. Trying to equivocate it with your vision of civility and politeness only serves to muddy the waters when it comes to discourse about these issues. If the right wing has had its free speech (your definition) impinged by rational people before Trump took office again, then why wouldn't they be able to take away free speech (the constitutional definition) now?
I care deeply about protecting first amendment free speech and I'm troubled by the government's expanding encroachment on the first amendment, a concern which goes back at least six administrations. I've posted about it frequently. And I'm also concerned by the increasing weaponization of government and partisan lawfare. It's always been a regrettable part of politics but over the last 50 years the entrenchment of the two party duopoly has now led to escalating abuse by both parties.
Frankly, I'm fed up with so many on the right and the left selectively abusing both constitutional free speech rights and civil free speech culture when it's to their advantage and then suddenly caring about them again when either is turned against them. In the 1960s the left elevated the ideal of civil free speech culture by eloquently articulating why it's so important: the rights enshrined in our constitution are safest when also enshrined in our culture. And yet in the last 20 years many on the left rationalized selectively abandoning their decades-long commitment to both F1A rights and free speech culture. And as cancel culture became an epidemic of self-destructive purity spirals, the right suddenly decided they care passionately about free speech culture. Then when political partisans weaponized stringent enforcement of document marking and classification regulations against Trump, he cried "Lawfare" and bleated about the abuse of government power - only to then turn around and pioneer all-new tactics in retaliation. And yet almost no one on either side has shown any self-awareness of how their own side has abandoned any pretense of standing by a principle, if doing so would get in the way of retaliating or, conversely, playing the injured party. What a shit-show all around.
The reason I didn't focus on F1A is because this latest transgression isn't even a good F1A case. It's almost certainly not even enforceable. The FCC guy will just argue being interviewed on a podcast isn't an official act. IMHO, Kimmel was "canceled" off the air by right wing-leaning network affiliate owners because FCC guy's vague threat gave them a fig leaf of justification AND it's within their legal rights. I think it sucks they did that - just as much as it sucked when many on the left canceled right wing viewpoints - even though it was equally within their legal rights.
To me, this whole episode is just more tit-for-tat tactical partisan political point-scoring. The only part of this that's really worth focusing on is it was easier for Disney/ABC's management to cave to those right-leaning affiliate concerns (despite not being right-leaning themselves), in part, because our culture no longer values civil free speech as a moral/ethical standard. Nowadays, as long as it's arguably within your legal rights, canceling someone for saying things you don't like is no longer even considered "a shitty thing to do." Why? Because BOTH sides have now done it when it suited them and then rationalized their behavior. So yeah, it's instructive how many responses to my original post are from those who only want to focus on the F1A rights aspect of this regrettable shit show (despite it not even being a prosecutable transgression). And, wow... the euphemistic vagaries and rationalizations deployed to justify the moral ethics of censorious cancellation are inventive. So much dancing around the clear, bright-line distinction between passively "not having to listen to" disagreeable speech, and actively suppressing that speech (or cheering on those who suppress it). I actually take it as a good sign some still feel a bit uncomfortable just outright admitting they would actively ban even the possibility of other viewpoints ever being heard (presumably under the naive assumption such social, cultural or legal power would only ever be in the hands of
those they agree with). It's terribly sad that majorities on both sides seem to have abandoned civil free speech culture as even a principle worth selectively paying insincere lip-service to. It appears, as a society, we're actually choosing a Thunderdome brawl of discourse where it's acceptable for your "good side" to fight dirty, hit below the belt and even entirely silence their "bad side" by any means available: social, cultural, political, economic or legal - as long as you can technically skirt F1A prosecution. A very low bar indeed.
The head of the FCC isn't people. The recent Paramount merger was preceded by Paramount conceding multiple times to unreasonable demands by Trump personally. This is definitely abuse of power and official censorship.
> In this case, it is the FCC, an arm of the government, that is pressuring ABC to do this rather than other private citizens.
Actually it was a couple of big ABC affiliate owners that started the avalanche, and ABC followed…not any government pressure.
You can certainly speculate that the these affiliates had an ulterior motive in their actions to curry favor with the Trump administration, but it’s not unreasonable nor unheard of for station affiliates to make decisions about content and programming to avoid alienating or offending a large portion of the markets they serve or the advertisers that pay their bills.
In the end this is about eyeballs and advertising dollars and it’s no more nefarious than that.
> Actually it was a couple of big ABC affiliate owners that started the avalanche, and ABC followed…not any government pressure.
This is highly misleading: those affiliates were responding to government pressure. The FCC is currently making key decisions for at least one of them[1], following recent decisions by the same government to attack other media organizations, install government political officers at other companies, or forced other companies to provide money or ownership. There’s absolutely no way those decisions were not made without factoring the current environment in.
