FCC Chair Threatens Jimmy Kimmel Over Charlie Kirk Monologue Comments
Brendan Carr suggested taking action against ABC affiliates following the late night host's comments about the suspected Kirk shooter's politics.
You're viewing a single thread.
So to clarify.. Jimmy Kimmel did not even mention Charlie Kirk in this monologue more than as a reference to the killer.
he literally said
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.
To classify this as "removed over comments about Charlie Kirk" is insane! He was talking about his killer and the reason he was removed was clarified by the FCC chair.
[This] appears to be an action by Jimmy Kimmel to play into the narrative that this was somehow a MAGA or Republican-motivated person” - Brendan Carr
Yet all the headlines read "for comments about Charlie Kirk"!
Should all be saying "Removed for commenting on MAGAs actions following this shooting"
/edit typos
Kirk is about to become a MAGA-Martyr, so any comment about his death is a sacrilege to them.
It s for the obvious lie about the intent and political association regarding the shooter. I think him being remove isn't the great, but he should be oblige to comme back on that statement which was a lie and tell the truth
... he should be oblige to comme back on that statement which was a lie and tell the truth.
Bullshit. This is such a disingenuous argument.
MAGA immediately lied about the shooter being left, making their entire base hostile. Especially towards all non-MAGA Americans that don't believe the 100% bullshit coming from Trumps mouth at a literal record setting pace.
Do you feel the same need to have clarifying statements come from every lying sack of MAGA hatred that said the shooter was left immediately with no evidence?
You know, literally all of them?
Because unlike Kimmel, they immediately used the death of one of their own to further antagonize their perceived political enemies despite a complete lack of evidence.
But sure, let's hold Kimmel to the "Truth" and not the unquestionable evil of using the dead for personal gain - that needs no apologies. Might as well ignore this behaviour despite it being responsible for 70% of public shootings the last 10 years too. Seeing that's now a fact this admin just deleted from the DOJ because they don't like it. Is you desire for the truth here too, as it is literally being covered up?
In what way do you feel Kimmel telling the truth is far better for our society as a whole?
Because there is no need to get angry over Kimmel for needing to "tell the truth." It's not like his lie killed more Americans than all the wars we ever fought in combined like COVID has.
So no offense, but it's obviously the truth is very far from what you are looking for here. What it sounds like you want from Kimmel is fealty.
MAGA immediately lied about the shooter being left
the first arest done related to the shooting was literaly a leftist ( the old pedophile)
But sure, let’s hold Kimmel to the “Truth” and not the unquestionable evil of using the dead for personal gain - that needs no apologies
A public figure on tv network is held by standard and that s litteraly why he was removed
In what way do you feel Kimmel telling the truth is far better for our society as a whole?
if u question why telling the truth is better for society i feel all your argument regarding the other side of yours can be dismissed.
Because there is no need to get angry over Kimmel for needing to “tell the truth.” It’s not like his lie killed more Americans than all the wars we ever fought in combined like COVID has.
I see any relation to that topic and if your argument is i can do that cause x does that then it can also be dismissed. also i really think you exagerate a virus that have a 0.1% of killing under 50 ppl. But that might be related to your already mortal obesity rate.
So no offense, but it’s obviously the truth is very far from what you are looking for here. What it sounds like you want from Kimmel is fealty.
In my book he could even make fun of kirk. I dont like it but it s his right. Lying on national tv isnt
the first arest done related to the shooting was literaly a leftist ( the old pedophile).
Yeah. The FBI is now run by an unqualified idiot, and he arrested the wrong person. Kash Patel is in a much higher office than Kimmel and should apologize for arresting who was obviously the wrong suspect according to you.
Every person who reported on that mistake as if it was true should also apologize, but I guess massively fucking up an FBI investigation is a good excuse to lie according to you? Do I understand that right?
A public figure on tv network is held by standard and that s litteraly why he was removed
Explain to me why you think Kimmels position as an public entertainer should be held to a higher standard than those in public office like the President. Seriously. Explain it.
Because it shouldnt. Political polices, not entertainment, are most effective when they're based on truth. We don't need truth in entertainment, we need truth in politics.
Trump and his entire cabinet should apologize for mistakenly believing the left was responsible, after the FBI apologizes for arresting who was clearly the wrong person.
This truth would have a far greater impact on society than Kimmel admitting he also made a mistake. Do you agree?
if u question why telling the truth is better for society i feel all your argument regarding the other side of yours can be dismissed.
