#federal-communications-commission — Public Fediverse posts

How ‘The View’ Landed at the Center of a Free Speech Battle

https://web.brid.gy/r/https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/09/business/media/the-view-fcc-trump.html

FCC Moves to Yank Disney Broadcast Licenses as Trumps Demand ABC Fire Kimmel | Common Dreams
“This is a clear attack on the First Amendment and a political stunt designed to intimidate critics, retaliate against a comedian practicing free speech through satire, and send a message to anyone who dares to speak out.”
https://www.commondreams.org/news/trump-fcc-kimmel

from #CommonDreams
April 28, 2026

Press freedom advocates on Tuesday forcefully condemned the #Republican-dominated #FederalCommunicationsCommission—and #FCC Chair #BrendanCarr in particular—for moving to challenge #Disney-owned ABC’s broadcast licenses as President Donald #Trump again pressures to network to fire late-night television host #JimmyKimmel.

“The #FirstAmendment and the FCC’s mandate do not permit the agency to use broadcast licenses as weapons to punish broadcasters for constitutionally protected content they air,” declared Freedom of the Press Foundation chief of advocacy Seth Stern.

#DefendFreeSpeech
#news #politics #USpol

Donald Trump plays nice to King’s face but is wildly anti-democratic behind scenes

Even as he was playing nice for the royal visit, his administration pushed out a string of wild,…
#NewsBeep #News #Headlines #ABCNewsInc. #Brendancarr #Crime #DonaldTrump #FederalCommunicationsCommission #FriedrichMerz #Iran #JimmyKimmel #Politics #TheWaltDisneyCompany #TimWalz #UK #UnitedKingdom
https://www.newsbeep.com/510125/

Trump Isn’t Just Bullying Journalists. He’s Subverting the First Amendment.

https://murica.website/2026/03/trump-isnt-just-bullying-journalists-hes-subverting-the-first-amendment/

With Threats and Claims of ‘Treason,’ Trump Pressures Media on the War

https://web.brid.gy/r/https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/16/business/media/trump-iran-media-coverage.html

Trump Floats Treason Charges Against Media Outlets Over Iran War Coverage

https://murica.website/2026/03/trump-floats-treason-charges-against-media-outlets-over-iran-war-coverage/

Fascist flying monkey #BrendanCarr, the chair of the US #FederalCommunicationsCommission, has threatened to revoke broadcasters' licences after #DonaldTrump condemned their coverage of the #American-Israeli war on #Iran. 🇨🇦 🇺🇸 🇮🇷 #Cdnpoli #USpoli #Cdnnews #CBC youtu.be/KIfGL_Jti3I?...

FCC chair threatens to revoke ...

FCC Chair Brendan Carr says broadcast licenses are not a “property right,” as Trump bemoans coverage of Iran war

In an exclusive interview with CBS News Saturday, Federal Communications Chair Brendan Carr doubled down on his warning…
#NewsBeep #News #Headlines #FederalCommunicationsCommission #Iran #UnitedStates #Us #USA
https://www.newsbeep.com/435197/

US agency sought transcript of Bad Bunny Super Bowl halftime performance

https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://interaksyon.philstar.com/celebrities/2026/02/19/309500/us-agency-sought-transcript-of-bad-bunny-super-bowl-halftime-performance/

FCC Targets Colbert and Kimmel in New Crackdown on Late-Night TV

https://web.brid.gy/r/https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/21/business/media/fcc-late-night-stephen-colbert-jimmy-kimmel.html

Phone Calls Are a Lifeline in Prison. Trump Is Set on Keeping Them Exorbitant.

https://murica.website/2025/10/phone-calls-are-a-lifeline-in-prison-trump-is-set-on-keeping-them-exorbitant/

School bus internet, library Wi-Fi lending could end with FCC vote

Referral Shoutout: Thanks to…Library Link of the Day
http://www.tk421.net/librarylink/  (archive, rss, subscribe options)

The FCC is expected to end a Biden-era rule change that allowed nearly 200,000 schools and libraries to loan out Wi-Fi hotspot devices.

