"Antifa isn’t an organization, and the far-right sees “antifa activists” around every corner, in every crowd, and behind every statement that makes them feel rotten inside. And because of that, any designation as a terror organization would likely target any activists who disagree with the right."

We're in the endgame now.

This is a great time for all you constitutional conservatives out there to make noise about freedom of speech. I mean, if you actually believe in freedom of speech for everyone, that is.

Unilever Ben & Jerry's is sickly sweet awful.

"How Are People Reacting to All This Fascism? "
How stupid a question is that? THE PEOPLE VOTED FOR ALL THIS FASCISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We can only hope that all the MAGA assholes in rural Appalachia & elsewhere who lost their healthcare & whatever, who's rectums have been stretched to a meter diameter will be feeling it next election and come to their senses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gykVp3JJNdI
Ran across this video yesterday which gives a taste of what American mercy & hospitality used to be toward foreigners.

Jimmy Kimmel has free speech to say whatever he wants, and ABC has free speech to not produce and broadcast his show.

@2: They are. Karl Rove, Britt Hume, Ted Cruz, Bill Kristol, are appalled. The list is growing.

@5 You missed the bit in the middle where the FCC chair threatened to pull ABC affiliates' broadcast licenses because of what Kimmel said on the air. That's the First Amendment issue. The fact that ABC rolled over doesn't mean that the FCC chair's action was legal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gykVp3JJNdI
Another thing about this video is it hints at just how effective truth, patience, justice, & kindness can be at changing the mind of your enemy. I'm sure it isn't easy. I'm sure it isn't pretty. I'm sure it's frustrating & painful. But I think, in the long run, it's the most effective course of action. Michelle really was right about that, When they go low, we go high, stuff.

Any goofy lib/prog has free speech to dance on Charlie Kirk's grave, and their employers have the freedom to not employ them.

The economy is collapsing, hospitals are closing, deadly diseases are coming back, and nobody can afford to live, but at least our late night tv shows are getting canceled because the president is a pussy.

@5, ?????? Fall off any turnip trucks lately???
When the govt forces you to do something by illegally & unjustly threatening to revoke your legally obtained & legally held license as a form of coercion, that's not exactly freedom. If ABC did it because they actually didn't LIKE what Kimmel said, THAT would be freedom.

@6 I have seen that. I meant the self-styled conservatives in this comments section. I don't flatter myself that any national political figures read Slog comments.

well-Hitlered, America!
Thnx, FOX! with an 'honorable' mention
to both Citizens United and the fucking Powell Memo.

oh
and @tS's
reich-wing contingent:

your Dreams
of Dominionism-
've FINALLY Cum True.

Carr seems to think that being chair of the FCC also makes him Minister for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda.

I'm sure Trump's declaration will go up on the notice board at the antifa clubhouse.

I haven't watched Jimmy Kimmel in years. Does his show still feature the ever popular Girls Jumping on Trampolines segment featuring the bikini-clad Juggy Dance bouncing their juggies?

"Any goofy lib/prog has free speech to dance on Charlie Kirk's grave"
--@bippie

and hunting licenses
are being issued for
Any such Acts of
TERRORISM!!!

25: Honey. The head of the FCC threatened to revoke ABC's broadcasting license. And THAT makes it a first amendment issue. And you know that.

I'm sorry! slip of the finger I mean @5

The FCC shouldn't be leaning on ABC about Kimmel, which is obviously an assault on free speech. As most everyone outside the Bluesky bubble now knows, Robinson is not at all part of the "MAGA gang" or "one of them", but Kimmel should be free to opine on this falsehood without government interference.

Are the people who are in a twist over Kimmel being suspended the same ones who said Gina Carano deserved to be fired?
And isn’t it true that the left has been searching for anything to say that Kirk’s murderer isn’t in their team?
And uh, I hate to break it to you, but he is.

@19, The federal government didn’t threaten disney if they didn’t fire her, genius. Disney decided for themselves she wasn’t worth the trouble. Remember when conservatives pretended to care about government overreach? Sure you do. You probably still think you believe that.

There is little the FCC could do to Disney other than make threats. And FTR, I completely disagree with Kimmel’s suspension. What he said was true. The right WAS bending over backwards to show that young Mr. Robinson wasn’t one of theirs, the left was doing the same thing. Kimmel is probably just angry that the right was correct.
I wouldn’t worry too much.
He’ll be back once the dust settles.

@20
them
Cognitive
Dissonances
AIN'T Gonna
Lick themselfs.

@19: I don’t recall the FCC threatening Disney and demanding her firing….

@18, 19, 21 et al

Tyler Robinson is an extremely disturbed individual who is not on anyone's "Team." He committed an act of murder because he is disturbed, just like Dylann Roof is not on anyone's "Team." Roof is an extremely disturbed individual who chose to commit murder.

