Sarah McLachlan cancels Lilith Faire in solidarity with Jimmy Kimmel

[TempestTost]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/mclachlan-free-speech-1.7640191

I don't really think that JK ought to have been fired for claiming that Charlie Kirk's assassin was on the MAGA right, however, I am disappointed but not surprised to see a bunch of female pop stars come out in favour of free speech over this, rather than all the suppression of free speech that's being going on elsewhere in Canada the last 10 years.

Not a peep about the McMaster fiasco, or over the Zucker fiasco, but they'll come out for that moron Jimmy Kimmel. Who probably should have been fired for not being very funny years ago along with Jon Stewart.

I hope that those for whom this is the first experience that has resonated regarding the problem with ‘cancelling’, that this will become a useful reference experience against which they can think about cancellation of those they disagree with.

However, ideologues will always think that it is justifiable to have rules that work for their ideology against others.

I don't really think that JK ought to have been fired for claiming that Charlie Kirk's assassin was on the MAGA right

He didn't say that, he said

"The Maga gang [is] desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them"

Not to mention the gender critical Canadian nurse facing being struck off for endorsing JK Rowling.

I am very curious as to what you think that means?

Everyone has their line and they found theirs. The more people who see the danger the better.

In isolation, I think that means that the MAGA right were trying to politicise the killing by assigning blame to others. I don't think that point is arguable, given that they did immediately blame the left (even before the killer had been identified), and they are not the left.

I haven't watched a full clip of what he said, so I don't know whether his other comments imply that he was blaming the MAGA right.

I agree that there has been hypocrisy re: free speech from multiple commentators. I no longer think left/right adequately describes political divides.

It means you were incorrect in your statement that JK "claimed that Charlie Kirk's assassin was on the MAGA right."

Yes, I'm surprised how many people haven't realised that Kimmel carefully did not say the Kirk shooter was on the left. The point he made was correct, and would be so regardless of the shooter's politics. It wouldn't surprise me if the comment had been lawyered before he made it.

That said, it's correct that some people had nothing to say about blatant attempts to shit all over free speech before now. Let's hope now they've spoken out in favour, it won't be the last time!

It's not in isolation, though.

Surely if that was his point he would also have pointed out that the left did the exact same thing, immediately trying to pin it on the right wing. And that they politicise every kind of assassination attempt or mass shooting in that way.

That would be a different story than the one he told. Which is a fairly typical approach from a lot of left wing media - you don't tell lies, you omit things that don't pain the picture you want people to see.

Do you think they will be applying that to people like Amy Hamm though? If this was the thing that allowed them to see that there has been a lot of suppressed discussion that would be great, but that does not seem likely.

That's a shame as he has been re-instated.

Do you get though that not giving a fully balanced appraisal of the worst sins of both left and right doesn't mean he claimed the killer was MAGA?

And that they politicise every kind of assassination attempt or mass shooting in that way.

Do they though? Apart from calling for tighter gun laws, which in any other country would be completely apolitical stance.

I think it was very much implied that it was in what he said and that was likely deliberate.

It also characterises what was in fact a fairly accurate guess as spin.

I already don't trust Kimmel farther than I could throw him, so I am probably inclined to think he is being dishonest, and maybe that's unfair. But I think he's a very manipulative speaker and I wouldn't put much past him.

Yes, they do. It's become a partisan wedge issue much like abortion was.

Probs because hate speech is rightly illegal in Canada & UK as it is any many other countries.

Amy Hamm was found guilty of professional misconduct though so that's different from free speech censorship. Nurses in Canada (like many other countries) are expected to treat patients with dignity & respect even if they don't believe they 'deserve it'.

Ultimately Kimmel didn't day anything that wasn't factual. MAGA were in fact attempting to distance themselves from the shooter.

The issue of pro-Gaza protest groups being proscribed seems to have woken up Owen Jones - given that he spoke out to criticise Glinner's arrest.
And I never would have seen that coming.
So it is possible.

Also, I initially thought that Kimmel said what he did because he believed the shooter /was/ MAGA.

If what people are saying here is true, and it was weasel words to imply but avoid saying directly what he knew to not be true - I don't quite know what to make of that. No it's not the same kind of problem as state institutions interferring with artistic decisions of comedians, but it is disturbingly manipulative.

The whole issue is that the head of the FCC threatened ABC/Disney. That;'s not on. Kimmel's comments were mild. Yes, the governor was reporting that the shooter was a leftist but he was also saying that before there was any evidence, so there was quite a lot of skepticism. Also, he said Trump was crying like a 4yo who lost his goldfish. It was not a firing offence, and ABC didn't care until Carr opened his mouth. That takes it into free speech territory. Kimmel was still correct because politicians tried to make it about the left before they even knew who the shooter was. It was desperate and obvious. I have noticed (I live in the USA) that the politicians have been very quiet about the shooter himself since the text messages were released; it's all about turning Kirk into a martyr.

It does sound like you're letting your feelings about Kimmel get in the way here, then. Fair play for accepting that might be a possibility.

Nobody is saying he has to be liked or trusted, but that doesn't mean people can say the words he used had a meaning he didn't. MAGA people were trying to distance themselves from the shooter, at a time when nobody knew who it was, no getting around that. And that's what Kimmel was slagging off. That simply doesn't imply that he's saying they were responsible for the killing.

Obviously people might think it was reasonable for those people to start throwing around blame based solely on assumption, and they're entitled to that view, but that's something different again.

But does that matter particularly? However you look at it it was a fairly mild joke.

It’s like Starmer pressuring the BBC to fire Graham Norton over a mild joke that’s critical of the government. Now, obviously you can dislike Starmer, but he’s never said that a comedian (or any critical news programme like GB news) should be off air because they said something negative. He’s not tweeting all the time that ant and dec or Michael McIntyre must be next to go.

A Fox News presenter/commentator person said that maybe homelessness should be dealt with using lethal injection. This is a news presenter, not a comedian, and it wasn’t a joke. And no one thinks he should be off air. He can have his opinion.

Kimmel’s comment was mild and forgettable. And even if it was unfair against the government, so what?

I'm confused - are you saying that anyone commenting on gun control in America after a mass shooting is politicising the issue in the same way that Trump has politicised this killing?

Yeah, I think it's really important we don't go down the road of expecting TV comedians to adhere to a presidential standard of what constitutes fair balance. That's not what comedy is for.

Some comedians are politically biased, and they're allowed to be. Some genuinely aren't, but there are going to be times when one side does things that they think of funnier jokes about, and that isn't necessarily going to work out as 50/50 across a career, or even a series. An individual comedian might do a better impression of JD Vance than they do of Joe Biden, and choose to focus on this in their comedy for practical reasons. This is also ok. It is not a good thing for anyone if the executive are allowed to try interfere with what comedians can say. And there are a loooooot of people who disagree politically with Kimmel who get this. If nothing else, self-interest should do it.

The people who've tried to justify the decision have, from what I've seen, mostly done so on the basis that Kimmel lied and said MAGA were responsible for the shooting. And he didn't. That's not what those words mean.