1. FCC Chairman Carr threatens licensed broadcasters (i.e. affiliates that have a license with the FCC) telling them they should stop running Kimmel and tell Disney they're doing it because the FCC may pull their license[1]
2. Nexstar, an affiliate broadcaster, issues a statement in response to Carr’s comments saying they're not going to broadcast Kimmel
> Actually it was a couple of big ABC affiliate owners that started the avalanche, and ABC followed…not any government pressure.
Brah.
Brendan Carr, the current head of the FCC publicly threatened to go after ABC for his speech, then ABC pulled the show.[1] Walks, talks, and acts likes government pressure being used for censorship against views they don’t agree with
Something called Nexstar, which owns a subset of ABC whatevers was maybe first? I stopped trying to understand it after a while; notably, the yahoo article which (I skimmed/searched before I came to HN) doesn't mention this I guess?
The key thing is that Nexstar’s owners are hoping to make a lot of money from a merger which the FCC is currently ruling on. That makes threats from the FCC considerably more real:
In fact, the affiliates are exactly who Brendan Carr threatened:
> “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.”
> Carr suggested that the FCC could pursue news distortion allegations against local licensees.
> “Frankly I think it’s past time that a lot of these licensed broadcasters themselves push back on Comcast and Disney, and say ’We are going to preempt — we are not going to run Kimmel anymore until you straighten this out,’” he said. “It’s time for them to step up and say this garbage — to the extent that that’s what comes down the pipe in the future — isn’t something that serves the needs of our local communities.”
(for those that don't know, ABC doesn't have an FCC license, broadcasting stations (affiliates) do, so that's exactly who he's using his unconstitutional leverage over)
Cool, so did the FCC apply pressure using government power in the attempt to achieve this situation?
Yes or no?
You don’t need to answer as that’s rhetorical. It’s obvious the answer is yes. Democratic governments try to avoid making public statements like that because the general public cannot tell if it was because of the government or a happy coincidence that the party being pressured just happened to comply. Because it can’t be discerned even the appearance of using government power like that degrades the rule of law
Carr is not “the FCC”. He’s the chairman, but he can’t act unilaterally to remove an affiliate broadcast license.
So “the FCC” did not apply pressure, the chairman did. He has a lot of influence and can set the agenda for the commission but he needs a majority of the commissioners to revoke a broadcast license. That is a super rare occurrence and would be unlikely.
Trump is different. He is the executive branch. He has the ability to EO change without anyone else having to agree before the fact. The FCC operates as a commission. The chairman might set the agenda, but the commission has to agree by majority. You could argue that he has great influence within the FCC, but he is not the FCC.
When you make the leap from Carr to “the FCC” it’s roughly like if Sen. John Thune said something and you attributed his words to “the senate”.
Court cases have established that you don't need actual action for a free speech violation to have occurred. The act of using your government position to pressure, coerce, or threaten people who are using speech you don't like is a violation of the Constitution, flat out.
Otherwise the protection of free speech means nothing, because politicians can merely threaten you all day but never pull the trigger on an obviously disallowed act while implying that you'll make trouble for involved actors which has a degree of separation, enough to avoid it being a direct cause and effect. And in this case Carr did exactly that by threatening to make trouble for affiliates like Nexstar -- as long as your threat has a material impact (like causing a company to adhere to the desired action to avoid further red tape in their acquisition approvals), it would be enough to quell constitutionally protected speech.
Yes the individual agents of any organization aren’t the entire organization themselves. However to argue that the agent of an organization acting under the color of their role in said organization doesn’t represent said organization, is some sort of “the card says moops” level of sophistry
It’s the FCC as long as he makes important decisions there. There is no way you can honestly say that he wouldn’t influence others there, and the businesses who are currently facing FCC approval would have to take that influence into consideration or ask whether the level of corruption on display isn’t unique to him.
Think about it this way: if a police officer came by your business and suggested that a donation to their annual ball might lead to faster response if you called 911, would you immediately conclude that the rest of the force would strongly condemn that appearance of corruption or would the mere fact that they were comfortable saying it make you worry that the sentiment was shared by other officers?
Part of what the current administration has been doing is normalizing levels of politicization and corruption which would previously have been unthinkable in modern America. Actions like this are considered in light of the broader context where the President is openly shaking down businesses and the AG has made it clear that they’re his personal lawyer first and the nation’s top law enforcement official only to the extent that it serves his goals.
Yes but you're not a mind reader and you don't know how much of his firing was due to government pressure vs a decision he was alienating half the country irreparably - and I'm curious to know why you didn't mention his ratings had been slipping. Surely that has some place in the discussion?
That’s probably why they didn’t put up a fight but it doesn’t cancel out the illegality of the threat. If the local mob boss shows up and says “nice business, it’d be a shame if something happened to it” that’s still extortion even if you decide it was losing money and walk away.
