Jimmie Kimmel Show gone !

[whodeycin85]

No,telling him he knows nothing about immagrant wages. No immagrant working on farms makes $2/hr as he said. They are not slave labor, they are willing labor.

No more akin to edentured servants
. Not much difference

 

[rekinhavoc]

Ben Affleck dumped J Lo cause he knew Jimmy's time in the spotlight was coming to an end.

- National Enquirer (probably)

 

[GVF]

That's ridiculous. The "or else" is extremely important. Would the "or else" be within the scope of appropriate FCC activities? Do you have any idea what the "or else" was?




Carr didn't fire anyone.

If Kimmel chronically broke FCC regulations, the FCC has a responsibility to investigate. If he chronically broke FCC regulations, and the network refused to do anything about it, it becomes a network problem for the FCC to deal with. If Kimmel is no longer an employee of the network for having chronically broken FCC regulations, because the network self-resolved the issue, then there is no need for the FCC to investigate and seek remedy if appropriate, depending on the outcome of the investigation.

It doesn't seem like this should be that complicated.

Some reports were saying after the fact all Kimmel had to do to remain on air was to apologize. He refused and said he would double down on Trump and ramp it up. So, he was nixed.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Some reports were saying after the fact all Kimmel had to do to remain on air was to apologize. He refused and said he would double down on Trump and ramp it up. So, he was nixed.

That seem to be the rumor.

 

[BowlBrother85]

I've already said that Carr was a dumb*** and should have kept his mouth shut.

I am, however, questioning your conclusions and points of argument. You haven't supported your vague statements with references to HIS vague statements.

I feel like I have.

Carr was clearly threatening ABC with some form of sanction, if they didn't take action against Kimmel. You want to give Carr a pass because he didn't specify how he would sanction ABC or exactly what he wanted them to do to Kimmel.

However, Carr's tone was unmistakably hostile. When have you ever heard someone begin a statement with, "We can do this the easy way or the hard way," and then follow it up with "or we will investigate" ..... LOL.

Ted Cruz was right ... Carr sounded like a mafia wiseguy.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I feel like I have.

Carr was clearly threatening ABC with some form of sanction, if they didn't take action against Kimmel. You want to give Carr a pass because he didn't specify how he would sanction ABC or exactly what he wanted them to do to Kimmel.

However, Carr's tone was unmistakably hostile. When have you ever heard someone begin a statement with, "We can do this the easy way or the hard way," and then follow it up with "or we will investigate" ..... LOL.

The last time the federal government opened its mouth.

Ted Cruz was right ... Carr sounded like a mafia wiseguy.

I agree with both of you. I think I've been clear on that. He sounded like a dumb***, and would have been well served to keep his mouth shut. Same for Trump a huge amount of the time. Probably most of the time, actually.




My issue is the level of certainty being used here when it comes to whether the FCC outpaced their jurisdiction, or whether Carr planned to do so.

It's a huge question mark, which you seem to agree with, with your current choice of words.

His tone was definitely hostile, just like I've heard the gov't tone before this occurrence. He did sound like a mafioso.

The problem is that he also sounded like the federal government, who starts from the perspective of "We can do this the easy way, or the hard way..." in nearly every interaction they have with the public.

My brother is a police officer, and that's probably his favorite line when describing ANY interaction with a suspect--from a driver pulled over to a suspected gang banger.

The IRS starts with that every time. Give us all of your records and answer every question promptly and honestly. We can do this the easy way, or the hard way.





The uncomfortable truth is that the government often sounds off-putting. That doesn't mean that they are acting outside of their jurisdiction.

 

[n_huffhines]

I feel like I have.

Carr was clearly threatening ABC with some form of sanction, if they didn't take action against Kimmel. You want to give Carr a pass because he didn't specify how he would sanction ABC or exactly what he wanted them to do to Kimmel.

However, Carr's tone was unmistakably hostile. When have you ever heard someone begin a statement with, "We can do this the easy way or the hard way," and then follow it up with "or we will investigate" ..... LOL.

Ted Cruz was right ... Carr sounded like a mafia wiseguy.

There was a case a few years back where the feds were getting sued for pressuring social media sites to moderate content. The plaintiffs didn't win because (1) it was hard for them to establish injury (it won't be for Kimmel), and (2) the link between what they were censored for and the alleged pressure by the federal government was a weak link (nothing like the FCC chair making a mafia-style, thinly-veiled threat specifically about punishing speech in front of the whole world).