I'm not. I'm asking you to specifically tell me how Kimmel telling the truth is better for society COMPARED to Trump and his entire Cabinet doing the same.
It's a basic compare and contrast question, that I'll simplify into:
Which of the below would have a greater societal benefit in telling the truth:
Use your words to describe the benefits of each societal outcome rather than just saying one is better than the other (if you can.)
Because it is painfully obvious which would be better to society, and literally no one should have an issue seeing that if they're not logically compromised.
Lying on national tv isn't.
Seriously, honest question: how do you feel about the President lying on national TV? Or the head of the FBI?
Is it seriously only a bad thing to you when Kimmel does it? Because it really seems like your entire point of the Truth needing to being said on national TV is constructed entirely outside of Trump being our president and lying all the time.
Honestly, I find it sad that you think Kimmel needs to tell the truth, when our President has publically lied 162 times on TV this year alone. Here they all are:
https://www.npr.org/2024/08/11/nx-s1-5070566/trump-news-conference
Every single lie has a source. Every lie has a detailed description of how it was a lie.
This is in addition to the 30573 other lies he told to the public on TV during his first administration. Here's that list:
If you honestly care about the truth and how that benefits society, then why are you giving Trump a free pass to lie? Trump holds a higher office, is on TV, and based on my above links, lies much more frequently than Kimmel.
So, explain to me why you feel Trump doesn't need to ever publicly tell the truth, or admit when he's lying, but you think Kimmel does.
Seriously. Just answer this one question in a reasonable way, and maybe you have a point to make. I'll take any avoidance in talking about Trump as an admission that you're compromised by their propaganda.
Yeah. The FBI is now run by an unqualified idiot, and he arrested the wrong person. Kash Patel is in a much higher office than Kimmel and should apologize for arresting who was obviously the wrong suspect according to you.
it s not the fbi that did the arest but the security on the campus. And if u have a shooting and somebody gldly claim i did it yes i want him arrested and at least charge with obstruction to justice.
Every person who reported on that mistake as if it was true should also apologize, but I guess massively fucking up an FBI investigation is a good excuse to lie according to you? Do I understand that right?
Give an exemple of anybody in charge of the investigation that said he was the shooter ?
Explain to me why you think Kimmels position as an public entertainer should be held to a higher standard than those in public office like the President
Cause national tv is subject to law that doesnt abide political figure.
Trump and his entire cabinet should apologize for mistakenly believing the left was responsible, after the FBI apologizes for arresting who was clearly the wrong person. This truth would have a far greater impact on society than Kimmel admitting he also made a mistake. Do you agree?
i agree but the dude was definetly a leftist and definetly not a maga
Trump apologizing for lying about the left based on Patel massively fucking up and arresting the obvious wrong person.
Tyler robinson is the killer he confesse it and his own familly told he was a leftist
Seriously, honest question: how do you feel about the President lying on national TV? Or the head of the FBI?
I think it s wrong but regarding that case i didnt seen instance of it comming from them
Honestly, I find it sad that you think Kimmel needs to tell the truth, when our President has publically lied 162 times on TV this year alone. Here they all are: https://www.npr.org/2024/08/11/nx-s1-5070566/trump-news-conference Every single lie has a source. Every lie has a detailed description of how it was a lie. This is in addition to the 30573 other lies he told to the public on TV during his first administration. Here’s that list: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/24/trumps-false-or-misleading-claims-total-30573-over-four-years/
i think it s wrong and i dont support it.
So, explain to me why you feel Trump doesn’t need to ever publicly tell the truth, or admit when he’s lying, but you think Kimmel does.
Cause like i said a network isnt held accountable the same way a politician is. I agree lying politician is bad and i dont suport it
Give an exemple of anybody in charge of the investigation that said he was the shooter ?
The backlash began after Patel said Wednesday that "the subject for the horrific shooting today that took the life of Charlie Kirk is now in custody," before saying less than two hours later that he had the wrong person. It was the second time that day authorities had arrested someone in the case then let them go.
Here you go. Literally the head of the FBI saying the 71 yo they caught who wasn't the shooter is "the subject for the horrific shooting today that took the life of Charlie Kirk is now in custody."
Here's what happened when that guy got arrested:
Zinn told police he shot Kirk to “draw attention from the real shooter,” according to documents obtained by Fox 13 News. He allegedly approached an officer and said, “I shot him, now shoot me,” but refused to say where the weapon was. Officers searched him and found no gun.
