The side that is the minority tends to embrace free speech and then acts to limit when they are in the majority.

Free speech is the capacity to question and argue against authority, not the capacity to say what you want without repercussions. Only a totalitarian would expect to be able to speak without any consequences. In a free society, everyone has the right to free speech - the right to question authority and argue against what has been said.

The left thought cancel culture would keep them in power. Now that the tables have turned, they cry “hypocrisy” when the right uses the same weapon. But let’s be honest—both parties are guilty. They scream when cancel culture is aimed at them, and they celebrate when it’s aimed at their enemies.

This is the rotten heart of the two-party system: hypocrisy, corruption, and endless division. They play you against each other, while nothing ever changes.

How much longer will you put up with this? Do you want real freedom? Real accountability? Then stop voting for the same two broken parties that have sold you out again and again.

There’s a difference between “cancel culture”, i.e boycotts, and government pressure to fire critics.

The problem wasn't what Kimmel said. The problem was that he didn't have anyone on his show to provide an alternate view or argument to what he said.

The point is that both sides are to blame for "cancel culture" and for using political power to limit free speech.

But this isn’t “cancel culture”. This is government pressure.

The general public are well within their rights to “demand” that someone be fired, and threaten a boycott otherwise, because the general public are under no obligation to buy some business’s goods or services. That’s a legitimate expression of free speech.

But the president and government agencies threatening to revoke their critics’ licenses is a different matter entirely.

The problem wasn't what Kimmel said. The problem was that he didn't have anyone on his show to provide an alternate view or argument to what he said. — Harry Hindu

I think the real problem is that ratings are down for all the late night talk shows. They're a vestige. Colbert's show was losing money. In order to be provocative, you have to have a fort from which to shoot.

There’s a difference between “cancel culture”, i.e boycotts, and government pressure to fire critics.

Nexstar media group said they made the decision to stop showing Kimmel unilaterally, without discussion with the government. They had the betterment of their audience in mind. I’m afraid they also have the free speech right to broadcast whatever they wish.

Only a totalitarian would expect to be able to speak without any consequences.

Why do you say that? Speaking without consequences is precisely what free speech is.

Nexstar media group said they made the decision to stop showing Kimmel unilaterally, without discussion with the government. They had the betterment of their audience in mind. I’m afraid they also have the free speech right to broadcast whatever they wish. — NOS4A2

I didn't mention Kimmel. I was alluding to this:

Speaking on Thursday to reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump said, “I have read someplace that the networks were 97% against me, again, 97% negative, and yet I won and easily, all seven swing states,” referring to his 2024 election win.

“They give me only bad publicity, press. I mean, they’re getting a license,” Trump said, according to audio from a press gaggle provided by the White House.

“I would think maybe their license should be taken away,” Trump said.

The president said that the decision “will be up to Brendan Carr.”

Trump specifically referred to criticism he has gotten from Kimmel and CBS late-night talk-show host Stephen Colbert.

“Look, that’s something that should be talked about for licensing, too,” Trump said.

“When you have a network and you have evening shows, and all they do is hit Trump,” he said. “That’s all they do. If you go back, I guess they haven’t had a conservative on in years or something, somebody said.”

“But when you go back, take a look, all they do is hit Trump. They’re licensed. They’re not allowed to do that. They’re an arm of the Democrat party,” he said.

I didn't mention Kimmel. I was alluding to this:

Oh, that’s right, Trump talking is government pressure in some circles. Forgive me.

Oh, that’s right, Trump talking is government pressure in some circles. Forgive me. — NOS4A2

Yes. As is this.

The FCC is signaling potential immediate action against Jimmy Kimmel, ABC, and parent company Disney, with Chairman Brendan Carr blasting what he calls “malicious lies” about the murder of Charlie Kirk. Carr said the late-night host deliberately misled viewers by claiming Kirk’s assassin was a MAGA Conservative, calling the statement “truly sick.”

Carr made clear the FCC has a “strong case” to hold Kimmel, ABC, and Disney accountable for spreading what he described as dangerous, politically motivated misinformation.