By Sarah D. Wire, USA TODAY

It could soon be harder for students to access the internet on school buses and for the public to borrow mobile internet hotspots from libraries.

In a Sept. 23 letter, a coalition of school and library advocacy groups urged the Federal Communications Commission to protect the programs that have allowed schools and libraries to lend out hotspot devices.

“One in five households in our country still do not have access to reliable home broadband. Hotspots are not a permanent fix, but they’ll make sure students, jobseekers, veterans and seniors don’t get left behind,” American Library Association President Sam Helmick said in a statement provided to USA TODAY.

The FCC is scheduled to vote at its Sept. 30 meeting to undo a 2024 rule change made by the Biden administration that allowed schools and libraries to lend out hotspots and provide Wi-Fi on buses as part of the existing E-Rate program, which allows schools and libraries to obtain affordable broadband.

When schools and businesses were closed during the pandemic, Congress allocated $123 million to the FCC to purchase hotspots for schools and libraries. The Biden FCC vote in 2024 came after authority to spend that money ended.

Schools and libraries in every state have already had contracts approved and money has already been spent. In fiscal year 2025, which ends Sept. 30, schools and districts requested a total of $27.5 million for Wi-Fi hotspots.

According to a Sept. 3 FCC news release, the company that runs the program, called E-Rate, would be ordered to “deny pending funding year 2025 requests for E-Rate funding for the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and Wi-Fi on school buses as these services will be determined to be ineligible.”

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: School bus internet, library Wi-Fi lending could end with FCC vote

#2025 #ALA #America #AmericanLibraryAssociation #DonaldTrump #ERate #Education #FCC #FederalCommunicationsCommission #Health #History #Internet #Lending #Libraries #LibraryOfCongress #Opinion #Politics #Resistance #SchoolBus #Science #Technology #Trump #TrumpAdministration #UnitedStates #WiFi

Democrats demand answers after Jimmy Kimmel blackout from Nexstar and Sinclair media companies

https://web.brid.gy/r/https://www.advocate.com/politics/congressional-nexstar-sinclair-kimmel-probe

Jimmy Kimmel, Somber but Defiant, Defends Free Speech in Return to ABC

https://web.brid.gy/r/https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/23/business/media/jimmy-kimmel-return-monologue.html

After Days of Silence, Joe Rogan Weighs In on Kimmel’s Suspension

https://web.brid.gy/r/https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/23/arts/joe-rogan-jimmy-kimmel.html

How to Watch Jimmy Kimmel’s Return Tonight if Your ABC Station Isn’t Airing It

https://web.brid.gy/r/https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/23/us/politics/jimmy-kimmel-watch-time-stream.html

ABC Is Bringing Kimmel Back — But Nexstar, Sinclair Refuse to Broadcast His Show

https://murica.website/2025/09/abc-is-bringing-kimmel-back-but-nexstar-sinclair-refuse-to-broadcast-his-show/

What Will Jimmy Kimmel Say Tonight?

https://web.brid.gy/r/https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/23/business/dealbook/jimmy-kimmel-returns-trump.html

Jimmy Kimmel to Return to Air After Suspension Over Kirk Remarks: What to Know

https://web.brid.gy/r/https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/20/business/jimmy-kimmel-show-abc-kirk-fcc.html

‘The View’ Hosts Criticize Trump Administration Over Kimmel

https://web.brid.gy/r/https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/22/business/media/the-view-trump-jimmy-kimmel.html

A Weaponized FCC

Freedom of Speech Around the World: A Global Analysis and the Jimmy Kimmel Case – DrWeb’s Domain Report

Freedom of Speech Around the World: A Global Analysis and the Jimmy Kimmel Case

Published on September 19, 2025, Prepared by Perplexity Pro, edited by DrWeb.