Is it possible that extremist rhetoric from one side or the other influenced these crazy loons? Yes, yes it is. But it's also possible the neighborhood dog communicating telepathically had just as much to do with it as whatever podcasts or YouTube videos were in heavy rotation in their mind.

Such speculation in these high profile causes is both premature and wrong. When Reagan was shot everyone thought Hinkley's act was political, but really he was just a crazy SOB trying to impress Iris Steensma.

Should we all tone down the rhetoric? Yea, probably. But blaming the acts of a madman on the rhetoric he hears is futile.

Remember, the first amendment says: "CONGRESS shall make no law..." An unelected head of an agency, who was appointed by a guy who publicly stated he would be a dictator on day one can do whatever the fuck he wants!

Mother Fuck Brendan Carr, worthless shitbag fuck who helped Ajit Pai kill net neutrality. Eat shit you fascist snowflake fuckhead. Dude needs his ass dragged through the mud and slapped like Eli in There Will Be Blood like the pigshit he is, cowardly scumsucking assclown bitch.

@21 "There is little the FCC could do to Disney other than make threats."

Disney subsidiary ESPN is awaiting FCC approval, which could easily be denied, for their purchase of the NFL Network.

https://thehill.com/media/5443490-espn-nfl-trump-scrutiny/

The University Bridge is not a suspension bridge. Those are the ones that hang from cables, like the Tacoma Narrows Bridges or the Golden Gate Bridge. The University Bridge is a double leaf bascule bridge.

"Those who cave in --
those like ABC who cave in --
what they do is give the bully an even bigger appetite.

When they appease the bully, they put all of us at risk." --US Senator Chris VanHollen

the Simpsons
(thru Principal Skinner)
once asked, "Is the World Ruled
by a small group of Hyper-wealthy Psychopaths?"

and then
after a moment's
Reflection realized
"No. it would've been
on The News. Which's Owned by
That small group of Hyper-wealthy Psychopaths."

we ceded OUR
little Democracy
to some very Bright
and Cunning Capitalists

and
This
is Exactly
how it was
ALWAYS gonna Turn out.

@27
they Do work
in mysterious Ways

don't they?

@24
Yes. In the end, it’s a disturbed 22 year old with a gun, who knew how to shoot.
Disturbed is important part.

@14 No, you're thinking of "The Man Show," which ended about 20 years ago. But Kimmel still has a large, male-skewing fan base who remember him fondly from that era, so there's reason to think Trumpworld might regret their heavy-handedness on this one.

Of course, Biden opened the door to this when administration officials pressured Facebook toward censorship. Unpleasant to see Republicans adopt Democrat censoriousness.

@2 Tucker Carlson also spoke about the freedom of speech issue. These MF’s are scared.

@33 I was wondering when the new talking points would filter in here. You came through, though you're a little slow.

Did the Biden administration threaten Facebook with legal action? Elected/appointed Democrats have never done anything like this in the post-WWII era.

This is MAGAs punishment for BLM riots and the left’s cancel culture, white fragility putting people trial for not professing their racism and vaccine mandates. Which all sucked.
Is Kimmel wrong? Nope he’s also right and maga are scared af. Most people don’t agree with the fascists or the far left. Sry. We need a middle third party. If we don’t, the far right will continue to grow out of control until they eat themselves.

CKathes @32...
I've been off and on with Kimmel, but I do like how he's grown since then. I think Sarah Silverman (who use to date him) said it best when referring to his wife:
"She got Oscar host Jimmy, I had 'Man Show' Jimmy."

@28 I see your comment. Stranger not fact checking their bridge etiquette no surprise.

@35 Of course they did—the Biden admin constantly threatened antitrust enforcement, Section 230 changes, etc amidst their public and private hectoring of social media companies. It's sad to see Trump adopting the worst of the Biden admin playbook.

@2, ""I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - E.B. Hall

Kimmel is entitled to his opinion. ABC, as the owner of the network, gets to decide who they broadcast. Free speech all around, provided the government doesn't coerce either party's content choice as a condition of a broadcast license.

I think Disney and ABC are being spineless. All they should give a shit about is the ratings Kimmel generates and how much advertisers will pay to put ads in front of those eyeballs. Kimmel is not my cup of tea, but he gets late night eyeballs on ads. That's a TV entertainer's job. Whatever the ideology or content they spew to do that is irrelevant.

@7, It's not a violation of any law for the FCC chair to threaten to take a license. The license holder doesn't have stsnding to sue until the FCC acts.

@33, FTW

@35, https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/zuckerberg-says-the-white-house-pressured-facebook-to-censor-some-covid-19-content-during-the-pandemic

We mustn’t allow even the suggestion of disrespect towards St Charley The Martyr. Remember, Extremism in defense of Charley (Blessed be his name!) is no vice.

If Jimmy Kimmel knows what’s good for him, he will say ten Our Trumps and fourteen Hail Charley’s and - most importantly - make a donation to the trump campaign fund.

Go in peace to love and serve the trumps.