He suggested penalties could range from Kimmel’s suspension to ABC facing scrutiny of its broadcast license.

“This is a very, very serious issue right now for Disney,” Carr said during an appearance with podcaster Benny Johnson. “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.”

Brendan Carr emphasized that ABC and its affiliates must meet obligations tied to their licenses. “They have a license granted by us at the FCC, and that comes with it an obligation to operate in the public interest,” he said.

Calls for Kimmel’s firing have circulated in recent days, but Carr stopped short of demanding termination. “I think you could certainly see a path forward for suspension over this,” he noted, adding that the Commission could argue Kimmel’s remarks were “an intentional effort to mislead the American people about a very core fundamental fact.”

If you think that only direct, explicit, face-to-face demands count as pressure or threats then you might have autism. The rest of us understand subtext.

Subtext. Yet there were no conversations between either of the parties you mention. I guess this subtext just floats in the air, moving people around.

Perhaps it is the case that Newstar and Sinclair group didn’t want to show the episode because they didn’t like it, just as they said. Are you just going to dismiss this as lies?

Subtext. Yet there were no conversations between either of the parties you mention. — NOS4A2

Yes. When the FCC publicly threatens to revoke a network's license unless they penalize an employee, that is a threat even if not said in person to that network. You are being incredibly dense.

Perhaps it is the case that Newstar and Sinclair group didn’t want to show the episode because they didn’t like it, just as they said. — NOS4A2

But they did show it. And then they fired him after the backlash, which notably included the FCC chair threatening to revoke their license.

Are you just going to dismiss this as lies? — NOS4A2

Yes, I think they're lying. But even if they're telling the truth, it is still the case that the FCC was threatening to revoke their license, with the President supporting this threat and threatening to have the license of more of his critics revoked. These two things are not mutually exclusive.

When an EU commissioner did the same to Elon Musk, threatening him with penalty under the digital services act, is this the same sort of thing? He wasn’t just saying this to some YouTuber I’ve never heard of, but directly.

I think right now the only thing that stand between us and dictatorship is the courts.

I think right now the only thing that stand between us and dictatorship is the courts. — frank

Have you been paying attention to the same courts I have? :sweat:

Have you been paying attention to the same courts I have? — Michael

I'm saying we aren't at dictatorship yet. What's happening now is we're all getting used to the ideas associated with it, like censorship, domestic use of the military, rigged elections. Going forward, nothing could stand in the way except the courts. If the courts go under, it's over.

Reminding someone of their legal obligations to moderate their platform is not the same as threatening to revoke a network's license if they don't fire someone who mocked Trump's response to a question about Kirk and who insinuated that the shooter was a conservative, which is all Kimmel did.

And Trump very explicitly said that he wanted to revoke the licenses of networks who are negative of him. There's no legal requirement to kiss his ass or to lie and pretend that he's doing a good job.

For someone who is so in favour of free speech absolutism and critical of government overreach, you sure are doing your best to bend over backwards and pretend that nothing problematic is happening.

What's happening now is — frank

What is happening now is, the tyranny supported by the liberal media for 40 years is being challenged.

But this is no new threat to democracy. This is the same threat, built really since the 1960’s, except now it is being turned against the same media-progressive-agenda-complex that built this tyrannical climate.

Don’t get me wrong - To the extent Trump and the right wing media are using the same tyrannical methods against the liberal media and against progressive political debate, Trump is just as wrong. The FCC and Pam Bondi and Trump may be abusing power. Full stop.

But didn’t Jimmy Kimmel celebrate when Tucker Carlson was fired over bullshit, for instance?

Didn’t we all know Joe Biden was not fit for a second term? The media wasn’t sure until Jake Tapper wrote a book about it, well after the fact.

Any threats to democracy or undue media influence to speak of there?

Nothing new is happening today except who is feeling threatened and who is misusing government power.

It’s the same shit, different viscosity.

Government over-reach is a huge threat. Republicans have feared it all of my life and I’m 56. But now, because it is Trump, we have libs saying “threat to democracy” all of the time.