Introduction and Defining Freedom of Speech

Freedom of speech represents a fundamental human right that varies significantly in protection across different countries and legal systems. Legal definitions provide the foundation for understanding this concept across three authoritative sources:

Cornell Law School defines freedom of speech as “the right to speak, write, and share ideas and opinions without facing punishment from the government.” This definition emphasizes the protection from government interference in expression.

The Law Dictionary characterizes it as “a guarantee of the 1st and 14th amendment giving people the right to speak without any restriction from the government.” This focuses specifically on constitutional protections within the American legal framework.

Merriam-Webster provides a broader definition: “the right to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content and subject only to reasonable limitations.” This definition acknowledges that some restrictions may apply under specific circumstances.

Global Freedom of Speech Rankings

Question: Where does the United States rank in Freedom of Speech?

Based on the Global State of Democracy Indices 2023, countries receive scores from 0 to 1, with higher scores indicating stronger freedom of expression protections. The analysis reveals significant variations in how democratic nations protect speech rights.

Top 25 Countries with Strongest Freedom of Speech Protections

Notably, the United States ranks 28th with a score of 0.75, indicating room for improvement despite constitutional protections.

This ranking suggests that while the U.S. has strong theoretical protections, practical implementation may lag behind other democracies.

International Legal Framework

Freedom of speech receives recognition in international law through multiple mechanisms and judicial bodies that have developed influential standards for global application.

International Courts and Freedom of Speech Recognition

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights establishes that “everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.” The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provides legally binding protections for member states, creating enforceable obligations beyond mere aspirational statements.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has developed influential standards through Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The ECHR consistently holds that criticism of government and politicians receives strong protection, and that criminal penalties for political speech violate proportionality requirements. These European standards have become widely influential in international law and have been adopted by the UN Human Rights Committee.

International legal advocacy organizations like the International Senior Lawyers Project (ISLP) successfully use these international norms in domestic courts, arguing that restrictive national laws violate treaty obligations under the ICCPR. Recent cases in Algeria, Iraq, Tunisia, and Palestine have resulted in dismissed charges when courts recognized that criminal penalties for online expression violate international law.

Major U.S. Supreme Court First Amendment Decisions

The United States has developed extensive jurisprudence protecting freedom of speech through landmark Supreme Court decisions that have shaped modern understanding of expression rights.

Foundational Cases

Schenck v. United States (1919) established the “clear and present danger” test, with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stating that speech could be restricted when “the words are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has the right to prevent.” The Court upheld convictions for distributing leaflets opposing military conscription during World War I.

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) represents the most significant modern free speech precedent. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned Clarence Brandenburg’s conviction under Ohio’s Criminal Syndicalism statute for advocating racial strife at a KKK rally. The Court established that government cannot prohibit speech unless it is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” This decision created one of the most speech-protective legal tests worldwide.

Student Speech Rights

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) established that students “do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.” The Court protected students who wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam War, creating the foundational principle for student expression rights in educational settings.

Symbolic Speech Protection

Texas v. Johnson (1989) held that flag burning constitutes protected symbolic political speech. The Court concluded that “a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment is that Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”

Wooley v. Maynard (1977) protected a Jehovah’s Witness who covered New Hampshire’s “Live Free or Die” motto on his license plate. The Court recognized both “the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all,” establishing negative speech rights.

Recent Developments

Moody v. NetChoice, LLC (2024) addressed social media content moderation, ruling that the First Amendment protects platforms engaging in expressive activity when compiling and curating speech. The Court held that states cannot interfere with private actors’ speech to advance ideological balance.

National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo (2024) prohibited government officials from wielding power selectively to punish or suppress speech through private intermediaries, establishing important precedent regarding indirect government censorship.

Analysis of the Jimmy Kimmel ABC Suspension Case

Question: What’s your analysis of the current Jimmy Kimmel events regarding Freedom of Speech?

The recent suspension of “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” by ABC provides a contemporary case study in the complex intersection of government pressure, private broadcaster decision-making, and First Amendment protections. This incident illustrates how theoretical speech protections face practical challenges in the modern media landscape.