The Trans Agenda:

Free coinage of Silver
Lower tariffs on Steel
Full funding of Obamacare
Regular order in the Senate
Free Navigation on the Mississippi River

@39 Go ahead and show a source for that allegation that the Biden admin threatened antitrust action over COVID compliance. Sure, the Biden administration took antitrust action against Facebook. In 2024. If that was related to COVID, it was kinda late. And Section 230 changes? That would take an act of Congress. Biden asked (in 2022, again, rather late), but Congress didn't do it.

@43 In the letter referenced in that article, Zuckerberg says: "Ultimately, it was our decision whether or not to take content down, and we own our decisions..." So all you've got here is that the US government asked Facebook to take stuff down, maybe in somewhat strong terms. Then Facebook decided to do that or not. No mention of taking antitrust action or other use of the force of government, like threatening broadcast licenses. Nice try.

@46, FB perceived it as "pressured" (i.e. the legal and legislative might of the U.S. Govt.) just like broadcasters of Kimmel are perceiving pressure. Like with FB, its the broadcaster's call to cave or fight.

Of all the depravities of the Trump administration, forcing me to defend Jimmy Kimmel surely ranks among the most egregious...

@46, Unrelated, but relevant given today's content of the SLOG. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/pierce-county-homeowner-fatally-shoots-attempted-intruder/

It seems TS, and most media, only reports one side of the coin.

Part of that is the fault of the FBI and LE, since they would not report the referenced incident in crime data. Why? The killing in the citation is not a crime and therefore not a part of uniform crime stats. It's a lawful killing according to the Sheriff's Department, and not a crime of any kind for statistical purposes.

@46, https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/07/04/biden-social-lawsuit-missouri-louisiana/

@47 Facebook never reported a threat, only that the government "put pressure." Nothing specific, just asking, maybe even over and over again. If there had actually been a threat, the letter to Gym Jordan would have been the ideal time--a direct threat was exactly what Jordan wanted to hear.

On the other hand, The FCC chair made a specific and direct public threat against ABC.

Night and day difference. Nice try.

@28 @38

Also according to the Times article referenced the bridge was lowering, not raising when the Audi drive decided to imitate Elwood Blues.

"Seattle Department of Transportation footage shows the car driving on the wrong side of the road to avoid stopped vehicles behind the bridge gates, when the double-leaf bascule bridge spans were nearly but not entirely lowered. The Audi then rams into the gate arms, accelerates and leaps over the drawbridge gap."

The Biden admin merely used various thinly veiled legal threats along with the rest of their pressure campaign toward censorship, while Trump skipped straight to the threat. Night and day!

@52 Did the Biden administration actually issue threats, veiled or otherwise? "Pressure" can mean a lot of things, from repeated requests to appeals to one's better nature and/or keeping their users actually, you know, alive, to actual threats. Note that Facebook never said they were threatened.

I mean, unless you have any actual evidence. But you don't, or you would have posted it by now.

@53 Anyone intellectually honest can see the constant browbeating to censor and the coercion campaign including the threatening reminder of a "robust anti-trust program" if they didn't do more to censor doesn't differ substantially from what happened here, so I don't particularly feel like trying to convince you. It was obviously effective, as Facebook executives pointed out correct info relating to the lab leak was removed due to Biden admin pressure, which sort of points to the issue of organs like administration officials (or the FCC) being arbiters of "misinformation" in order to coerce censorship.

“This seems like a good reminder that when we compromise our standards due to pressure from an administration in either direction, we’ll often regret it later.”
-Mark Zuckerberg

"Both parties always "rethink speech" the minute they get into power. In the US, you can almost always tell who is screaming about free speech: those who are out of power."
-Glenn Greenwald

Don't forget to vote!

Jbiden
"Pressured"
the Fuck outta
bibi nutnyahoo and
the latter laffed in his face
and Spit in Ours. This is pressure:

Mmm num ba de
Dum bum ba be
Doo buh dum
ba beh beh!

@35, thanks for playing, stereotypical stupid and naive Seattle libprog:

"Did the Biden administration threaten Facebook with legal action?

Yes, the Biden administration applied significant pressure on Facebook (now Meta) to censor certain COVID-19-related content, including misinformation, satire, and even true information about vaccine side effects. This pressure included aggressive communications, public criticisms, and what Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg described as implicit threats of "repercussions" and subsequent investigations when Facebook resisted. While the administration framed its actions as encouragement for "responsible" public health measures, lower courts (including the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals) found evidence of coercion, though the Supreme Court ultimately dismissed related lawsuits on procedural grounds (standing) without ruling on the merits.This episode, often called the "Facebook Files," emerged from congressional investigations, emails, and Zuckerberg's public statements. It centered on 2021 efforts to combat vaccine hesitancy during the pandemic but raised First Amendment concerns about government overreach.

Apparently #46 doesn't know how go "google" shit

@45

see
You @
the Gulag!

@26, Aw, come on.......Don't hold back. Tell us what you really think.