Right wing cancel culture at it again.

[Batmanisaplaceinturkey]

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

According to your logic

There is freedom of speech or this isn't. Biden's government secretly put pressure on a private company to curtail that free speech.

You're such a hypocrite.

it’s unbelievable isn’t it? Hypocrisy which knows no bounds.

The Left have been the kings of cancel culture! Poor things don’t like a taste of their own medicine. Apparently it’s out of order that Charlie Kirk held different opinions, but clearly fine for Kinnell to hold opinions without challenge. Besides which the widow is grieving, it’s still very raw, so totally inappropriate for someone to be derogatory about someone who’s not even had his funeral yet. Odious man…..

Do you exaggerate everything or is it specifically reserved for anything to do with defending a murder?

They wouldn't have lost their license

They are losing their viewing figures all on their own, no one need intervene.

Kimmels ratings were losing the company money.

Looks like this was the straw and they took a decision.

Ratings are everything.

*Kimmel's viewing figures are down on down. 3% alone in the last quarter.

https://apnews.com/article/jimmy-kimmel-show-suspended-charlie-kirk-a2bfa904429c318fe52e7d3493c6883d

"Earlier in the day, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr called Kimmel’s comments “truly sick” and said his agency has a strong case for holding Kimmel, ABC and network parent Walt Disney Co. accountable for spreading misinformation. He said the comic appeared to be making an intentional effort to mislead the public that Kirk’s assassin was a right-wing Trump supporter."

...and Kimmel can still repeat what he said to whomever he wants.

No loss of freedom of speech at all.

You clearly have no understanding of how the licensing works in the US.

There is no even a 1% chance they could have lost their license.

I know you think everyone operates like you do -cancel, shut them up - but most normal people don't, and neither does the law around licensing in the US

https://www.livemint.com/us/trending/jimmy-kimmels-show-indefinitely-cancelled-fcc-donald-trump-administration-pressure-free-speech-disney-abc-charlie-kirk-11758163826683.html

"Later the same day, in an interview with Fox News, Carr said the FCC would apply similar pressure on broadcasters in the future. “We at the FCC are going to force the public interest obligation. There are broadcasters out there that don’t like it, they can turn in their license in to the FCC. But that’s our job. Again, we’re making some progress now,” he said."

Howseitgoin · Today 13:28
They can lose their licence to broadcast

That’s interesting. Who has the power to do that - is it the government directly or is there something similar to Ofcom in USA?

@ColdSalads his viewing figures with the key 18-49 metric fell by 11% in August alone. As with Colbert it’s the revenues that ultimately does for these people.

And I agree he’s a comedian, I just wish comedians of all persuasions would stick to telling jokes and being funny rather than sharing their tedious opinions.

ABC doesn’t hold a broadcast license to lose. The FCC licenses individual local TV stations (including ABC-owned stations like WABC, KABC, etc.)—not national networks

'Carr' would beg to disagree..

Seems Carr has many ways to skin a cat..

https://www.npr.org/2025/08/25/nx-s1-5515480/fcc-abc-nbc-reviews

The fact that right whinge on here can’t see (or is it don't want to see?) the difference between a company choosing not to employ people who don’t align with its values and a government pressuring a company to sack someone for disagreeing with its rhetoric is genuinely scary.

I thought Jimmy Kimmel had condemned the murder of Kirk? And that his comments were "derogatory" about the unseemly MAGA rush to categorise the murderer as hard left ?
This "tit for tat"/ "them vs us" approach will lead nowhere good.

Kimmel was talking about how Trump reacted. You know, like a stropping toddler, which is how he reacts to a lot of stuff.

I don't agree with Kimmel on the characterisation of the suspect. (In fairness to him, the information changed quite a bit in the first few days.) That doesn't mean I think his show should be pulled because the MAGA lot threw their toys out of the pram.

Leaders are supposed to be mocked, criticised, held to account, satirised, and poked fun at in a healthy democracy. When insulting or ridiculing those in power results in being shut down, society is in a dangerous place.

It's been invaded by yanks. You can tell by their vocab and grammar, the times they post, and their in-depth knowledge of rightwing American talking points.

It doesn't all have to be views aligned with yours. And the use of 'yanks' isn't great either.

Swap out right for left in first line for 'whinge'

Omg they censored information that was actually true. I have never forgiven that.

This is literally the point I turned away from the left

It’s amusing to see the left on these threads frothing at the mouth because they are having done to them what they have being doing to everyone else. They gas lit anyone who mentioned ‘cancel culture’ - ‘doesn’t exist ‘ they said, ‘nothing to see here’ they said. But now cancel culture is alive and kicking it seems, all done under people on the right. And I’m guessing the same people are apoplectic about all the fuss over Trump by the RF and the government this last couple of days. The tide is turning, and the left just can’t control the narrative now, like they used to be able to do. Must be very frustrating for them….

So you love this level of dictatorship? Give your head a wobble. Nobody should be censored if they are not advocating harm to another human.

I’m a little unclear how the two connect. One is about an administration dealing with a threat to the country and a risk to the public, the other is about a leader being unhappy at being criticised. You think governments shouldn’t have attempted to restrict some of the data being shared on Facebook that in some cases directly contradicted the best evidence available at the time? Didn’t some of the Facebook things being shared that they wanted to be restricted advise crazy things like drinking bleach?