Background of the Controversy

On September 16, 2025, ABC indefinitely suspended “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” following controversial comments the host made about the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. During his Monday night monologue, Kimmel criticized the “MAGA gang” for attempting to politically exploit Kirk’s murder, suggesting they were “doing everything they can to score political points” from the tragedy. He also mocked former President Trump’s response to questions about Kirk’s death.

The suspension came after FCC Chairman Brendan Carr publicly condemned Kimmel’s remarks on a podcast, calling them “some of the sickest conduct possible” and threatening regulatory action with the warning “we can do this the easy way or the hard way.” Major broadcast station owners Nexstar and Sinclair preemptively pulled the show from their ABC affiliates before the network announced the indefinite suspension.

First Amendment Analysis

This case presents a complex intersection of government pressure and private broadcaster decision-making that raises significant constitutional concerns. Under established First Amendment precedent, particularly Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), Kimmel’s political commentary clearly falls within protected speech categories as criticism of government figures and political movements.

The critical constitutional issue centers on whether government coercion violated the First Amendment’s prohibition on indirect speech suppression. As Professor Raleigh Levine of Mitchell Hamline School of Law explains, “The issue here is whether the government is using coercion or pressure to get private companies to do indirectly what it could not directly force them to do.” While private employers can typically discipline employees for speech, broadcast networks operating on public airwaves occupy a unique regulatory space.

The Supreme Court established in Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan (1963) that government cannot use threats of punishment to coerce private entities into suppressing speech, even when direct censorship would be unconstitutional. FCC Chairman Carr’s explicit threats of regulatory consequences for failing to discipline Kimmel likely crossed this constitutional boundary.

Legal Precedent and Regulatory Framework

Broadcasters historically receive reduced First Amendment protections compared to other media, a doctrine criticized by constitutional scholars as creating “junior varsity First Amendment rights.” However, even under this diminished standard, political commentary remains strongly protected speech.

The FCC’s regulatory authority extends primarily to local station licensing rather than network content control. Carr’s threats appeared to leverage this licensing power to indirectly pressure content decisions, potentially exceeding statutory authority while violating constitutional boundaries.

Predicted Legal Outcomes

Question: What’s your predicted outcome now of the Jimmy Kimmel events?

Several potential legal challenges may emerge from this controversy:

First Amendment Litigation: Kimmel or advocacy organizations like the ACLU, which has already condemned the suspension as government suppression of opposing ideas, may file suit challenging the government coercion. Such cases would likely focus on proving that Carr’s threats constituted impermissible government pressure rather than permissible advocacy.

Congressional Oversight: The incident may prompt legislative hearings examining FCC overreach and the scope of regulatory authority over broadcast content. Questions about whether current broadcast regulation frameworks remain constitutionally viable in the modern media landscape could drive policy reforms.

Industry Response: The suspension’s chilling effect on other broadcasters and entertainers may generate broader resistance. Late-night hosts and Hollywood figures have already rallied to Kimmel’s defense, potentially creating sustained pressure for reinstatement.

Commercial Consequences: ABC faces significant advertising revenue losses, with “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” reportedly generating approximately $70 million annually from over 200 brands. Economic pressure may ultimately force the network to restore the program regardless of political considerations.

The most likely outcome involves eventual reinstatement of Kimmel’s show, possibly following legal settlement or policy clarification limiting FCC content oversight authority. This case may establish important precedent regarding the limits of government pressure on private media companies, particularly in the broadcast television context where regulatory relationships create unique constitutional vulnerabilities.

Conclusion

This comprehensive analysis demonstrates that while freedom of speech enjoys broad international recognition, implementation varies significantly across nations. The United States maintains strong constitutional protections through extensive Supreme Court jurisprudence, yet ranks below many other democracies in practical freedom of expression measures. The Jimmy Kimmel case illustrates ongoing tensions between government authority and speech protections, particularly in regulated industries like broadcasting.