The problem is, we should have the same fear about Trump as we have about what any president can do, what the legislature can do, and what the judiciary should not be doing. But instead, the libs only fear these things when they disagree with who is on office because they are feeling the impact.

As a great example is misdiagnosing the problem of government over-reach and tyranny, the libs think giving power to someone like Mamdani is a good way to combat people like Trump, when Mamdani is running faster towards the same threatening cliff of too much governmental influence.

Network stations owned by companies like Nexstar and Sinclair Group also have an obligation to abide by FCC rules. Their licenses forbid them from spreading lies like Kimmel did and must consider the public interest. And it is in their power to moderate their own content, which is exactly what they chose to do.

Hopefully you’re aware Trump doesn’t have the power to fire Kimmel or anyone else on television, nor does the FCC. Neither ABC nor Disney are under their authority. If he does seize that sort of power I’ll start to worry.

For someone so defensive of government censorship and speech regulation, though, you’re suddenly so adamant about free speech.

For someone so defensive of government censorship and speech regulation, though, you’re suddenly so adamant about free speech. — NOS4A2

Your (apparently faux) commitment to free speech absolutism has left you incapable of understanding nuance and that the real world isn't black and white.

That I disagree with your claim that all speech regulation is bad isn't that I believe that all speech regulation is good.

Laws against defamation, conspiracy, and incitement to violence are both prudent and justified. The government and the President threatening to revoke the licenses of news organisations that are critical of them is bad.

It's ironic that your obsession to defend Trump even leads you to turn a blind eye to blatant, unjustified, government censorship, trying to whitewash it away as being something other than what it is. Even Ted Cruz and other Republicans are calling it out. This isn't just some liberal, anti-Trump hysteria.

Their licenses forbid them from spreading lies like Kimmel did and must consider the public interest. — NOS4A2

And what lie is that? All he said was "the MAGA gang are desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it" (and then mocked Trump for responding to a question about Kirk by bragging about the new White House ballroom).

It's laughable if you think that something so insignificant, even if false, warrants revoking a news organisation's license. Compare that with basically the entirety of Fox News, which even has hosts suggesting that homeless people should be murdered. Silence from Trump, Carr, and the FCC.

But the president and government agencies threatening to revoke their critics’ licenses is a different matter entirely. — Michael

Yeah, there's a huge difference between the two.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/ted-cruz-fcc-brendan-carr-jimmy-kimmel-goodfellas-trump/

But this isn’t “cancel culture”. This is government pressure.

The general public are well within their rights to “demand” that someone be fired, and threaten a boycott otherwise, because the general public are under no obligation to buy some business’s goods or services. That’s a legitimate expression of free speech.

But the president and government agencies threatening to revoke their critics’ licenses is a different matter entirely. — Michael

Well, yeah. The decline of late-night comedy shows due to the lack of comedy and alternate viewpoints is effectively "cancel culture".

Most Americans are tired of the bias and hypocrisy. We want open debate with all sides being represented.

The legacy media is also being canceled because they only promote the two-party system by having only left and right talking points.

Why does the media even interview Democrats or Republicans anymore? We already know what they are going to say on some issue - bashing the other side's stance while propping up their own all while never directly answering a direct question.

I want to hear more from Independents - the largest political group now - and free-thinkers and not political party group-thinkers and group-haters. There are more than just two points of view on an issue. Why are Independents not getting proportional representation in the media considering there are more Independents than Democrats or Republicans? Because the media is part of the two-party system and thrives and profits off conflict. The best solutions lie somewhere between the two extremes of left and right.

Your (apparently faux) commitment to free speech absolutism has left you incapable of understanding nuance and that the real world isn't black and white.

That I disagree with your claim that all speech regulation is bad isn't that I believe that all speech regulation is good.

Laws against defamation, conspiracy, and incitement to violence are both prudent and justified. The government and the President threatening to revoke the licenses of news organisations that are critical of them is bad.

It's ironic that your obsession to defend Trump even leads you to turn a blind eye to blatant, unjustified, government censorship, trying to whitewash it away as being something other than what it is. Even Ted Cruz and other Republicans are calling it out. This isn't just some liberal, anti-Trump hysteria.