“Of course, purely private entities like newspapers are not subject to the First Amendment, and as a result, they may publish or decline to publish whatever they wish. But government officials may not coerce private entities to suppress speech … and that is what happened in this case,” - Alito concluded, in his dissent.

For those who do not know, Alito is one of our conservative judges, and I am pretty confident that not even he and Trump's packed court would rule in the FCC's favor on this.

The Supreme Court rules on the government pressuring websites to moderate content | Constitution Center

At what point does the government, in taking actions to make social media websites aware of content considered to be “misinformation,” cross a constitutional line? On June 26, 2024, the Supreme Court addressed that question in Murthy v. Missouri, a case rooted in the COVID-19 pandemic and the...

constitutioncenter.org

 

[Orange_Crush]

There was a case a few years back where the feds were getting sued for pressuring social media sites to moderate content. The plaintiffs didn't win because (1) it was hard for them to establish injury (it won't be for Kimmel), and (2) the link between what they were censored for and the alleged pressure by the federal government was a weak link (nothing like the FCC chair making a mafia-style, thinly-veiled threat specifically about punishing speech in front of the whole world).

“Of course, purely private entities like newspapers are not subject to the First Amendment, and as a result, they may publish or decline to publish whatever they wish. But government officials may not coerce private entities to suppress speech … and that is what happened in this case,” - Alito concluded, in his dissent.

For those who do not know, Alito is one of our conservative judges, and I am pretty confident that not even he and Trump's packed court would rule in the FCC's favor on this.

The Supreme Court rules on the government pressuring websites to moderate content | Constitution Center

At what point does the government, in taking actions to make social media websites aware of content considered to be “misinformation,” cross a constitutional line? On June 26, 2024, the Supreme Court addressed that question in Murthy v. Missouri, a case rooted in the COVID-19 pandemic and the...

constitutioncenter.org

If Carr abused his position, or the purpose of the FCC, I hope Kimmel sues and wins. I also hope that the suit's discovery makes as much as possible public domain so that we can know with more certainty exactly what went down.

 

[whodeycin85]

If Carr abused his position, or the purpose of the FCC, I hope Kimmel sues and wins.

I hope he does so we can find out if the decision was made before carr or not

 

[Sea Ray]

No, it's not ridiculous at all, if the FCC is demanding punishment of Kimmel as a condition of whether or not they resort to the "or else." That is a coercive threat, that the FCC has no right to make.


Right, but Carr threatened ABC with action if they didn't punish Kimmel. That was wrong.


It's not complicated at all. Once again, Carr did not use the word "investigation" on that podcast. I don't know why you are insisting on saying that. It's weird. LOL.

Carr made a coercive threat against ABC to discipline Kimmel, or else he would do something to them. He gave them an ultimatum. The FCC has no authority over who ABC hires and fires or how they choose to discipline their employees. Although they are under federal regulation, they are still in the private sector.

You are just being obstinate now, and quite frankly, I was wrong about you not being an idiot. Talk to someone else. I'm done here.

You've been harping on this for nearly a week now and there's really nothing further for you to add. Let's see if we can agree on where we stand:

It would have been best if Carr had not made such a public statement.

You think it was the primary reason for Kimmel's firing

Many of us think it was not the primary reason

We disagree on that point but there's no way for any of us to prove our opinions since we're not privy to these meetings etc

Can't we leave it at that? Why continue to waste bandwidth on repeating the same stuff over and over?

 

[n_huffhines]

If Carr abused his position, or the purpose of the FCC, I hope Kimmel sues and wins. I also hope that the suit's discovery makes as much as possible public domain so that we can know with more certainty exactly what went down.

I listen to the Bill Simmons sports pod with Cousin Sal for years. They're "family" with Jimmy, they talk about him, and I feel like I have a pretty good read on who he is behind the scenes. I don't think he'll make the donation to TPUSA, but if he can get his show back on the air without doing that, I think he will, and I don't think he'll make trouble for ABC (like an FCC lawsuit). He has **** you money, but I just think he cares too much about making sure everybody else on the show has a job, and I think he probably cares about his relations with the bosses at ABC.