Patel before bothering to learn any of this:
"... the subject for the horrific shooting today that took the life of Charlie Kirk is now in custody."
Everyone in the MAGA sphere then went on to lie about the left as violent because of this.
Going so far as to delete the DOJ study proving the right is responsible for 70% of mass shootings.
“Militant, nationalistic, white supremacist violent extremism has increased in the United States. In fact, the number of far-right attacks continues to outpace all other types of terrorism and domestic violent extremism,” the first two lines of the study read
And you want to believe Kimmel apologizing is somehow magically better for society? Is his apology going to bring back these publically funded studies paid for by our tax dollars?
Explain this reasoning of yours. Please. Because it's truly insane to me.
And I do not say this lighty - but I have to because you honestly believe this:
Cause national tv is subject to law that doesnt abide political figure.
Show me this law. It does not exist. Fox News can lie to you. It's technically entertainment and not news. Their lawyers argued this in court and won.
https://niemanreports.org/fox-dominion-lawsuit/
the Dominion lawsuit has exposed the network as an entertainment network masquerading as a news outlet. In private, Fox News personalities like Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and Carlson were expressing their disdain for former President Donald Trump and their belief that the 2020 presidential election wasn’t stolen. On air, they said the opposite.
On air they said the opposite because they're allowed to lie. Because its legal for them to lie to you on television.
But it is NOT legal for anyone holding public office to lie.
Here is that law: https://www.mololamken.com/knowledge-Is-It-a-Crime-To-Lie-to-the-Government-Even-If-You-Are-Not-Under-Oath
Under Section 1001 of title 18 of the United States Code, It is a federal crime to knowingly and willfully make a materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the United States. You must “know” that what you are saying is a lie to make you guilty of this crime.
Patel didn't know the person first arrested for the shooting was obviously not the culprit. But he lied and said he was. Saying this with certainty when the facts are unknown is a lie. Seeing as Patel is part of the Judicial branch, this is also illegal.
It is incredibly disheartening to hear you believe that Kimmel is guilty of some crime here instead of the FBI being lead by an incompetent lying idiot who is feeding national division by eagerly lying about a suspect in custody to fit a narrative before any information about them is confirmed. The damage caused by this is unquestionably larger than anything Kimmel has done, and you can't prove otherwise because you're unwilling to admit team Trump even lies at all, despite them being the only ones in all of this legally obligated to tell the truth.
Everyone in the MAGA sphere then went on to lie about the left as violent because of this.
in the article u link he s criticized for that. And the left being violent isnt a first and like i said before the shooter is antifa affiliated and while we didnt have the shooter we had the bullet casing before with antifa slogan.
Going so far as to delete the DOJ study proving the right is responsible for 70% of mass shootings.
heard about that story but from i understand it was data that was missrepresented same as the adl one who post all anti goovernement action as far right. but that s not the subject here.
Show me this law. It does not exist. Fox News can lie to you. It’s technically entertainment and not news. Their lawyers argued this in court and won.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/73.1217
about the next point u have your answer in this part "within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the United States. You must “know” that what you are saying is a lie to make you guilty of this crime."
Patel didn’t know the person first arrested for the shooting was obviously not the culprit. But he lied and said he was. Saying this with certainty when the facts are unknown is a lie. Seeing as Patel is part of the Judicial branch, this is also illegal.
??? did u misstype ? anyway im not sure he was lying since he retract his statement in 2 hour. like see he retract false statement. The same i said kiemel should be abble to do
It is incredibly disheartening to hear you believe that Kimmel is guilty of some crime here instead of the FBI being lead by an incompetent
im all for a wolrd where incompetence is a crime.
eagerly lying about a suspect in custody to fit a narrative before any information about them is confirmed. The damage caused by this is unquestionably larger than anything Kimmel has done
they retracted false informations. in the end the killer is still a leftist. Also not abide by the same law. but i agree bad information comming from the head of the fbi is bad and i condomne thoses
I'm sorry, but you're hopeless.
The shooter being a "leftist" is obviously all you care about. Not the truth. Not what's legal. It doesn't matter at all to you that the FBI literally lied about the shooter being a leftist before they even caught the real guy.
Do you not understand how that means they are willing to lie to you about anyone being a leftist before there's evidence?