The global landscape reveals that Nordic countries lead in practical freedom of expression, while international courts increasingly recognize speech rights as fundamental human rights. As media landscapes evolve and political tensions intensify, the balance between legitimate regulation and speech protection remains a critical challenge for democratic societies worldwide.

Bibliography and Sources

Legal Definitions

• Freedom of Speech – Cornell Law School
• Freedom of Speech Definition – The Law Dictionary
• Freedom of Speech Definition – Merriam-Webster

Global Rankings and Analysis

• Countries with Freedom of Speech 2025 – World Population Review
• Freedom of Expression Index, 2024 – Our World in Data
• Countries and Territories – Freedom House

International Law

• Using International Law to Defend Free Speech in the Information Age – Columbia Global Freedom of Expression
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights – United Nations
• Freedom of Speech in International Law – Oxford Academic

U.S. Supreme Court Cases

• Free Speech Supreme Court Cases – Justia
• Notable First Amendment Court Cases – American Library Association
• Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) – Justia
• Cases By Date – MTSU Free Speech Center

Jimmy Kimmel Case Analysis

• Why Jimmy Kimmel’s Show Was Yanked Off the Air – CNN
• Were Jimmy Kimmel’s Free Speech Rights Violated When ABC Canceled His Show? – Reuters
• Does the First Amendment Apply in Jimmy Kimmel’s Suspension? – CBS News
• In Pressuring ABC Over Kimmel, Trump May Have Crossed a Constitutional Line – New York Times
• Jimmy Kimmel, the FCC, and Why Broadcasters Still Have “Junior Varsity” First Amendment Rights – Cato Institute

Research compiled, analyzed, and published on September 19, 2025.

#2025 #ABC #AI #America #DonaldTrump #DrWebSDomain #Education #FCC #FederalCommunicationsCommission #Health #History #JimmyKimmel #Libraries #Library #LibraryOfCongress #Opinion #PerplexityPro #Politics #Resistance #Science #Television #Trump #TrumpAdministration #UnitedStates

Jimmy Kimmel’s ABC suspension draws reaction from across the political spectrum | AP News

U.S. News

Reactions pour in about ABC’s suspension of Jimmy Kimmel’s show

By  THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Updated 2:52 PM PDT, September 18, 2025

ABC’s suspension of Jimmy Kimmel’s show following comments he made about the killing of Charlie Kirk drew reactions from across the entertainment and political worlds, including from President Donald Trump.

Fellow late-night host Stephen Colbert got the news Wednesday while taping an episode of his own show in New York, telling a stunned studio audience that “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” had been suspended.

“It was a mix of shock and bewilderment,” said audience member Monserrat Lopez, recounting how Colbert left the stage before coming back to say he would call Kimmel to talk privately.

Just this summer, CBS said Colbert’s “Late Show” would end next year due to financial reasons — a decision made just after Colbert criticized a settlement between Trump and CBS’s parent company over a “60 Minutes” story.

During Kimmel’s Monday night monologue, he suggested that the suspect in Kirk’s killing might have been a pro-Trump Republican.

Kimmel’s show was suspended not long after Nexstar Communications Group announced plans to pull the program from its 23 ABC affiliates starting Wednesday. The Federal Communications Commission’s chairman called Kimmel’s comments “truly sick” and said his agency had a strong case for holding Kimmel, ABC and network parent Walt Disney Co. accountable for spreading misinformation.

There was no immediate comment from Kimmel, whose contract is up in May 2026. In its statement announcing the suspension, ABC didn’t cite a reason.

Here are some other notable reactions:

Trump

“Great News for America: The ratings challenged Jimmy Kimmel Show is CANCELLED,” Trump posted on social media. “Congratulations to ABC for finally having the courage to do what had to be done. Kimmel has ZERO talent, and worse ratings than even Colbert, if that’s possible. That leaves Jimmy and Seth, two total losers, on Fake News NBC,” he wrote, referring to late-night hosts Jimmy Fallon and Seth Meyers. “Their ratings are also horrible. Do it NBC!!! President DJT”

Neither Fallon nor Meyers had commented publicly about Trump’s post as of Thursday.