I'd be very interested in this potential suit, but not sure we're going to see one.

Oh, yeah, one detail that has not been brought up. TIFWIW, but Rolling Stone reported multiple ABC executives told them they didn't think what Jimmy said was offensive.

 

[Jxn Vol]

c'mon man. You can argue whether we should sponsor food programs with taxpayer money, but making the blanket statement that they should all just "move somewhere else" is not entirely feasible for a lot of people.

Yes. Yes it is. What is not feasible is continuously funding a non fixable problem. It’s like funding a black hole.

 

[Jxn Vol]

And feeding African children that should die of disease or starvation.

 

[GVF]

If Carr abused his position, or the purpose of the FCC, I hope Kimmel sues and wins. I also hope that the suit's discovery makes as much as possible public domain so that we can know with more certainty exactly what went down.

Considering Trump is pressuring Bondi to harrass his opponents and name callers, Kimmel might need to win this.

We all know the Biden and Obama regimes did the same. They are all 3 way out of bounds on this practice.

 

[Rickyvol77]

And feeding African children that should die of disease or starvation.

Weird how it hasn’t helped Africa at all over a span of 50 years

 

[Orange_Crush]

Considering Trump is pressuring Bondi to harrass his opponents and name callers, Kimmel might need to win this.

We all know the Biden and Obama regimes did the same. They are all 3 way out of bounds on this practice.

Bring it on. I will not be sad to see the gov't reigned in.

And again. Trump needs to simmer down, hush, and just get to doing what he was elected to do. It won't hurt my feelings at all to see him his ego and energies get clipped when it comes to that.

 

[GVF]

Bring it on. I will not be sad to see the gov't reigned in.

And again. Trump needs to simmer down, hush, and just get to doing what he was elected to do. It won't hurt my feelings at all to see him his ego and energies get clipped when it comes to that.

I wouldn't mind seeing the head position in the DOJ being either a congrssional appointment or an elected position, and completely remove it from any allegiance oe may get pressured to have toward the person that appointed them. Having said that, I think Bondi will be excellent if she is left to do her job as designed.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I wouldn't mind seeing the head position in the DOJ being either a congrssional appointment or an elected position, and completely remove it from any allegiance oe may get pressured to have toward the person that appointed them. Having said that, I think Bondi will be excellent if she is left to do her job as designed.

Would that require a Constitutional amendment?

And I'm not sure it would fix the problem anyway.


What we need is openness and mandated transparency that Washington couldn't frustrate. The problem--with all three branches--is that we have career politicians overseeing themselves.

 

[C-south]

No,telling him he knows nothing about immagrant wages. No immagrant working on farms makes $2/hr as he said. They are not slave labor, they are willing labor.

Are you illiterate on purpose?

 

[swampfoxfan]

Are you illiterate on purpose?

Are you a liar on purpose?

 

[GVF]

Would that require a Constitutional amendment?

And I'm not sure it would fix the problem anyway.


What we need is openness and mandated transparency that Washington couldn't frustrate. The problem--with all three branches--is that we have career politicians overseeing themselves.

Truth.

 

[BowlBrother85]

You've been harping on this for nearly a week now and there's really nothing further for you to add. Let's see if we can agree on where we stand:

It would have been best if Carr had not made such a public statement.

You think it was the primary reason for Kimmel's firing

Many of us think it was not the primary reason

We disagree on that point but there's no way for any of us to prove our opinions since we're not privy to these meetings etc

Can't we leave it at that? Why continue to waste bandwidth on repeating the same stuff over and over?

If I'm replying to someone's question on the matter, then I'm assuming that they haven't read my prior comments.

 

[C-south]

Are you a liar on purpose?

Nobody has to lie when referring to you.

 

[swampfoxfan]

Nobody has to lie when referring to you.

Why do you lie then?

 

[n_huffhines]

No,telling him he knows nothing about immagrant wages. No immagrant working on farms makes $2/hr as he said. They are not slave labor, they are willing labor.

They can make $2/hr in Mexico. The solteros come here so they can send more than that home, and pay for their life here, and save a little. I know guys that do that, buy a car, go home, and come back a couple years later and do it again.

We should have easy-to-obtain seasonal work visas, and then we end up with fewer illegals and a better/cheaper supply chain.