Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Right wing cancel culture at it again.

558 replies

Batmanisaplaceinturkey · 18/09/2025 04:46

This really is a scary time for free speech.

Another example right wing hypocrisy when it comes to free speech:

Jimmy Kimmel Live! suspended indefinitely after host’s Charlie Kirk comments https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2025/sep/18/jimmy-kimmel-live-suspended-indefinitely-after-hosts-charlie-kirk-comments?CMP=share_btn_url

Jimmy Kimmel Live! suspended indefinitely after host’s Charlie Kirk comments

ABC says late-night show will not air for foreseeable future after Kimmel accused Republicans of ‘doing everything they can to score political points’ from Kirk’s killing

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2025/sep/18/jimmy-kimmel-live-suspended-indefinitely-after-hosts-charlie-kirk-comments?CMP=share_btn_url

OP posts:
Thread gallery
16
BackToLurk · 18/09/2025 13:11

Howseitgoin · 18/09/2025 13:06

I didn't link 127 the other person did.

And irrespective of why, its still an 'offence' law not a hate speech law.

Because in the U.K. there are no specific hate speech laws*. There is some criminalisation of ‘hate speech’ via anti discrimination legislation More widely there are de facto hate speech laws created through the intersection of other laws and hate crime legislation. Effectively someone arrested for, for example, a section 127 offence with an aggravated element under hate crime legislation is being arrested for what would be covered in other jurisdictions by specific hate speech laws.

*the Wikipedia entry you linked to explains this.

ColdSalads · 18/09/2025 13:12

nomas · 18/09/2025 13:11

When you take someone off air for their (benign) views, you're telling them clearly that they do not have the right to free speech.

It doesn't matter, Jimmy can still say what he wants to say, the private company that runs the broadcasts can make decisions based on potential loss of revenue.

nomas · 18/09/2025 13:14

ColdSalads · 18/09/2025 13:12

It doesn't matter, Jimmy can still say what he wants to say, the private company that runs the broadcasts can make decisions based on potential loss of revenue.

If you truly don't realise that having to curtail free speech (of reasonable views) due to the threat of financial repercussions is not an affront to democracy, then I don't know what to tell you.

The right wing have said much worse about democrats but are not facing any repercussions. Says it all.

ColdSalads · 18/09/2025 13:16

nomas · 18/09/2025 13:14

If you truly don't realise that having to curtail free speech (of reasonable views) due to the threat of financial repercussions is not an affront to democracy, then I don't know what to tell you.

The right wing have said much worse about democrats but are not facing any repercussions. Says it all.

Edited

Not sure what you're failing to understand. The only thing Jimmy has lost is his exposure, he still retains his right to say what he likes.

It's a private company, Nomas, they've made a financial decision.

Similar to what happened when thousands of people got banned from twitter, a private company made a decision.

xanthomelana · 18/09/2025 13:16

nomas · 18/09/2025 13:11

When you take someone off air for their (benign) views, you're telling them clearly that they do not have the right to free speech.

All employers normally have rules about things like social media etc and warn that it’s possibly gross misconduct to bring the company into disrepute, I don’t see how he’s any different to the rest of us that have to follow these rules. Without seeing his employment contract no one can say if he’s been treated unfairly.

Namitynamename · 18/09/2025 13:19

xanthomelana · 18/09/2025 13:16

All employers normally have rules about things like social media etc and warn that it’s possibly gross misconduct to bring the company into disrepute, I don’t see how he’s any different to the rest of us that have to follow these rules. Without seeing his employment contract no one can say if he’s been treated unfairly.

He's a comedian

Letsadoit · 18/09/2025 13:19

StrictlySequinsandStiIettos · 18/09/2025 06:54

So four late night hosts, who dare to criticise the current administration, Colbert, Kimmel - with Fallon and Meyers also in the firing line by the looks of things - are being removed from the schedule and people think this is okay?
A president is pressurising TV stations to remove any detractors and you don't see this as problematic?
Good luck with that. You're going to need it.

exactly, and the responses on this thread are bonkers.

Howseitgoin · 18/09/2025 13:20

BackToLurk · 18/09/2025 13:11

Because in the U.K. there are no specific hate speech laws*. There is some criminalisation of ‘hate speech’ via anti discrimination legislation More widely there are de facto hate speech laws created through the intersection of other laws and hate crime legislation. Effectively someone arrested for, for example, a section 127 offence with an aggravated element under hate crime legislation is being arrested for what would be covered in other jurisdictions by specific hate speech laws.

*the Wikipedia entry you linked to explains this.