David Letterman, former late-night host

“I feel bad about this, because we all see where see this is going, correct? It’s managed media. It’s no good. It’s silly. It’s ridiculous.”

Letterman’s remarks came during an appearance Thursday at The Atlantic Festival 2025 in New York.

Former President Barack Obama

“After years of complaining about cancel culture, the current administration has taken it to a new and dangerous level by routinely threatening regulatory action against media companies unless they muzzle or fire reporters and commentators it doesn’t like,” Obama posted on social media. “This is precisely the kind of government coercion that the First Amendment was designed to prevent — and media companies need to start standing up rather than capitulating to it.”

Brendan Carr, FCC chairman

“Local broadcasters have an obligation to serve the public interest,” Carr told Fox News. “While this may be an unprecedented decision, it is important for broadcasters to push back on Disney programming that they determine falls short of community values.”

Ken Martin, Democratic National Committee chairman

“The state under Donald Trump has amassed a chilling record of restricting speech, extorting private companies, and dropping the full weight of the government censorship hammer on First Amendment rights,” Martin said in a statement. “This is no exaggeration. Trump’s attorney general has directly confirmed that they’ll come after you for your speech, and now his FCC chair has doubled down. It’s not the bully pulpit anymore — it’s the thought police presidency.”

Wanda Sykes, comedian

“I was supposed to go over and have a chat with my friend Jimmy Kimmel on his show, but as you have heard by now, the Jimmy Kimmel Show has been pulled indefinitely,” Sykes posted on social media. “Abruptly, because of complaints from the Trump administration. So let’s see. He didn’t end the Ukraine war or solve Gaza within his first week. But he did end freedom of speech within his first year. Hey, for those of you who pray, now’s the time to do it. Love you Jimmy.”

Megyn Kelly, conservative podcaster

“I’m not sure who needs to hear this but Jimmy Kimmel got on the air and falsely stated as a fact that Charlie Kirk’s killer was MAGA, smearing an entire movement and Trump in particular with a vile disgusting lie — and at a time when the threat against those on the right is at an all-time high,” Kelly posted on social media.

Kelly was fired from her NBC morning show in 2018 after suggesting it was OK for white people to wear blackface at Halloween.

Jean Smart, actor

“I am horrified at the cancellation of Jimmy Kimmel Live. What Jimmy said was FREE speech, not hate speech,” Smart posted on social media. “People seem to only want to protect free speech when it suits THEIR agenda. Though I didn’t agree at ALL with Charlie Kirk; his shooting death sickened me; and should have sickened any decent human being. What is happening to our country?”

Mike Birbiglia, comedian

“I’ve spent a lot of time in public & private defending comedians I don’t agree with. If you’re a comedian & you don’t call out the insanity of pulling Kimmel off the air — don’t bother spouting off about free speech anymore,” Birbiglia posted on social media.

Mark R. Levin, conservative radio host and podcaster

“Kimmel canned for disgusting Kirk comments. … Jimmy Kimmel is a pathetic hate monger. He should’ve been canned a long time ago. Better late than never,” Levin posted on social media.

Sen. Adam Schiff

“This administration is responsible for the most blatant attacks on the free press in American history,” the Democratic senator from California posted on social media. “What will be left of the First Amendment when he’s done?”

This story was updated to correct the spelling of Seth Meyers’ and Barack Obama’s names.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Jimmy Kimmel’s ABC suspension draws reaction from across the political spectrum | AP News

#2025 #America #AP #APNews #AssociatedPress #DonaldTrump #FCC #FederalCommunicationsCommission #FirstAmendment #FreedomOfSpeech #Health #History #JimmyKimmel #Libraries #Library #LibraryOfCongress #Opinion #Politics #Resistance #Science #Television #Trump #TrumpAdministration #UnitedStates

In Pressuring ABC Over Kimmel, Trump May Have Crossed a Constitutional Line

https://web.brid.gy/r/https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/19/us/politics/supreme-court-jimmy-kimmel-free-speech.html

@3x3
#ABC ist ein privater Sender.
Und gehört #Disney

Die #Sendelizenz wird von der staatlichen Stelle "#FederalCommunicationsCommission" (#FCC) vergeben.

