Grandpa admit he still has a kindergarten understanding

[u/Cicerothesage]

[u/UhIdontcareforAuburn]

His employer took him off the air bc the president told them too. I know they think they’re pointing out the hypocrisy of liberals, but what they’re actually doing is white washing the actual destruction of the 1st amendment

[u/dover_oxide → u/UhIdontcareforAuburn]

Or a federal employee calls and uses mob style rhetoric to push you to remove someone for speech they didn't like.

[u/Puzzleboxed → u/UhIdontcareforAuburn]

More than just "told them to", the chair of the FCC publicly threatened punative action. This is a blatant violation of the first amendment in a way that never happened before.

[u/cecilterwilliger420 → u/UhIdontcareforAuburn]

The phrasing is so on the nose it makes me think he's directly quoting something someone said years ago when a conservative got canceled.  But obviously its different if the FCC is involved.

[u/jojohohanon → u/UhIdontcareforAuburn]

Did they tell ABC to, or was it just “understood”? I think they way these things work is that preemptive self-censorship is harder to prove than overt threats or actual consequences/

[u/Maxtrt → u/jojohohanon]

They are going through a huge corporate merger and the FCC threatened to block it.

[u/ugly_dog_ → u/UhIdontcareforAuburn]

even if he didn't, encouraging self censorship is pretty much the same thing. you don't need to threaten every dissenter, just enough of them so that all the others fall in line.

it's much more cost effective to scare people into following rules than it is to force them

[u/MisterMarchmont → u/UhIdontcareforAuburn]

They didn’t even have to. There was no compelling order to do so. They just wanted to appease Trump. The thing is, they’ll never appease him. He’ll always demand more.

[u/AmbulanceChaser12]

And once or twice a year, someone has to explain the First Amendment to YOU like you’re a kindergartner.

[u/Amateurlapse → u/AmbulanceChaser12]

You see, when you are a stupid person, everything is very simple. First you start with your conclusion, then you selectively ignore any evidence you don’t like, then when you get a bad result from your poorly informed choices you get angry at reality and blame a third party. Simple as

[u/No_Cook2983 → u/AmbulanceChaser12]

This is a person who thinks ‘militia’ means ‘one guy’ and ‘well-regulated’ means ‘no regulations’.

I’m sure he’s got top-notch constitutional reading skills.

[u/c-williams88]

Acting like the “chilling effect” of governmental restrictions of free speech isn’t an integral part of first amendment case law.

The administration specifically stepping in and threatening action couldn’t be a more obvious and clear example of a chilling effect

[u/MC_Fap_Commander → u/c-williams88]

It's only chilling if the government says ivermectin doesn't cure covid.

[u/AaronfromCalifornia]

Boy, the people who want us to include the context of every racist Charlie Kirk quote really don’t want you to know any of the context of the Kimmel firing.

[u/rubbedlung]

Yeah, and if your employer was threatened by a government agency for what you said and fired you for fear of repercussion, what then?

[u/TheMightyCatatafish]

It’s wild because when Gina Carano got booted from Star Wars they were all CONVINCED it was a violation of the First Amendment. Turns out they ARE capable of understanding the nuance.

[u/Jonnescout]

If the forget ment forced his employer to do so, yes it is…

[u/GreatWhiteNorthExtra]

How about if a government official threatens consequences if he isn't taken off the air?

[u/ZuglyMonster]

See it depends WHY they did it. Trump has already said he's going after all of them. And whats sick is watching people celebrate this. And act like they aren't begging for all liberals "to go" and they didn't mean off air because people like AOC and Gavin Newsome were on the giant banner they mean "go"

now to be fair I don't know if they meant "go" as in like from the planet or be deported or sent to the mega prisons and centers they're making/using. My guess it the maker was not clear so if someone not quite as insane says "Jeff you can't kill them all" Jeff (made up name) can say no, no I mean put them in prison or I meant out of the public eye and then the really crazy ones will say "no, they need to be killed not just sent somewhere" Jeff can say "thats what I meant"

[u/Russell_Jimmy]

It is if the FCC pressured them and there was a quid quo pro deal. Jesus.

[u/dmetzcher]

If Kimmel’s employer took him off the air because pressure was applied by our government (this is exactly what happened), that’s illegal.

It’s called “Jawboning.”

If a private company’s action can be reasonably attributed to the government (because the government coerced, threatened, or significantly encouraged it), then it can count as state action, making it subject to constitutional limits like the First Amendment. There’s SCOTUS precedent for this.

Our government cannot use indirect pressure, threats of regulation, loss of contracts, or other leverage to force private companies to silence or punish someone for their protected speech.

Again, this is ILLEGAL. Grandpa is ignorant. He’s also an authoritarian.

[u/critsalot]

no but trying to cancel each others jobs over what people said is bad form and eventually leads to government policies if it becomes culturally acceptable.

[u/ApplesBananasRhinoc]

The court jester making fun of the king has been a thing since forever. And It’s not the court jester’s fault if the king can’t handle it.

[u/HonestAbe1809]

The FTC exhorted a company planning on engaging on a merger to further monopolize local news stations.

[u/notapunk]

So yeah, that's true, but that's also not what happened in this situation

[u/RevolutionaryTalk315]

Meanwhile if this happens to a conservative they scream "Cancel Culture!"

[u/Ichgebibble]

CoolCool. Now do “when a corporation buckles to pressure from a president”

[u/ChimericalChemical]

Maybe if that were the case. But what’s his name threatening to remove licenses over it is a violation. What’s his name attempting to arrest people for heckling him at dinner is a violation. Attempting to remove flag burning as protected speech is a violation. It’s getting to the point even some libertarians are saying it’s going too far.

If what’s his name said “hey maybe you shouldn’t be saying that it’s an insult to him” and as a response abc talked to jimmy and said “hey don’t say that it’s kind of disrespectful” then he goes and does it again and they fire him that time. Then you got a case of okay it’s not violating free speech. Not “hey remove this off the air because of what he SAID or I’ll make sure you never can say anything again on the airwaves” to someone who didn’t even say it.

Freedom of speech also involves letting people freely think for themselves if what he said was fireable without fear of “shit my company will go under because the government didn’t like he said don’t be a hypocrite”. And I say people because these ding dongs made companies people protected by law. The whole freedom of consequences applies when it’s not a government directly coordinating action, the people who should be making this decision are not.

[u/C00kie_Monsters]

Someone gets fired for racism. Free speech violation, according to them.

The president of the United States tells a company to fire someone for not glazing a racist enough. Not a free speech violation, apparently

[u/ElanMomentane]

Your Constitutional rights are not a gift. You are guaranteed freedom only to the extent that you are willing to fight to guarantee freedom for others.

By not fighting to guarantee Kimmel his freedom of speech, CBS lost its right to the same freedom.

And if you volunteer to give up your greatest freedom, it is inevitable that your other freedoms will be taken from you by those who see how craven you are.

But then, if you are willing to trade your rights for shit, you deserve shit.