No. "If he were more profitable, his company would have spent money on a legal defense instead" is not a valid counterargument to "It is bad that the government threatened a company into cancelling a show because they criticized a friend of the regime."
It's completely unreasonable to believe that ABC's decision to cancel Jimmy Kimmel Live! was an independent one, especially given that Trump has publicly criticized Jimmy Kimmel on Truth Social and has a history of threatening people and organizations he dislikes with lawsuits and legal penalties. It's much more likely that ABC canceled him because they feared retaliation from Trump.
The threat against Australia was fascinating.. I guess Trump figured out "tariffs" is a big appendage like the one he never has, but now can swing around, and "you better be nice, or I'm going to do to your country what I did to the numerous amounts of women in my life...".
What’s not unreasonable is for a company look at the overall political climate of the country annd the markets they need and realize that it’s just not in favor for controversial lefty oriented late night content at this moment. The public outrage at the shooting. Watching poll numbers nose dive for the Democratic Party. Seeing some core political positions that your company embraced become anathematic to the general public. Then couple all that with a comedian with a late night show and an axe to grind with the president whose show was underperforming already…even worse than Colbert.
ABC may have feared retaliation from Trump, but I guarantee they fear retaliation from their viewers and advertisers even more. This was a good excuse to get rid of a loose cannon whose useful shelf life was already up and try to gain some goodwill among a large group of people who are ready to write you off.
That does makes sense considering the profile of the average person who still watches broadcast tv these. There is simply no demand for non-garbage content there.
> You can certainly speculate that the these affiliates had an ulterior motive in their actions to curry favor with the Trump administration, ...
I don't know what "ulterior motive" would mean. Businesses have no choice but to deal with real threats, that isn't a hidden agenda. And I wouldn't refer to bending to demands, as a means of damage control under duress, as "currying favor".
I would consider "favor curriers" to be those that align themselves with administration excesses, in hope of favors, without duress being a factor.
This is now a business reality: a US administration that loudly broadcasts its successful use of corrupted leverage against law firms, media companies, universities, tech companies, and others it wishes to bow the knee.
Even if we conjecture the same decisions might have been made in healthier times, for whatever reasons, the unlawful pressure still shades the decisions made in this reality.
Just because someone is allowed to freely express themselves doesn’t mean I have to support a platform for them to do it on. They can have their platform with their supporters, it doesn’t mean that the hateful rhetoric have to be constantly shoved in my face at a public level. And that the public has to constantly debate it. That is what cancelling is. No one wants to hear the hate.
No one has died from being cancelled so spare everyone the pity story.
If you want to spend your time defending JK Rowling, that’s on you. It doesn’t make you a hero for making sure people fully understand precisely what kind of a bigot JK Rowling is.
What is deplatforming if not a group of people choosing to ignore that person? It is not fair that you get to decide at what level ignoring another is okay. Deplatforming and cancelling are just methods of taking away easy access to a platform for hateful bad faith arguments. Those affected by it can still can go build their own platform to host that rhetoric (Trump has done this with Truth social).
You disagree with what Kimmel said? Don't we usually read the articles on this site?
He said: "The MAGA Gang (is) 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," Kimmel said. "In between the finger-pointing, there was grieving."
That's not only not offensive, it's just flat true. Tyler Robinson is a far right extremist, which is also what many members of MAGA are, and yet we still see Republicans such as Utah's governor claiming that he's a leftist.
Furthermore, this is the FCC demanding a show be removed from the air because a comedian was commenting on what politicians are doing. Even if what Kimmel said were flatly not factual and flatly offensive, the FCC should still not be doing that. Jumping straight to "remove from the air" is an absurd and indefensible overreach.
We need you to avoid posting flame-war style comments to HN. We've had to remind you of this once, years ago, and now it's time to remind you again. The guidelines don't go out the window just because this is a topic people feel strongly about, in fact they become more important. Please heed the guidelines if you want ot participate here, especially these ones:
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
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".
If you're nodding along in agreement, then you should also know my long-term commitment to consistency in tolerating factually wrong, distasteful, divisive and even hateful speech has also left me in the uncomfortable position of defending (at least in part) the right of Charlie Kirk, JK Rowling and many others I don't agree with to be heard without anyone calling for silencing them. I'm 100% supportive of disagreeing, debating, peacefully protesting, ignoring and even mocking ideas we don't agree with but I draw a hard line at shouting down, deplatforming or canceling them. If you just stopped nodding along, and instead started coming up with reasons why Kimmel should be heard but Charlie Kirk shouldn't, then you might be part of the problem. IMHO, the only truly defensible ethical high-ground on this requires consistency regardless of the person, politics or offense their speech might cause.