Oder eben auch entzogen!

Und genau das wurde ABC defacto angedroht. Ihr werft kimmel raus, oder wir entziehen euch die Sendelizenz.

Mit einem Wort: #zensur

How Outrage at Kimmel Grew to a Shout From a Whisper - Right-wing users on social media on Tuesday were frustrated but not yet apoplectic about ... - https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/19/technology/kimmel-carr-outrage-online.html #assassinationsandattemptedassassinations #regulationandderegulationofindustry #right-wingextremismandalt-right #federalcommunicationscommission #conservatism(uspolitics) #carrbrendanthomas(1979-) #kirkcharlie(1993-) #johnsonbenny #socialmedia #kimmeljimmy #abcinc

Analysis: Kimmel suspension shows how Trump is unapologetically embracing the heavy hand of government – CNN Politics

What Kimmel shows: Trump is unapologetically embracing the heavy hand of government

Analysis byAaron Blake, 2 hr ago

So, it appears this is the satire, wit, and humor that got Kimmel taken off the air: “We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,” Kimmel said.

ABC’s decision to sideline Jimmy Kimmel amid pressure from the Trump administration has led to all kinds of predictable whataboutism from those defending it.

What about the time the Biden administration urged social media companies to remove Covid-19 misinformation, which critics argued carried an implied threat of government retribution? What about when the IRS under Barack Obama targeted conservative groups? Isn’t turnabout fair play?

There are a couple very important differences, though.

One is that that the Trump administration has been extraordinarily brazen about its efforts to pressure and threaten ABC. There’s no real subtlety to it at all.

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr said Kimmel’s comments appeared to be “some of the sickest conduct possible” and warned ABC could lose its broadcast license if it didn’t move against the talkshow host.

“We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead,” Carr told podcaster Benny Johnson before Kimmel’s suspension.

The other difference is that the administration appears … quite eager to take credit. Though President Donald Trump on Thursday cast ABC’s decision as being about ratings, he and the FCC chair haven’t exactly disowned their role to avoid looking like Big Brother cracking down on disfavored speech. Rather, they have celebrated Kimmel’s suspension and seemed to embrace the idea that they were instrumental in getting him off the air.

This has become a trend. Over and over again, Trump and his administration have shrugged off concerns about weaponizing the government against his critics and hailed their ability to bring institutions like Disney’s ABC to heel.

They seem to desire the strongman narrative – even if it means opening themselves up to criticism that they’re weaponizing the government in exactly the way they always talk about their opponents doing.

The confluence of events Wednesday was remarkable.

Despite some efforts on the right to pretend this was just ABC responding to organic market forces, Carr essentially laid the roadmap.

The controversy began after Kimmel made a joke Monday about Trump’s response to Charlie Kirk’s assassination.

“We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,” Kimmel said.

Kimmel also joked that Trump didn’t appear particularly sad in the aftermath of Kirk’s death.

Carr zeroed in on Kimmel’s comment about the “MAGA gang,” saying the host appeared to be trying to “play into that narrative that this was somehow a MAGA or Republican motivated person” — something that was unfounded at the time and has been has been undermined by new evidence. He set about seeking very specific action.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Analysis: Kimmel suspension shows how Trump is unapologetically embracing the heavy hand of government | CNN Politics

#1984 #2025 #ABC #America #BigBrother #Censorship #CNN #DonaldTrump #Education #FCC #FederalCommunicationsCommission #FirstAmendment #FreeSpeech #Health #History #JimmyKimmel #Libraries #Library #LibraryOfCongress #MAGAGang #Opinion #Politics #Resistance #Science #Suspension #Television #Trump #TrumpAdministration #UnitedStates