Liberal Forum

MR-7 » 18 Sep 2025, 4:35 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2025, 4:35 pm

yes...it should read the 15th...that's when the kimmel made his remarks.....

you are so stupid.

ROG62 » 18 Sep 2025, 4:33 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2025, 4:33 pm

WTFK? why are you bringing it up?

He went on to say, "we can do this the easy way or the hard way."
After Kimmel's show was suspended shortly after those remarks, Carr said he was glad to see broadcasters standing up for the interests of their communities.
Trump said during a news conference on Thursday that Kimmel was fired for low ratings.//////////////a lie/////////////////////////
"So, you know, you can call that free speech or not. He was fired for lack of talent," Trump said, opens new tab.WHAT SPEECH IS PROTECTED?The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects free speech and other rights against government interference. Courts have said that protection includes rights against the government pressuring third parties to engage in censorship.
In a key ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1963 said the government cannot create a "system of informal censorship" by pressuring private actors.
That case involved a Rhode Island agency that had threatened prosecution against book and magazine distributors who did not stop selling specific publications it had deemed objectionable. 'So installing electric chargers, putting in the infrastructure, and then we can work on policies to try and increase the electric vehicle fleet on the island.'

The Supreme Court last year said that in such cases, plaintiffs must show that the government went beyond permissible attempts to persuade and that its conduct caused them direct harm.
The court in that case refused to impose limits on President Joe Biden's administration encouraging social media platforms to remove posts deemed to contain misinformation, including about elections and COVID.AREN'T OFFICIALS FREE TO CRITICIZE KIMMEL?Yes. Trump often disparages comedians and entertainers who speak out about his policies, which is permissible.
However, government authorities cannot use their authority to suppress speech.
Legal claims would likely hinge on whether Carr was threatening ABC's broadcast license.
After Carr spoke on Wednesday, Nexstar Media Group <NXST.O> said it would stop airing Kimmel's show on its 32 ABC affiliates.

Nexstar needs FCC approval for its $6.2 billion deal to acquire smaller rival Tegna , and Carr thanked Nexstar for "doing the right thing."


 
 

Kimmel could also potentially sue ABC for breaching his contract or for employment law violations. His ability to bring those : The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Today, the shoe is on the other foot. It is a Republican administration that is using the threat of regulatory investigations and sanctions against a pillar of the American media — ABC, which is owned by Disney — to silence speech it disdains.

The resulting corporate decision to suspend Jimmy Kimmel from late-night television runs squarely afoul of the First Amendment. The constitution doesn’t guarantee Kimmel a talk show, but it does guarantee that the government won’t quash his speech because of what he chooses to say. Kimmel now has a straightforward suit for damages and forward-looking relief that he can and should file — not just against ABC, but also against the government officials who were the driving force for his embarrassing public disciplining.

The basic facts of Kimmel’s suspension are straightforward. The late-night host has been accused of mischaracterizing the motives of the alleged assassin of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, suggesting he may have hailed from the political right. On Wednesday, the chair of the Federal Communications Commission, Brendan Carr, appeared on Benny Johnson’s podcast and described Kimmel’s remarks as part of a “concerted effort to lie to the American people.” The FCC, he said, has “remedies that we can look at.” He added: “We can do this the easy way or the hard way …. 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.”

jerrab » 18 Sep 2025, 4:50 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2025, 4:50 pm

you are so stupid.

You really are the stupid one. The trannie report was out two days before old Jimmy accused MAGA. It was reported on the 13 and 14th. Tranny Jimmy then made up his LIE and blamed it on MAGA. Now, he has been Bud Lighted by Disney. The view is right around the corner. Fallen will change his show here real soon and become the "BIG ONE" if we, MAGA, allow it. If he wants to survive and become Number One, he will start supporting TRUMP. GOD BLESS AMERICA, AND GOD BLESS TRUMP.

PLEASE DON'T TAKE GOD'S NAME IN VAIN, LIKE YOU LIKE TO DO. IT'S DISRESPECTFUL.
 