Edited

Yes but the difference between the two is the victim was offended because of hate rather than:

A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

IE one is causing personal offence the other is stirring up racial hatred.

ColdSalads · 18/09/2025 13:20

Namitynamename · 18/09/2025 13:19

He's a comedian

Do you know how many comedians have been cancelled over the last decade?

<sadly laughs out loud>

Namitynamename · 18/09/2025 13:21

ColdSalads · 18/09/2025 13:20

Do you know how many comedians have been cancelled over the last decade?

<sadly laughs out loud>

By Jimmy Kimmel?

nomas · 18/09/2025 13:22

xanthomelana · 18/09/2025 13:16

All employers normally have rules about things like social media etc and warn that it’s possibly gross misconduct to bring the company into disrepute, I don’t see how he’s any different to the rest of us that have to follow these rules. Without seeing his employment contract no one can say if he’s been treated unfairly.

Eh? It's literally his job to talk, he's a talk show host. Your job isn't relevant.

Howseitgoin · 18/09/2025 13:22

ColdSalads · 18/09/2025 13:20

Do you know how many comedians have been cancelled over the last decade?

<sadly laughs out loud>

The crucial difference is they weren't cancelled by the government…which is specifically anti first amendment.

ColdSalads · 18/09/2025 13:23

Howseitgoin · 18/09/2025 13:22

The crucial difference is they weren't cancelled by the government…which is specifically anti first amendment.

Kimmel was cancelled by the private company that owned the broadcast, please get your facts right

Howseitgoin · 18/09/2025 13:24

ColdSalads · 18/09/2025 13:23

Kimmel was cancelled by the private company that owned the broadcast, please get your facts right

The company was coerced by the government…get your facts straight.

hamstersarse · 18/09/2025 13:25

EasternStandard · 18/09/2025 12:50

Better not to have another TR

CK deserved it though, right? TR was only giving him what was coming to him, being all abhorrent and all

ColdSalads · 18/09/2025 13:26

Howseitgoin · 18/09/2025 13:24

The company was coerced by the government…get your facts straight.

What, like facebook was by Biden?

Howseitgoin · 18/09/2025 13:27

The crucial difference being a public health emergency…🤡

Barbadossunset · 18/09/2025 13:27

The company was coerced by the government…get your facts straight

What would’ve happened if the company had refused to be coerced?

Personally I don’t think Jimmy Kimmel should have been sacked - unless he made jokes or gloated over Charlie Kirk’s death - but presumably there will be plenty of other networks who will hire him.

ColdSalads · 18/09/2025 13:27

Howseitgoin · 18/09/2025 13:27

The crucial difference being a public health emergency…🤡

Sure.

Howseitgoin · 18/09/2025 13:28

Barbadossunset · 18/09/2025 13:27

The company was coerced by the government…get your facts straight

What would’ve happened if the company had refused to be coerced?

Personally I don’t think Jimmy Kimmel should have been sacked - unless he made jokes or gloated over Charlie Kirk’s death - but presumably there will be plenty of other networks who will hire him.

They can lose their licence to broadcast.

Howseitgoin · 18/09/2025 13:29

ColdSalads · 18/09/2025 13:27

Sure.

Think About It GIF by Big Potato Games

Oh I know, I know….

Absentosaur · 18/09/2025 13:30

Shedmistress · 18/09/2025 05:13

Gosh. When those who knew about the reality of sex and raised safeguarding concerns about men in women's spaces and lost jobs, publishers, housing, doctors, spouses, even families they called it 'Consequence culture'. It's been going on for at least a decade.

But the moment it switches, and a man celebrates the murder of another, and loses a gig. that's when people accept 'cancel culture' exists?

Who could have predicted this?

😂 Quite. No fcks left to give on this

hamstersarse · 18/09/2025 13:30

Howseitgoin · 18/09/2025 13:24

The company was coerced by the government…get your facts straight.

ABC made their own mind up.They've literally been 100% against Trump, with no reprieve for a decade.

Your head is full of fantasy bogeymen

ABC sensed a move in the zeitgeist (a bit too late for their trust and viewing figures) and it is simply all about the money - they are a business.

Absentosaur · 18/09/2025 13:30

WolfingtonBear · 18/09/2025 05:53

As I was righteously told right here on this very site when I posted concerns about cancel culture several years ago “there is free speech but there is no such thing as freedom from the consequences of free speech…”

Did the left honestly think CC would only be their extremely effective and vicious weapon to wield for ever? Seems so.

Edited

Yup! Who knew?!

Swipe left for the next trending thread