Jimmy Kimmel Cancelled over Charlie Kirk comments!

[User]

6 minutes ago, Chrissy1979 said:

Yes, he threatened ABC, telling them to fire Kimmel or face the consequences. Denying reality does not strengthen your argument.

Actually, he was on some podcast and made threatening comments publicly, but to the point, the FCC did not censor anyone. They took no action against anyone. 

I understand reality just fine. You do not. 

 

[BeaverFever]

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I mean, did you raise a complaint when it was found out biden gave instructions to the social media platforms to repress and suppress right wing groups such as the daily wire and others? No? I seem to recall you thinking that was ok. 

That claim was already debunked on this thread and the TRUMP-APPOINTED Supreme Court said so. 
 

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Or how about the fbi etc threatening people over discussing the biden notebook during the eleciton, even daring to mention it could have severe impacts and get you fired or worse.  

Also fake news. As usual, you take a real story, distort it beyond all recognition to make it into something it’s not, then claim you’re entitles to commit the same type of misconduct as you falsely claim “the Democrats” did. 
 

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Same with all the other things we've been complaining about such as lawfare, making up new rules for the border, etc etc. You open the door, you can't get mad if someone else walks through. 

Again more of your BS where you lobotomize yourself of all the Republican censorship so you think it’s never happened while exaggerating the left’s supposed censorship. Bill Maher made an interesting point that Kimmel was cancelled 24 years to the day that Republicans had him cancelled from his ABC late night show called Politically Incorrect, where the whole point of the show was to discuss politically incorrect topics, because they were offended by his comments.   And in those days under Bush they went after anyone and everyone who questioned their Iraq lies, new surveillance laws, and anti-Muslim hate mongering.  The Chicks (formerly known as The Dixie Chicks) are STILL canceled and boycotted by Republicans for speaking out.  Being women, they obviously have a lower status among republicans than French fries, which were only temporarily cancelled by Republican cancel culture clowns. 

[Gaétan]

Paid political party promoters cannot invoke freedom of speech. For example, some individuals on social media are employed and paid to defend political positions. If they are prevented from spreading those policies, they cannot claim it as a violation of free speech.

It’s clear that Kimmel and his media outlets promote the Democratic Party. It is legitimate to restrict such media—whether they support Democrats or Republicans. Congress should pass a law to ensure balance and fairness in the media, but this law must be designed to uphold justice, not to give free rein to the propaganda of criminals.

Paid speech isn't free:

Paid Speech Isn’t Free | ACS

 

[Chrissy1979]

5 minutes ago, User said:

Actually, he was on some podcast and made threatening comments publicly, but to the point, the FCC did not censor anyone. They took no action against anyone. 

I understand reality just fine. You do not. 

 

They used their power to coerce ABC to fire him. It’s clear you don’t believe in the first amendment. That’s okay. You can be brave and admit it without all the play acting.

[Shady]

Yep.  No more f**ks to give.

 

[Chrissy1979]

2 minutes ago, Gaétan said:

Paid political party promoters cannot invoke freedom of speech. For example, some individuals on social media are employed and paid to defend political positions. If they are prevented from spreading those policies, they cannot claim it as a violation of free speech.

It’s clear that Kimmel and his media outlets promote the Democratic Party. It is legitimate to restrict such media—whether they support Democrats or Republicans. Congress should pass a law to ensure balance and fairness in the media, but this law must be designed to uphold justice, not to give free rein to the propaganda of criminals.

Paid speech isn't free:

Paid Speech Isn’t Free | ACS

 

Even if that were true, the Republicans got rid of the Fairness Doctrine that you seem to think still exists.

[LinkSoul60]

Absolutely comical the same minions who made free speech one of their core stances are now against it, but only from the supposed left side.  15 pages and still trying to justify being hypocritical and mindless. Minions do what they do....

Edited September 21, 2025 by LinkSoul60

[User]

1 minute ago, Chrissy1979 said:

They used their power to coerce ABC to fire him. It’s clear you don’t believe in the first amendment. That’s okay. You can be brave and admit it without all the play acting.

What power was used?

You claimed government censorship. If you want to quibble about government threats, OK, fine. No government censorship occurred. 

Your inability to make an argument based on facts is not made better by simply yelling at everyone they don't believe in the First Amendment. 

[Chrissy1979]

1 minute ago, Shady said:

Yep.  No more f**ks to give.

 

Yes, continue to celebrate Kirk’s death by using it to destroy what he stood for.

[User]

Just now, LinkSoul60 said:

Absolutely comical the same minions who made free speech one of their core stances are now against it, but only from the supposed left side.  15 pages and still trying to justify being hypocritical and mindless. Minions do what they do....

The coward screamed into the void... 

[Chrissy1979]

Just now, User said:

What power was used?

You claimed government censorship. If you want to quibble about government threats, OK, fine. No government censorship occurred. 

Your inability to make an argument based on facts is not made better by simply yelling at everyone they don't believe in the First Amendment. 

You think it was an empty threat? 

[User]

1 minute ago, Chrissy1979 said:

You think it was an empty threat? 

Yes. The FCC doesn't actually have the power to do anything here. 

 

[LinkSoul60]

2 minutes ago, Chrissy1979 said:

What power was used?

You claimed government censorship. If you want to quibble about government threats, OK, fine.

Captain Oblivious....

[Chrissy1979]

2 minutes ago, User said:

Yes. The FCC doesn't actually have the power to do anything here. 

 

What are you talking about? You’re just making things up again. They have all the power.

[User]

Just now, Chrissy1979 said:

What are you talking about? You’re just making things up again. They have all the power.

OK. Explain what power the FCC has here that they can lawfully use. 