Do you not understand that anything Trumps team calls left you'll just hate without thinking about it? Do you not understand how you've literally already proven this is the case with Kirks shooter? It's also painfully obvious why you can't bother to admit how much Trump lies.
Because then you might understand how many innocent people have already been punished simply because Trump lied about them being leftist / illegal / bad to you just to get votes.
Literally thousands of examples of this exist by the way.
It would be great if you could actually care about this, instead of the snowflake reaction you're having about Kimmel.
But it does explain why this country has gone to shit. Because you let TV tell you who the bad guys are, and didnt bother to make sure TV wasn't lying to you about it. So now Americans are the bad guys, and you're okay with that because they're "leftists".
Trump can now say whatever he wants and you will believe it as true without ever checking. Hell, you'll even defend his lies now. Just as you have with the removal of the DOJ report on violent right wing extremism.
Here's two more Independant studies all proving the data in the deleted report was true: (Which in turn proves you defended the lie about the data being poor before checking to see if was true.)
we find that radical acts perpetrated by individuals associated with left-wing causes are less likely to be violent. In the United States, we find no difference between the level of violence perpetrated by right-wing and Islamist extremists. However, differences in violence emerge on the global level, with Islamist extremists being more likely than right-wing extremists to engage in more violent acts.
https://www.adl.org/resources/report/murder-and-extremism-united-states-2024
Extremist-related killings in recent years have primarily been committed by far-right extremists. Mass shootings caused a substantial portion of those deaths. The white supremacist mass shooter who attacked Latinos at a Walmart in El Paso in 2019, killing 23 people, was responsible by himself for almost half of the 51 extremist-related deaths that year. The lower numbers since then can substantially be attributed to fewer far-right mass killing events (with numerous planned incidents prevented by law enforcement) and fewer deaths at some that did occur. One must travel back to the year 2000, which saw nine killings committed by far-right extremists, to find a lower number of deaths from right-wing extremists than the 13 in 2024.
Dude accuse the shooter of being maga
Shooter is leftist
Said that your oposant interest depend on the shooter affiliation to disprove a lie on that subject. You are really smart
Tell me is the shooter was maga yes or no ?
No. Never accused him of being MAGA either. Literally read this conversation again to see.
You just want this chat to be about the political affiliation of the Kirk shooter because its the only narrative you've been fed that you know how to defend.
Your turn:
Does Trump lie to your face? Yes or no.
By all means, keep on proving to be a coward that can't admit Trump lies to you. Going on what, like three requests of mine by now? You must really like being lied to as long as by it's someone you think is better than you. Turns out, he lied to you about that too.
If you read his quote above there is no lie in that line. The right have been trying to distance themselves from the shooter and have been using it to score political points as either of the party does with a situation they can use. (Although this administration is actively spreading disinformation)
How Tyler robinson a dude described NY his own mother left leaning dating a trans and saying he did it cause Kirk spread too much hatred was a maga ? How this isn't a lie?
If you had actually read the quote as you were instructed to do, you would see that even if the killer were 120% a card-carrying DNC toe-sucker, that would not make the statement inaccurate. The murderer's political affiliation was declared before they even had the right guy, a clear example of the actions described in the quote. As though someone's political beliefs can even be a hard enough fact to bring legal action down on a news program an entertainment show who no reasonable viewer could believe is accurate news after a certain vulpine decision. If you just assume a falsehood from someone you don't like because you won't or can't understand their actual statement, that's hardly a regulatory infraction.
bro he lied that s it. not turning around or any things will change that. i dont see how the point they made mistake on the suspect is an argument that allow you to lie on something that you know is false. And the law that abide tv network and was cited by the authority doesnr regard the typpe of show but the severity and damage of the lie. "It is foreseeable that broadcast of the information will cause substantial public harm" and "Any programming accompanied by a disclaimer will be presumed not to pose foreseeable harm if the disclaimer clearly characterizes the program as a fiction and is presented in a way that is reasonable under the circumstances. " Legal action wasnt even bring on the "entertainement show" freedom of speech wich you implied should protect his lie doesnt equal freedom of consequence. And also tv network are abide to more rules.
If you just assume a falsehood from someone you don’t like
the dude literally lied on the bigest political assasination of the decade and u can turn it how u want it s not me and my assumption that make it a lie but what he blatantly said.
hat’s hardly a regulatory infraction.
§ 73.1217 Broadcast hoaxes. (10–1–24 Edition) Who was in power to vote this law 🤔
could you please quote what was the lie?
Sure
with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them
gonna point the irony of the next sentence too
doing everything they can to score political points from it
Cause yeah why liying about it if not for political point
did fox news and others not say immediately that the assassin was "left wing" or "democrat"? that is what that sentence means. it is just a fact
You are making up that he said anything about the killer being a leftist or not. He said that MAGAs are trying to call the killer "anything other than one of them". That is a substantively different statement. Unless Jimmy said something different to you than the rest of us, continuing to repeat your claim that he lied would actually be you lying.
I consider a public statement by the FCC chair that the companies need to "take action on Kimmel" or the FCC will act to be "legal action". It is not merely "freedom of consequence" when it is a threat of consequences from a government body; in fact, that's the sole critical difference from a freedom of speech issue and you missed it.
Anything other than one of them let not other possibility than the killer being one of them.
The fact you r arguing on semantic and wanna say an obvious lie isnt a lie cause u can lie about that matter simply prove my point to me. The fact the company didn't even wanna try what would have been a case and judgement prove how in the eye of the law he was wrong. I have no idea of consequence from a gouvernement body disprove the argument when freedom of speech is law abiding
Truly, am I more Sisyphus or Tantalus upon this day, or has Tartarus seen fit to bestow upon me an entirely new task!
The difference between "he said XYZ" or "he feels this way about XYZ" versus "XYZ is true" is not semantics. It is the critical point that distinguishes invalid hearsay from legal testimony. And take note of how I directly establish my point and give supporting examples, not just parrot "no what you say proves me right".
That is the exact opposite of proving that "in the eye of the law he was wrong" if there was no case and no judgement.
Freedom of speech is about consequences from the government, while the "freedom of [from] consequence" you brought up is about consequences from the free market, public opinion, etc. That you have no idea why that is relevant means you should do more research on what you are saying so that you are not stating lies.
Anything other than
It s critical formulation that let not place to doubt. About your second point it s funny how the network owner didn't even tried to go to court for a case that they could maybe win, like maybe it was also the consequence from the free market and opinions ?
About stating lie, yes or no did he said the shooter was maga ?
As I already said, you are stuck on the wrong part. He did not say that the shooter was MAGA. It might be the case that his phrasing would often be used by someone that also believed that shooter was MAGA in addition to MAGAs telling everyone that the shooter wasn't MAGA, but that's not what he said, nor is it even logicly implied by what he said. He could believe that, or even outright say, that the shooter wasn't MAGA, and still say the exact same thing without it being inconsistent or a lie.
Using phrasing that someone would assume is part of a statement that is different than the one actually given is a classic comedic element, like when it sounds like someone is starting to give some bad news but then they switch tone in the middle and actually give some good news. Just because you started to think it was bad news doesn't mean that they actually said any bad news before they changed tone. That doesn't mean he was making a joke about it, just that an aspect of communication used in his career may come also come up in other places and be used to other effects.
Let me give another example: If we saw some guy running around telling everyone the sky is blue and my friend were to point out to me that "Isn't it weird that that guy is telling everyone the sky is blue?", then I might say something like "Yeah, that is weird." because someone running around telling people the color of the sky is not normal. If you then come by and say "Are you two crazy? The sky is actually blue!" then you would be missing that the point is the guy's actions, not the color of the sky.
Now, notice that in that example, it didn't even actually matter if the sky was actually blue to point out the weird behavior. It could have happened exactly the same way if it was overcast and we couldn't tell the color of the sky, or even if it was sunset and the sky was actually red at the time. To bring it back to the main point, everyone else is talking about the behavior of the folks trying so hard to label it with color, but you are just arguing about what color it is and claiming that my friend is lying about the color, but all he actually said was the people suddenly trying so hard to talk about the color are acting weird.
Regarding the other point, maybe it would also be a consequence and maybe it wouldn't, but that doesn't address whether there was a freedom of speech violation by the government. It would still be wrong for the government to violate freedom of speech no matter how much other consequences there are. If he said that kittens weren't cute and suddenly nobody wanted to pay a cent to any company he ever worked with and so he took a vow of silence, it would still be wrong for the government to say "Any company that lets him broadcast that kittens aren't cute will face FCC action." It doesn't even have to go to court to still affect someone. Additionally, it is abundantly clear that these large media companies are trying to appease the personal feelings of those currently in power to avoid being targeted by government action, when it should be only their legal opinions that matter.