Jimmy Kimmel pulled from the air

[JimmySpeaks]

7 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

Remember the old thread that liberals are less happy. There is some serious anger from old Keith.

I remember him having tons of followers but almost no activity on his posts.  Wanna be/has been.  Fits right into @1032004 ‘s theory.  

[1032004]

1 hour ago, JimmySpeaks said:

I remember him having tons of followers but almost no activity on his posts.  Wanna be/has been.  Fits right into @1032004 ‘s theory.  

I criticized the Olbermann post yesterday.

[JimmySpeaks]

52 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

I criticized the Olbermann post yesterday.

No idea what the post was.  Don’t care 

[scourge165]

On 9/17/2025 at 9:02 PM, uncle bernard said:

lol they were literally threatened by Trump’s FCC. 

THAT is what is dangerous... and it's amazing how many fools don't see this. 

The Government starts to chip away... VERY slowly at things like this. 

 

And now... the FCC threatens they're "not done," with the "media eco-system."

I'm sure most on here are just fine with that, but THIS... the United States Government making threats like this is... well, it's how fascism starts to really take root.

That Jimmy Kimmel did Karl Malone blackface is immaterial to this discussion. His employers could have fired him, people could have chose to not watch due to... whatever reasons. That's one thing, but Trump stepping in via the FCC, Jesus... if you don't have a problem with that, what DO you have a problem with?

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/18/jimmy-kimmel-charlie-kirk-fcc-carr.html

[JimmySpeaks]

Some questions for people ponder:

Can the FCC revoke a networks license?
Do Networks have a license?
Does the FCC regulate cable tv stations like CNN or Fox?
What is the public Interest Standard?
Has the FCC ever threatened stations before?  Have the threats ever led to a license being revoked?  If so how often does this happen? 
What is the difference between content and rules violations?
Has or would the FCC revoking a stations license hold up in court against the first amendment?

 

Should people be more concerned about this or a new bi-partisan social media bill impacting speech on the internet? 
 

[Caveira]

7 hours ago, scourge165 said:

THAT is what is dangerous... and it's amazing how many fools don't see this. 

The Government starts to chip away... VERY slowly at things like this. 

 

And now... the FCC threatens they're "not done," with the "media eco-system."

I'm sure most on here are just fine with that, but THIS... the United States Government making threats like this is... well, it's how fascism starts to really take root.

That Jimmy Kimmel did Karl Malone blackface is immaterial to this discussion. His employers could have fired him, people could have chose to not watch due to... whatever reasons. That's one thing, but Trump stepping in via the FCC, Jesus... if you don't have a problem with that, what DO you have a problem with?

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/18/jimmy-kimmel-charlie-kirk-fcc-carr.html

Comments on this ??

 

[uncle bernard]

@JimmySpeaks is this what the "free market" looks like?

 

 

[El Luchador]

7 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

@JimmySpeaks is this what the "free market" looks like?

 

 

The agreement with using public air waves states truth is mandatory. Straight up lies are a violation. There is no criminal penalties so this is not an attack on free speech, it is a violation of the broadcasting agreement.

[red viking]

9 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

The agreement with using public air waves states truth is mandatory. Straight up lies are a violation. There is no criminal penalties so this is not an attack on free speech, it is a violation of the broadcasting agreement.

Fox would have been off the air a couple decades ago if it went both ways. 

[Caveira]

3 minutes ago, red viking said:

Fox would have been off the air a couple decades ago if it went both ways. 

The fox you don’t like is cable boss …. Does cable live by the same rules ?

Edited 43 minutes ago by Caveira

[headshuck]

Fox would have been off the air a couple decades ago if it went both ways. 

Off the “air.” I suspect 90% of wingers don’t understand the difference.

[uncle bernard]

8 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

The agreement with using public air waves states truth is mandatory. Straight up lies are a violation. There is no criminal penalties so this is not an attack on free speech, it is a violation of the broadcasting agreement.

I look forward to the government threatening Fox News considering they've admitted in a court of law that they knowingly lied to viewers and have explicitly argued that they aren't a strictly a "news" organization - which would exclude them from the protections the FCC chair is specifically citing to go after The View.

[red viking]

9 minutes ago, Caveira said:

The fox you don’t like is cable boss …. Does cable live by the same rules ?

ALL media is digital or cable now. Its not the 1980s anymore. 

[Caveira]

1 minute ago, red viking said:

ALL media is digital or cable now. Its not the 1980s anymore. 

Does the fcc have jurisdiction over cable news or not?

[red viking]

3 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Does the fcc have jurisdiction over cable news or not?

No, but trumptard can go after newe networks in other ways. Just one example : He's simply sued several entities. Frivolous, but still costs them a lot of money. 

He's also weaponized the fbi so will use them if anyway possible. Definitely "investigating" any potential way to go after any liberal entities he can. 

Edited 26 minutes ago by red viking

[Wrestleknownothing]

5 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Does the fcc have jurisdiction over cable news or not?

They do. Cable operators need FCC licenses too.

[El Luchador]

22 minutes ago, red viking said:

Fox would have been off the air a couple decades ago if it went both ways. 

There is a standard to the lies that violate the policy. 

[El Luchador]

6 minutes ago, red viking said:

No, but trumptard can go after newe networks in other ways. Just one example : He's simply sued several entities. Frivolous, but still costs them a lot of money. 

He's also weaponized the fbi so will use them if anyway possible. Definitely "investigating" any potential way to go after any liberal entities he can. 

I thought you were all for accountability. 

[red viking]

2 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

I thought you were all for accountability. 

I'm against double standards and frivolous lawsuits, particularly for federal govt and president. It's egregious and obvious what's happening right now. Blatant attack on free speech. 

[red viking]

6 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

There is a standard to the lies that violate the policy. 

What was the kimmel lie btw? 

[Caveira]

16 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

They do. Cable operators need FCC licenses too.

Cable networks do not use the public spectrum in the same way; distribution is over private cable/satellite infrastructure. So they don’t have the same kind of spectrum license obligations. 

[red viking]

3 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Cable networks do not use the public spectrum in the same way; distribution is over private cable/satellite infrastructure. So they don’t have the same kind of spectrum license obligations. 

So what did Kimmel lie about? 

[Caveira]

3 minutes ago, red viking said:

So what did Kimmel lie about? 

Not debating this part again.   

 

 

oldie but a goodie 

Edited just now by Caveira

[Wrestleknownothing]

5 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Cable networks do not use the public spectrum in the same way; distribution is over private cable/satellite infrastructure. So they don’t have the same kind of spectrum license obligations. 

They do require FCC licenses (your question), and if you think the standards difference between broadcast and cable will stop a weaponized FCC that is hell bent on attacking the First Amendment from goingg after cable operators then you are a fool.

Also Fox Corporation holds both kinds of licenses.