Right, but when the EU commission directly threatens Elon Musk with fines it’s just “Reminding someone of their legal obligations to moderate their platform”. You appealed to law so using that logic a president and fcc chairman reminding those companies of their legal obligations to moderate their platforms is just that. I was just pointing that out. I believe all such laws are stupid, and all such regulating bodies should be abolished. I have never wavered from this belief.

It's laughable if you think that something so insignificant, even if false, warrants revoking a news organisation's license. Compare that with basically the entirety of Fox News, which even has hosts suggesting that homeless people should be murdered. Silence from Trump, Carr, and the FCC.

I don’t believe that at all. I believe Kimmel, Kirk, Fox News and indeed anyone who speaks should govern their own words. But this isn’t the world you advocate for. It’s you who advocates for those in power to set the conditions for speech, and here you are having to deal with the consequences of those beliefs.

Right, but when the EU commission directly threatens Elon Musk with fines it’s just “Reminding someone of their legal obligations to moderate their platform”. — NOS4A2

Yes, because that's what he was doing. Whereas Carr and Trump are using transparently tenuous and bullshit justifications to attack their critics. Everyone other than absurd apologists like you can see it for what it is.

I don’t believe that at all. — NOS4A2

I don't know what you believe, but what you said in earlier posts was a defence of Carr's and Trump's words, pretending that they weren't doing the very thing that you claim to abhor.

Yes, because that's what he was doing. Whereas Carr and Trump are using transparently tenuous and bullshit justifications to attack their critics. Everyone other than absurd apologists like you can see it for what it is.

Uh oh, “attacking their critics”. Scary stuff.

I don't know what you believe, but what you said in earlier posts was a defence of Carr's and Trump's words, pretending that they weren't doing the very thing that you claim to abhor.

I don’t abhor speaking. In fact I want to know exactly what those in power are thinking and what they believe, and I wish they’d speak more.

I don’t abhor speaking. — NOS4A2

You abhor government censorship.

The President and the chair of the FCC using their words to threaten their critics into not saying the things they're saying and/or to have them deplatformed under the pretence of legal responsibility is government censorship, even if not said face-to-face, officially and formally. It isn't just them casually speaking their mind. No reasonable person accepts "will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?" as plausible deniability. You're engaging in poor apologetics, plain and simple.

According to CBS, the FCC's threats are clearly unconstitutional, and ABC/Disney could easily bring it to the Supreme Court, where all nine justices would affirm that the FCC's actions were illegal.

The reason Disney won't do that is because of a multi-billion dollar deal Nexstar was engaged in where they would increase their numbers of ABC affiliates above what the FCC has traditionally allowed. So Nexstar needs the FCC's favor. It was Nexstar that "rushed to cave into" Carr's threats. This is explained in a NY Times article.

You abhor government censorship.

The President and the chair of the FCC using their words to threaten their critics into not saying the things they're saying and/or to have them deplatformed under the pretence of legal responsibility is government censorship, even if not said face-to-face, officially and formally. It isn't just them casually speaking their mind. No reasonable person accepts "will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?" as plausible deniability. You're engaging in poor apologetics, plain and simple.

I abhor all censorship and I oppose ABC’s decision. I also respect their right to do whatever they want to Kimmel. He’s an employee. His waning popularity and the collapse of ratings probably made the decision much easier.

Watching everyone now twisting themselves into pretzels to blame Trump, after a decade of trying to silence him and his movement, is just added enjoyment on my part.

Now that you abhor censorship I hope you carry your new-found principle further and oppose the censorship prevalent in your own country, union, and continent. Sadly, I doubt that’s something I’ll ever read.

I abhor all censorship — NOS4A2

Why is that? How did this first start? No cliched talking points of "freedom" and "right and wrong" and "tyrants" you've never seen or even been affected by before in your life. Honestly. Real talk. Abhor is a strong word. It's used casually by many people just to exaggerate. What makes you so adamant in your view? What happened? Or, I suppose, what didn't happen? Are you just, trying to fit in? No, surely not. You must have your own story and truly organically defined belief. So. Let's hear it. Floors all yours mate. :smile: