- law dawg
- 79 Comments
- 1745 Views
As is often obvious from the comments, there are several of you with a desire to be able to discuss legal topics that are not necessarily Vegas centric. Here’s your chance. If you want to discuss the legal merits of a topic of national interest, i.e. national politics, free speech, Charlie Kirk, the FCC, Jimmy Kimmel, etc. etc, feel free to do so in the comment section of this post. We ask that you remain civil in your discussion and refrain from personal attacks on each other or the subjects of the discussion. Again this is for discussing the legal aspects of these issues, if it devolves into a stream of memes and “cry harder, sis” then we’ll shut it down.
I’m a staunch conservative. I think Patrick Buchanan was a leftist. But I’m so disturbed by the Kimmel event. The government should not control speech directly or indirectly.
This was an ABC / Disney decision. The government does NOT control speech and anyone blaming Trump for this is lame. This is cancel culture biting its creators in the ass.
Yes, it was an ABC/Disney decision because of what Trump’s FCC said:
Mr. Carr, in an interview on a right-wing podcast on Wednesday, said that Mr. Kimmel’s remarks were part of a “concerted effort to lie to the American people,” and that the F.C.C. was “going to have remedies that we can look at.”
“Frankly, when you see stuff like this — I mean, we can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Mr. Carr told the podcast’s host, Benny Johnson. “These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the F.C.C. ahead.”
Doesn’t sound unreasonable to me. Biden and Obama were repeatedly accused of worse when it comes to dealing with the public writ large.
This has been a live update from Whataboutism National News Radio.
Trump, today:
“Great News for America: The ratings challenged Jimmy Kimmel Show is CANCELLED. Congratulations to ABC for finally having the courage to do what had to be done,” Trump wrote. “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. Their ratings are also horrible. Do it NBC!!! President DJT”
Taking bets on who is fired next.
If you think pat Buchanan was a leftist, there is no way you come to that conclusion
Same shit I heard from you knuckleheads while Biden was in office:
[Whiney AF Voice]
But Trump did ________________. Fill in the fkn blank.
Powerful legal analysis.
I see there is a new cottage industry. Get fired or say u did for speaking about Charlie Kirk and then start a go fund me. Not sure if this is good or bad, just noting it.
That’s been going on long before last week, for wide ranging claims of political retaliation
Go after the 1st, I’ll go after the 2nd. Mutually assured destruction.
What does this mean?
I assume it means the 1st/2nd amendment ..
It’s probably best to lay low, don’t say anything negative in a public forum about conservatives, and hope there’s a sea change if we’re allowed to elect another president. Maybe Canada will let a few of us in if this keeps going the way it’s going.
Honestly, the first part of this sentiment is pretty much how my close friends and family felt during the prior administration except substitute “conservatives” with “anything woke or not conservative”. Difference being claiming to wish to leave for Canada – you don’t leave your country when you disagree with it, you work to return it back to what you want it to be – hence 2024 election results.
If the country becomes a federal police state with government dictated media it might not be my country.
But let’s see if the next few elections actually proceed under rule of law.
I’m an optimist, to a fault, so I think the signals that the executive branch is looking to install a single-party regime might not come to fruition. Let’s hope!
You can’t be serious, 10:19. I’m embarrassed for you. You honestly believe that? You have to be a troll. And I pray you are not a lawyer.
You presume that mechanisms to return it back to what you want it to be still will exist by then.
Seems pretty unknowable at this point.
I find it fascinating. Take the statement “things you say online could result in people calling your work and getting you fired.”
Half the people respond “yeah its been that way for 15 years. What is new?” the other half seem completed shocked posting horrible things online can have serious real world consequences.
It is like watching someone’s racist uncle who is used to his friends and family playing it off freak out after being told to stop using the N word in public. “What do you mean stop being a horrible human being in public! I’ve been doing it forever and suddenly its not ok!?”
Oh. The tears are delicious.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”
It’s pretty easy to see the bad-faith, nonsensical argument that will be made here. The President isn’t specifically named in this amendment, so it’s clear the founding fathers meant for the President to have the ability to silence, intimidate, extort, and/or jail those who use their voices to criticize the President.
Extortion is exactly what the administration is doing here. Nexstar, which operates 32 ABC stations nationwide, is in the process of merging with TEGNA, a deal valued at $6.2 billion. Donald Trump doesn’t like that he’s being mocked or criticized on an ABC station. So he tells the FCC Chairman to tell Nexstar, “nice network you have there, sure would be a shame if something terrible happened with that merger.” Nexstar caves to the extortion and cancels Kimmel. Now Kimmel has a breach of contract claim against Nexstar and a First Amendment claim against the U.S.
. . . . . a not so logical (series of) leap(s).
Where is your proof?
What about Sinclair’s decision to preempt Kimmel?
(Who was dying on the vine in ratings anyway!)
1) This is the factual series of events that occurred.
2) Google is free. If you wish to counter an assertion with factual information, do so.
3) Not relevant to why Nexstar silenced Kimmel indefinitely. A one-time preempt for Kirk’s memorial in Kimmel’s time slot isn’t a basis to cancel a show entirely.
4) Kimmel’s show was the third-most-watched show on TV last month. More importantly, you know Trump is watching him, which means he’s more relevant than you’d like to admit.
Sinclair Broadcasting had announced that they were preempting Kimmel indefinitely, not just once.
Nice try.
Yes, ultra right-wing Sinclair “This Is Very Dangerous To Our Democracy” Broadcasting announced that after ABC did. Would you like some gloves to guard your delicate keyboard warrior hands for the next time you need to move the goalposts?
FCC Chair Brendan Carr this morning:
“We’re on a cable show right now. If you don’t have an FCC license, you don’t have an obligation to serve the public interest. Podcasts don’t either. Stand-up comedians, whether they’re on lots of forms of communications, don’t. And Kimmel is free to do that.”
“But if you have a broadcast TV license, that means that you have something that very few people have. And you’re excluding other people from having access to that valuable public resource. And it comes with an obligation to serve the public interest.”
“And again, over the years, there’s been a rule in place at the FCC that local TV stations get to preempt programming that they don’t think meets the needs of their communities.”
“This is a very significant moment because local broadcasters are now pushing back on national programmers.”
Sounds reasonable to me. BTW, Kimmel was cancelled because Sinclair Broadcasting (owner of dozens of TV stations) announced that they would preempt Kimmel’s show.
Except that he conflates the legal duty to serve the public interest with avoiding speech that hurts our Dear Leaders feelings. I have quite a bit of experience with broadcasting, including maintaining a public file (which requires, among other substantive and technical content, that a station document and demonstrate that it is fulfilling its duty to serve the public interest. That duty is, and must be, content neutral. Historically, it is fulfilled by having a (very) minimal amount of locally oriented, community programming. It was never used this way, nor meant to be used this way. This is a hamfisted, (previously) unconstitutional pretext.
Carr didn’t comment on Kimmel until AFTER Sinclair made their announcement that they were preempting Kimmel.
Pretty sure Kimmel has been talking shit about Trump for years. Why wait until he defames and slanders Charlie Kirk to “threaten” him/ABC/Disney?
Your hatred for Trump is clouding your ability to think rationally and I actually feel sorry for you.
“Pretty sure Kimmel has been talking shit about Trump for years. Why wait until he defames and slanders Charlie Kirk to “threaten” him/ABC/Disney?”
Because the Kirk assassination is the perfect pretext.
The perfect pretext to get rid of an expensive show with failing ratings before the contract renewal next year, save significant amounts of money in the process, and deflect any blame toward someone else?
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
What did he say that was defamatory or slander about Kirk?
False. Carr commented *before* they took Kimmel off the air.
Mr. Carr, in an interview on a right-wing podcast on Wednesday, said that Mr. Kimmel’s remarks were part of a “concerted effort to lie to the American people,” and that the F.C.C. was “going to have remedies that we can look at.”
“Frankly, when you see stuff like this — I mean, we can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Mr. Carr told the podcast’s host, Benny Johnson. “These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the F.C.C. ahead.”
I’m not understanding why this even matters. Does Tony Soprano publicly announce his intentions to extort a target before he does it?
1047 am here.
True! Read my comment again, oh “One Who Reads and Comprehends For A Living” (I Assume)
I said: “Carr didn’t comment on Kimmel until AFTER Sinclair made their announcement that they were preempting Kimmel”
The very logical conclusion (but let me spell it out, because you’re slow – or disingenuous) from my opinion was that the damage from Sinclair’s announcement was done when Carr commented and Kimmel was toast.
FCC “threats” as you call them (I disagree as to that characterization) were likely moot in relation to Kimmel’s release.
11:11 here.
Carr’s initial comments on Wednesday were made *before* anyone pulled Kimmel off the air. He threatened to pull the licenses of ABC affiliates.
And hours later, they pulled Kimmel off the air.
And then Carr thanked Nexstar for “doing the right thing.”
But sure, the FCC had nothing to do with it.
Apples and oranges. . . .
Once Sinclair made it clear their entirely acceptable and legal plan to preempt his show, Kimmel’s cancellation was foregone conclusion.
I am NOT saying that the FCC had nothing to do with it. I am saying that you cant prove it with Carr’s statements that you are wringing your hands over.
Did you even go to law school?
I cannot follow what you are saying my dude.
Go look at Sinclair’s twitter – they post Carr’s interview, and then *after* that, they preempt Kimmel.
No one is arguing that what Sinclair did is illegal. The argument (based on the timeline of events) is that they did so because the FCC threatened them.
Like when I tell my kids “Go clean your room or there will be consequences,” and then they clean their room, and then I say “thank you for cleaning your room.”
You don’t think they cleaned their room because I told them to?
Right. Because it’s completely normal for a sitting President to tweet in all caps about late night talk show hosts who make fun of him.
It’s perfectly normal for that president’s FCC to overtly threaten the networks who employ late night comics who make fun of him.
Outside of whatever pathetic Fox News/internet echo chamber you live in, this is not normal. I regret that you ‘actually feel sorry’ for anyone who observes that this isn’t normal.
It is completely normal. In Russia and North Korea.
The FCC literally threatened the companies about Kimmel specifically.
It’s time for every other TV show to nut up for America and free speech and form a collective roster for Jimmy Kimmel to rotate through, giving daily monologues skewering Trump.
Setting aside the social pressure, business decisions, etc. lets talk about what the legal case would be. Does the FCC have the basis to yank ABC’s license, or take action against it, based upon Kimmel’s criticized speech. The biggest fine that comes to ind is the superbowl 38 “wardrobe malfunction” where CBS was fined $550,000 for indecency. ULtimately that was set aside and the Supreme Court said the Federal Communications Commission imposed unfair punishment for isolated profanity and sexual content during evening “prime time” hours and the 3rd circuit determined they acted “arbitrarily and capriciously”. But there was an argument that the images were improper, and that the fleeting exemption extended to language did not extend to images. What would be the argument against Kimmel and ABC here? What renders this speech objectionable, violative of rules or would be the basis for an administrative action?
Jimmy Kimmel has been disrespectful to Trump for years. That’s whats objectionable.
That every post re: free speech on here is being made by ‘Anonymous’ individuals (including this one) speaks volumes.
Love that this blog has a post dedicated to Jimmy Kimmel getting suspended, but did not do one for Charlie Kirk getting killed.
ah, the good ol Maga “whataboutism” argument. If you wanna go that route, what about the Minnesota representatives who were shot at their house? where were your tears or feigned concern then?
Law Dawg can’t win for trying.
Apples and oranges. Kimmel’s “free speech” was silenced by employer being pressured by government (based on available information). Kirk’s “free speech”, on the other hand, was silenced by private actor (based on available information). The former appears to be much more of a constitutional issue than the latter. When “the state” gets involved in violating First Amendment rights, that’s a foundational issue that should concern all attorneys in the U.S.
That’s because there was not a legal question raised regarding Mr. Kirk. Charlie Kirk was murdered. I suppose their could be a question of whther Utah Criminal Code 76-5-203 or 76-5-202 applies. But there was a question raised as to the basis of a legal action by the government. As I read it, there was not a rhetorical flourish but a legit question. What would be the argument for action. Per the fcc “The First Amendment, as well as Section 326 of the Communications Act, prohibits the Commission from censoring broadcast material and from interfering with freedom of expression in broadcasting…. The First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech similarly protects programming that stereotypes or may otherwise offend people with regard to their religion, race, national background, gender, or other characteristics. It also protects broadcasts that criticize or ridicule established customs and institutions, including the government and its officials.” The FCC does restrict Obscene, Indecent, or Profane Programming. https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public-and-broadcasting#OBJECTIONABLEPROGRAMMING. Is the Kimmel statement appealing to the prurient interest lacking in literary, artistic, political or scientific value? Is it “language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities” or “so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance” and is sexual or excretory in nature or derived from such terms.
Or is it (1) intended to incite or produce “imminent lawless action;” and (2) likely to “incite or produce such action.”
It doesnt appear to falls under the standard of obscence, indecent or profane. And it does not seem likely to produce imminent lawless action. He wasn’t giving instructions on bomb making, or telling his fans to go knock down the doors of politicians or others.
But perhaps there is a case to be made. Is there a lawyer out there who could outline such a case?
Nobody GAF
Lets lay out the ground assumptions. First does the existence of the FCC violate the First Amendment. The FCC was created by Congress so already we have an issue but lets skip over that. Lets say that the FCC in its existence is not a violation of the First Amendment. FCC licensed news carriers receive benefits and in exchange agree to some restrictions.
Now lets talk restrictions in the abstract. In terms of what can be broadcast there are multiple restrictions as noted above. We can agree that there are some restrictions on what an FCC licensed news carrier can broadcast.
Lets move to the more specifics we have the above listed examples but also from the provided link Hoaxes and News Distortion.
Does Kimmel’s statements fall under a Hoax or News Distortion? Arguably yes. Arguable being the key term. Were Kimmel’s statements true? Objectively no. Did he know it was false at the time he made the statements? Unknown but a matter for discovery. Was Kirks Assassination a crime or catastrophe? We can argue that the broadcast to the health and safety of the general public if anyone took any violent actions toward another based on Kimmel’s statements. In my professional opinion they seem to have pissed off quite a few people resulting in immediate actions and high blood pressure is definitely bad for your health.
What about News Distortion? From the link “For the reasons noted previously, the Commission generally will not intervene in these cases because it would be inconsistent with the First Amendment to replace the journalistic judgment of licensees with our own. However, as public trustees, broadcast licensees may not intentionally distort the news. The FCC has stated that “rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest.” ”
Arguably Kimmel’s inflammatory inaccurate statements intentionally distorted the news by blaming innocent parties during a time of national tragedy.
Would an FCC investigation into who knew what at the time of the statements were made be warranted? Arguably yes. An investigation is step one. They would need to determine if, in my professional opinion Kimmel was just an uninformed moron during a time of fog of war who was the victim of his own writers, or a partisan asshole who deserves all the misery coming to him.
Either way ABC made the corporate decision that, professionally speaking, Mount Not Funny Since the Man Show was not a good hill to die on.
Epic analysis. . . .
What were the specific statements that Kimmel made?
This is epically irrelevant.
Are you saying that the Kirk discussion was allowed to carry out in the main post while this has been ghettoized in its own corner because the blog is biased to the right?
I don’t agree, but I get the logic.
So unfair! You poor, persecuted conservatives. When are you guys gonna catch a break?
Perhaps we should impose affirmative quota requirements to make sure enough content is inclusive for you.
Hahahaha.
We’re good, thanks. Just leave us TF alone.
Trump just said from Air Force One that networks should not be allowed to criticize him and any that do should have their licenses taken.
On a related note, people seem to be canceling their Hulu and Disney subscriptions in protest.
Trump says a lot of stuff that even people who love him gloss over, because its Trump and that is what he does. He says stuff for shock value and to get reactions. Nobody of any intelligence, properly informed and reasonably objective really takes these things seriously.
Assuming, of course, that you personally heard him say exactly that and did not take any liberties in your reporting thereof.
You get the benefit of this position, because I just do not GAF, as 12:38pm just said
What planet are you from? I never want to go there.
That’s the problem: people gloss over a lot of stuff. We shouldn’t have to gloss over what a president says.
Nobody of any intelligence, properly informed and reasonably objective should be apologizing away what a president says. Look what we have been reduced to. Presidents aren’t supposed to threaten to annex Canada, or invade Greenland, or rage tweet insults at media figures who hurt his feelings.
Properly informed and intelligent people should what, not be alarmed by it? Do you think those European and Canadian tourists boycotting visiting the US are too unintelligent or uninformed?
Tell those people being laid off at the MGM not to worry, because only unintelligent people take the president seriously.
This.
I didn’t apologize.
Welcome to America 2.0, sis.
I see. You were only explaining, not apologizing. Relieved to know that only intelligent, properly informed and reasonably objective people are in on the joke.
Is Comedy Central the next shoe to drop? (See South Park.)
they already pulled their Charlie Kirk episode (which Charlie himself thought was funny) so it would not surprise me
ABC corporate decision. 1. ABC is big enough to fight a regulatory issue and win. 2. The darn show was bleeding money over multiple years. 3. The constant drumbeat against anything not left of center was pissing off the local ABC affiliates and shareholders.
Guys, guys, it’s one thing ton pressure a network to shitcan a comedian (it’s deplorable, really)—but it’s next level shit to pressure news media and journalists. That’s autocracy. That’s “maybe I should consider leaving this country” shit,
. . . . . or social media outlets.
You first
1:24, read 1:26’s explanation
That’s some sovereign citizen craziness.
https://x.com/variety/status/1969188059284390044?s=46
But I thought the FCC took him off the air.
That’s what happens when subscribers threaten a quarter billion loss, resulting in a 7% dip in Disney stock.
I wonder if ABC was trying to have it both ways by “suspending” Kimmel to satisfy the Trump administration during the sale, in hopes of keeping Kimmel afterwards. Just speculation.
All of these media companies are going to continue to genuflect. They are unworthy of First Amendment protections.