 

3 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Captain Oblivious....

Stop being a coward and make your argument if you can. 

[Chrissy1979]

4 minutes ago, User said:

OK. Explain what power the FCC has here that they can lawfully use. 

 

Stop being a coward and make your argument if you can. 

They are in the process of approving a merger involving ABC. They can take away broadcast licences. They have total control. What they're doing isn't lawful (see the first amendment) but neither was electing an insurrectionist for president. When you have the supreme court in the bag, lawfulness doesn't matter 

[User]

4 minutes ago, Chrissy1979 said:

They are in the process of approving a merger involving ABC. They can take away broadcast licences. They have total control. What they're doing isn't lawful (see the first amendment) but neither was electing an insurrectionist for president. When you have the supreme court in the bag, lawfulness doesn't matter 

They can't lawfully take away a broadcast license because of this. They can't lawfully threaten a merger because of this. 

They do not have total control. They have to operate within the laws. 

What exactly did they do that was not lawful?

You are woefully unable to actually make a real argument.  

[CdnFox]

42 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

That claim was already debunked on this thread and the TRUMP-APPOINTED Supreme Court said so. 

Nonsense.  Hell the actual owner of youtube verified it. 

And you said nothing.  

Then there's the biden notebook, also you were fine with it. 

There's laws. there's policy there's dozens of examples

57 Biden Administration Censorship Initiatives

But if you're going to take the 'proven' route, some of those ARE proven but its not been PROVEN kimmel was fired because of the white house. 

 

Quote

Also fake news. As usual, you take a real story, distort it beyond all recognition to make it into something it’s not, then claim you’re entitles to commit the same type of misconduct as you falsely claim “the Democrats” did. 

It's been proven 100 times over.  
 

 

Quote

gain more of your BS where you lobotomize yourself of all the Republican censorship so you think it’s never happened while exaggerating the left’s supposed censorship. Bill Maher made an interesting point that Kimmel was cancelled 24 years to the day that Republicans had him cancelled from his ABC late night show called Politically Incorrect, where the whole point of the show was to discuss politically incorrect topics, because they were offended by his comments.   And in those days under Bush they went after anyone and everyone who questioned their Iraq lies, new surveillance laws, and anti-Muslim hate mongering.  The Chicks (formerly known as The Dixie Chicks) are STILL canceled and boycotted by Republicans for speaking out.  Being women, they obviously have a lower status among republicans than French fries, which were only temporarily cancelled by Republican cancel culture clowns. 

That's a lot of words to admit you know i'm right. 

And not a single rebuttal or intelligent thought in the whole post. You just try to dismiss it and lie and pretend it never happened and if it did it's somehow all my fault. 

 

Little boy.  If you allow YOUR side to lie, to censor, to repress, to control the narrative and FAIL TO SPEAK UP, then you have NO right to speak up when others do it.  This is YOUR fault, not mine.  I spoke out against all of those things. 

And the same is true of lawfare which i specifically told you at the time when the fake charges were being 'trumped' up.

If i tell you that "doinog this will have this consequence"

And then you do 'this'

and it has that consequence, 

Guess who the fault lies with? Hint  it's not me. 

[Chrissy1979]

1 hour ago, User said:

They can't lawfully take away a broadcast license because of this. They can't lawfully threaten a merger because of this. 

They do not have total control. They have to operate within the laws. 

What exactly did they do that was not lawful?

You are woefully unable to actually make a real argument.  

If lawfulness still mattered, Trump wouldn’t be president. It was also against the law to shoot Charlie Kirk, but it happened. It almost seems like the response was coordinated in advance too.

[User]

12 minutes ago, Chrissy1979 said:

If lawfulness still mattered, Trump wouldn’t be president. It was also against the law to shoot Charlie Kirk, but it happened. It almost seems like the response was coordinated in advance too.

LOL, so now... you want to push some kind of conspiratorial crazy argument about Trump not being President?

Focus. This is the stage where leftists like you just start throwing mud at the wall as you flounder unable to defend the BS you are spewing. 

 

[CdnFox]

14 minutes ago, Chrissy1979 said:

If lawfulness still mattered, Trump wouldn’t be president. It was also against the law to shoot Charlie Kirk, but it happened. It almost seems like the response was coordinated in advance too.

LOL it happened and the shooter is going to jail, probably the electric chair.  turns out you can't just 'break the law'. 

And again, you were fine with censorship when it invloved biden's notebook or the whitehouse putting pressure on the social media companies to repress conservatives or the IRS doing it with conservative companies etc etc etc.  That made you happy, but now you're soooo hurt by it. 

Please. Your crocodile tears fool no one. 

[LinkSoul60]

1 hour ago, User said:

OK. Explain what power the FCC has here that they can lawfully use. 

 

Stop being a coward and make your argument if you can. 

No need to. You already did;

'If you want to quibble about government threats, OK, fine.'

 

[User]

3 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

No need to. You already did;

'If you want to quibble about government threats, OK, fine.'

 

Nope. A threat is just a threat. You have not offered anything to say how they could actually act on the threat. 

 

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, Gaétan said:

Paid political party promoters cannot invoke freedom of speech. For example, some individuals on social media are employed and paid to defend political positions. If they are prevented from spreading those policies, they cannot claim it as a violation of free speech.

The link you provided is talk about campaign contributions and political advertising, not people who say things politicians don’t like. 

 

 

[Chrissy1979]

45 minutes ago, User said:

LOL, so now... you want to push some kind of conspiratorial crazy argument about Trump not being President?

Focus. This is the stage where leftists like you just start throwing mud at the wall as you flounder unable to defend the BS you are spewing. 

 

You misunderstood what I was saying. Of course he’s president.