 

jerrab » 18 Sep 2025, 4:59 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2025, 4:59 pm

 

---------------------------------------Here, by contrast, the evidence of “specific causation” is plain to see: Carr threatens ABC unless it sanctions Kimmel. ABC does as Carr asks. The FCC, to be sure, does not have authority to police the alleged truth of statements made on television. But that doesn’t mean that the agency can’t use its investigative powers to raise costs for targeted media outlets and it can clearly exert its influence on any potential acquisitions. And for all his recent talk about supporting free speech, this isn’t Carr’s first pressure campaign against a perceived antagonist of President Donald Trump. In July, he issued threats against Comcast, demanding more favorable coverage of Republicans from its NBC affiliates.The Trump administration also has a clear model when it comes to leaning on media firms to silence speech it dislikes: The president’s executive orders punishing law firms for their association with disfavored clients and advocacy of out-of-season causes likewise deployed regulatory tools to try to achieve plainly impermissible censorship. Like Carr’s action this week, those executive orders in part worked through the economic pressure firms experienced, even as their First Amendment rights were being violated.Watch: The Conversation

 

jerrab » 18 Sep 2025, 4:59 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2025, 4:59 pm

Today, the shoe is on the other foot. It is a Republican administration that is using the threat of regulatory investigations and sanctions against a pillar of the American media — ABC, which is owned by Disney — to silence speech it disdains.

The resulting corporate decision to suspend Jimmy Kimmel from late-night television runs squarely afoul of the First Amendment. The constitution doesn’t guarantee Kimmel a talk show, but it does guarantee that the government won’t quash his speech because of what he chooses to say. Kimmel now has a straightforward suit for damages and forward-looking relief that he can and should file — not just against ABC, but also against the government officials who were the driving force for his embarrassing public disciplining.

The basic facts of Kimmel’s suspension are straightforward. The late-night host has been accused of mischaracterizing the motives of the alleged assassin of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, suggesting he may have hailed from the political right. On Wednesday, the chair of the Federal Communications Commission, Brendan Carr, appeared on Benny Johnson’s podcast and described Kimmel’s remarks as part of a “concerted effort to lie to the American people.” The FCC, he said, has “remedies that we can look at.” He added: “We can do this the easy way or the hard way …. 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.”

Hello…This was started by media groups Nexstar and Sinclair who own a **** ton of ABC affiliates.  They said they were not going to air Kimmel because after what he said they felt he did not represent the values of the communities they broadcast to. Then the advertisers were scared so ABC and Disney suspended him.

Tlkimg to you is like tlkimg to a **** brick wall.

jerrab » 18 Sep 2025, 5:02 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2025, 5:02 pm

---------------------------------------Here, by contrast, the evidence of “specific causation” is plain to see: Carr threatens ABC unless it sanctions Kimmel. ABC does as Carr asks. The FCC, to be sure, does not have authority to police the alleged truth of statements made on television. But that doesn’t mean that the agency can’t use its investigative powers to raise costs for targeted media outlets and it can clearly exert its influence on any potential acquisitions. And for all his recent talk about supporting free speech, this isn’t Carr’s first pressure campaign against a perceived antagonist of President Donald Trump. In July, he issued threats against Comcast, demanding more favorable coverage of Republicans from its NBC affiliates.The Trump administration also has a clear model when it comes to leaning on media firms to silence speech it dislikes: The president’s executive orders punishing law firms for their association with disfavored clients and advocacy of out-of-season causes likewise deployed regulatory tools to try to achieve plainly impermissible censorship. Like Carr’s action this week, those executive orders in part worked through the economic pressure firms experienced, even as their First Amendment rights were being violated.Watch: The Conversation

Claim: Brendan Carr threatened ABC unless it sanctioned Jimmy Kimmel

While FCC Chair Brendan Carr did publicly criticize Jimmy Kimmel’s comments and urged ABC to take action, the FCC does not have direct authority to censor content or force programming decisions. ABC’s decision to preempt Kimmel’s show was made by Disney executives, reportedly under pressure from affiliates like Nexstar Media Group. Carr’s remarks may have been provocative, but they do not constitute a formal regulatory threat backed by FCC enforcement powers. The FCC cannot legally punish broadcasters for speech it dislikes.

Claim: The FCC uses investigative powers to raise costs for targeted media outlets

This assertion implies a misuse of regulatory tools for political retaliation. However, the FCC’s investigative powers are bound by administrative law and subject to judicial review. Any attempt to target media outlets without cause would likely trigger legal challenges and congressional oversight. In fact, Democratic lawmakers have already called for investigations into Carr’s conduct, underscoring that such actions are not unchecked.

