Just to clarify for anyone skimming: ABC faced pressure from FCC chair Brendan Carr after he said their broadcasting license was at risk from Kimmel's statements on Tyler Robinson, the alleged Kirk assassin.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/17/charlie-kirk-jimmy-kimmel-ab...
> “Mr. Kimmel’s comments about the death of Mr. Kirk are offensive and insensitive at a critical time in our national political discourse, and we do not believe they reflect the spectrum of opinions, views, or values of the local communities in which we are located,” said Andrew Alford, President of Nexstar’s broadcasting division. “Continuing to give Mr. Kimmel a broadcast platform in the communities we serve is simply not in the public interest at the current time, and we have made the difficult decision to preempt his show in an effort to let cooler heads prevail as we move toward the resumption of respectful, constructive dialogue.”
This decision and their public statement about it, coupled with social media pressure, led ABC to making a decision afterwards about the show.
As for Carr - he is staunchly in support of first amendment rights. Politico wrote about this yesterday since he split from the rest of the GOP on broader censorship (https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/16/fcc-brendan-carr-so...). He also can’t take unilateral action - the commissioners would have to vote. But the FCC has a lot of content rules for the mediums they regulate, which have thus far held up in courts (although I find it questionable). In that sense, what he was suggesting may be legal (unfortunately).
Right, because he said this on a conservative podcast:
Hours earlier, FCC Chair Brendan Carr told conservative podcaster Benny Johnson that Kimmel’s comments were “truly sick,” and that there was a “strong case” for action against ABC and Disney.
“This is a very, very serious issue right now for Disney. We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr said. “These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel, or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”
Can you provide evidence for this? Right wing truisms are not sufficient.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/zuckerberg-says-the-wh...
The officials “expressed a lot of frustration” when the company didn’t agree, he said in the letter.
Speech has consequences. In addition to this, Antifa has been proven to be an organized and violent group, gaining popularity after Occupy Wallstreet. It's about time they are classified as a terrorist group.
People seem to be ignoring the almost nightly attacks of ICE and federal buildings by Antifa groups and when D.C was on fire during Trump's first presidenency.
If Trump is an 'autocrat' as you say, the Biden administration was a Dictatorship.
Republicans being debanked, J6 protestors that just showed up and were let in by police, arrested in front of their friends and families and sent to prison for years, the government colluding with major social media companies to censor American citizens on anything that changes the government narrative, and the firing of anyone that didn't take an experimental vaccine, regardless of any pre-existing health issues.
J6'ers ransacked the Capitol building and killed a cop, we all watched it unfold live on TV. I'd love to read more on the debanking thing, I can't find anything that materially supports the claim that lots of people are being debanked for their political views.
> the government colluding with major social media companies to censor American citizens on anything that changes the government narrative
This is exactly what is happening right now with broadcasters and with those speaking out about Kirk. Trump and Kimmel have feuded for years. Why do you see this situation as justified (i.e. "Speech has consequences"), but when it's social media, you see big bad government suppressing speech illegally?
It's like we just tolerate it when it's our party in charge, otherwise we ignore it. I have no idea where that path leads us, but I can't fathom it's good.
The "hunter biden laptop" story is a dead horse that keeps being revived by the right wing fearmonger media which you're clearly very entrenched in.
Nothing you just said bears resemblance to the FCC-directed censorship we just saw today. Cite some sources if you think otherwise.
The United States is a fascist dictatorship. It's not turning into one, it has already happened.
If, for example, I call you out for being a fascist (or even falsely accuse you of such) then I must be anti fascist and therefore a terrorist, an enemy of the state, someone that can be seized from the streets and cast into a black hole somewhere.
The particulars don't matter, be it Red Scare (and under the bed), Yellow Peril, Anti-Fa, et al. the playbook is familiar.
I’m not sure how you haven’t heard of them since “before COVID”. They were far more active post COVID and George Floyd. You can find lots written about their activities online, and lots of videos as well.
Andy Ngo has done a great job documenting this. I’m sure someone is going to respond to my comment with character attacks on Andy Ngo but his journalism is solid. He wrote a book about Antifa (https://www.centerstreet.com/titles/andy-ngo/unmasked/978154...) and also has a lot of content on his website (https://www.ngocomment.com/)
https://www.reddit.com/r/BreadTube/comments/10cxkk2/getting_...
> There is an alternate universe out there in which we never have to ponder, let alone read, “Unmasked,” provocateur Andy Ngo’s supremely dishonest new book on the left-wing anti-fascist movement known as antifa.
[. . . ]
> The right is always reminding us that ”facts don’t care about your feelings,” so let us set out some facts. Ngo writes that the “numbers and influence” of right-wing extremists “are grossly exaggerated by biased media,” while antifa poses “just as much, if not more, of a threat to the future of American liberal democracy.” He frequently references [2020’s] anti-racism protests, conveniently eliding the point that 93% were peaceful, according to a study from Princeton. A brief published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, hardly a lefty outfit, found that antifa had a “minor” role in what violence did occur, most of which was driven by local, autonomous actors, and that the organization’s threat was “relatively small.”
> January 6th administered the coup de grâce to Ngo’s already teetering thesis. It should not have taken this long, however. Trump’s own Department of Homeland Security warned last October that “white supremacist extremists” would remain the “most persistent and lethal threat” to the American homeland.
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/books/story/2021-...
And now you see: that is the point.
However, I agree with you in a sense, in that movements with names are inherently vulnerable to cooptation and suppression.
But if there is an "Antifa", and it's made up of US citizens, under what law are they terrorists? Again, I may be misinformed, but I had understood "terrorist" as a legal designation was for non-US-citizens.
hypeatei•1h ago
CodingJeebus•1h ago
That is correct.
kccoder•1h ago
And with the neutering of lower courts to impose nationwide injunctions, they’ll get pretty far before we get a final judicial ruling, likely on the shadow docket.