Claim: Carr has a history of pressuring media firms to favor Trump

While Carr has made public statements critical of certain media figures and praised decisions that align with conservative interests, equating this with systemic censorship is a leap. The FCC’s role is to ensure broadcasters serve the public interest—not to dictate editorial content. Carr’s comments may reflect partisan leanings, but they do not amount to formal FCC policy or enforcement.

Try to keep up !

 
 

jerrab » 18 Sep 2025, 4:55 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2025, 4:55 pm

Kimmel could also potentially sue ABC for breaching his contract or for employment law violations. His ability to bring those : The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

I would love for Jimmy to sue for a billion dollars 

then move to Netflix or YouTube to carry on

he trolled tRump like no one else 

and tRump the snowflake couldn’t take it 

our government told his company to fire him for what he said as an American citizen 

and they did it

there is  a BIG merger coming that needs FCC approval 

who can doubt that is a factor in their response ?

these MAGAs are the same sorry **** that didn’t bat an eye at this 

https://youtube.com/shorts/9mq3oKI2KhY? ... o78PdUiL39
 
 
 

Huey » 18 Sep 2025, 5:04 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2025, 5:04 pm

Hello…This was started by media groups Nexstar and Sinclair who own a **** ton of ABC affiliates.  They said they were not going to air Kimmel because after what he said they felt he did not represent the values of the communities they broadcast to. Then the advertisers were scared so ABC and Disney suspended him.

Tlkimg to you is like tlkimg to a **** brick wall.

proof?

anything other than nexstar obeying   carr?

jerrab » 18 Sep 2025, 5:15 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2025, 5:15 pm

proof?

anything other than nexstar obeying   carr?

don’t hold your breath 

jerrab » 18 Sep 2025, 5:15 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2025, 5:15 pm

proof?

anything other than nexstar obeying   carr?

SMH.  

Mrkelly » 18 Sep 2025, 5:14 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2025, 5:14 pm

I would love for Jimmy to sue for a billion dollars 

 

Who's he gonna sue?

ABC is a private company, and private employers generally have wide latitude to suspend or terminate employees.

Proving coercion is tricky. ABC would likely argue it acted independently, not under government pressure.

Maybe he can work for Jimmy Dore. I mean, Kimmel is more talented, but hey a paycheck is a paycheck.
 

Huey » 18 Sep 2025, 5:37 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2025, 5:37 pm

SMH.

you got  none.

noted

Mrkelly » 18 Sep 2025, 5:19 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2025, 5:19 pm

don’t hold your breath

I did not.

Mrkelly » 18 Sep 2025, 5:14 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2025, 5:14 pm

I would love for Jimmy to sue for a billion dollars 

then move to Netflix or YouTube to carry on

he trolled tRump like no one else 

and tRump the snowflake couldn’t take it 

our government told his company to fire him for what he said as an American citizen 

and they did it

there is  a BIG merger coming that needs FCC approval 

who can doubt that is a factor in their response ?

these MAGAs are the same sorry **** that didn’t bat an eye at this 

https://youtube.com/shorts/9mq3oKI2KhY? ... o78PdUiL39

he could sue trump for defamation.

MR-7 » 18 Sep 2025, 5:40 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2025, 5:40 pm

Who's he gonna sue?


 

Disney

because they broke his contract by bending the knee to the snowflake tRump

MR-7 » 18 Sep 2025, 5:40 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2025, 5:40 pm

Who's he gonna sue?

ABC is a private company, and private employers generally have wide latitude to suspend or terminate employees.

Proving coercion is tricky. ABC would likely argue it acted independently, not under government pressure.

Maybe he can work for Jimmy Dore. I mean, Kimmel is more talented, but hey a paycheck is a paycheck.

hmmmm............... breach of contract?

Mrkelly » 18 Sep 2025, 5:14 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2025, 5:14 pm

these MAGAs are the same sorry **** that didn’t bat an eye at this 

https://youtube.com/shorts/9mq3oKI2KhY? ... o78PdUiL39

MAGA is in charge. We have gotten rid of all the dei, crt, GAY ****, secured the border, deporting ILLEGALS out of here, secured D.C., cleaning up other crime ridden cities, FIRING all the DEI hires and sending people out of the country like Rosie, and Ellen. Hollywood is failing, and you MoFo's are assassinating those who's opinion U don't like. The way I see it, U MoFo's started it.
 
 

jerrab » 18 Sep 2025, 5:47 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2025, 5:47 pm

hmmmm............... breach of contract?

Unless you or MrKelly have proof of what his contract reads, U R merely guessing. Try Harder. U can do it.