LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Jimmy "The asshole" Kimmel tossed off thd air.

We shall see if Disney will hold or roll the dice. As is Family Feud is not in the guide next week and Kimmel Live is. It is possible the show goes on, just without Kimmel.
 
SgtSpiderMan said:
Yup, and that’s why it’s a 1A violation.
Click to expand...
How is what Trump said a violation. He is allowed his opinion as well. He is correct anyway. Kimmel knew what he was saying was completely untrue, inflammatory and offensive. While it is not a 1A issue it is an issue for initially the broadcaster and shortly after for Disney when they took action.
 
PersonalFavors said:
How is what Trump said a violation. He is allowed his opinion as well. He is correct anyway. Kimmel knew what he was saying was completely untrue, inflammatory and offensive. While it is not a 1A issue it is an issue for initially the broadcaster and shortly after for Disney when they took action.
Click to expand...
Trump said it was a 1A issue. You seem very focused on calling Trump a liar.
 
PersonalFavors said:
FCC is not that stupid.
Click to expand...
The chair is a political appointee. Trump's appointees are not selected on merit, but on fealty. So, yeah, one of them is that stupid and proved it with his remarks.
PersonalFavors said:
Not their level of regulation either.
Click to expand...
FCC has regulatory supervision. That's their job. You must be nuts to make such an asinine statement.
 
PersonalFavors said:
FCC Brandon did not add his two cents comment 'easy way or hard way,' until he was interviewed on network opinion news. He was describing what the FCC perceived the broadcaster did. The government is allowed an opinion.
Click to expand...
Whether it was before, after, or during is not what is of importance here. Consider the consequences of that right-wing podcast interview and the ramifications it could lead to.

The idea that the government is simply “allowed an opinion” is an oversimplification. Yes, individual officials can voice their personal views—but it is flatly illegal for them to use the power of their office to threaten or coerce private companies into censoring speech they don’t like.

The Supreme Court made that crystal clear in the unanimous 2024 decision NRA v. Vullo, holding that government officials cannot pressure or coerce private parties into punishing disfavored views. Carr’s remarks—“we can do this the easy way or the hard way”—fit the very pattern the Court warned against. Legal experts have already noted the similarity, and even Senator Ted Cruz, hardly a liberal defender of the press, called Carr’s actions “unbelievably dangerous.”

That’s why members of Congress have called for an Inspector General investigation. When the FCC chair echoes the president’s desire to punish networks for unfavorable coverage, it isn’t regulation—it’s jawboning. And when regulatory threats start to mirror the tactics of leaders like Viktor Orbán, it should set off alarm bells for anyone who values a free press in a functioning democracy. If we accept this as normal, we’ve already lowered the bar for government censorship.

This 'opinion' by the FCC chair was not a personal opinion; it was a veiled threat, directed and implying that retaliation would follow if Kimmel were not fired, ipso facto, in legal parlance.
 
PersonalFavors said:
How is what Trump said a violation. He is allowed his opinion as well. He is correct anyway. Kimmel knew what he was saying was completely untrue, inflammatory and offensive. While it is not a 1A issue it is an issue for initially the broadcaster and shortly after for Disney when they took action.
Click to expand...

🙄

Jimmy Kimmel NEVER said that the shooter was definitively a MAGAt.

Jimmy Kimmel ACTUALLY said:

In his monologue on Monday, Kimmel said the "Maga gang" was "desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them" and of trying to "score political points from it".

😑

Reading for comprehension is NOT a strong point of the MAGAts.

👎

Bottom line:

The MAGA(t) Gang WAS “desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk AS ANYTHING OTHER THAN ONE OF THEM” (AND trying to score political points).

Jimmy Kimmel was / IS right.

👍

🇺🇸

We. Told. Them. So.

🌷
 
dmallord said:
Whether it was before, after, or during is not what is of importance here. Consider the consequences of that right-wing podcast interview and the ramifications it could lead to.

The idea that the government is simply “allowed an opinion” is an oversimplification. Yes, individual officials can voice their personal views—but it is flatly illegal for them to use the power of their office to threaten or coerce private companies into censoring speech they don’t like.

The Supreme Court made that crystal clear in the unanimous 2024 decision NRA v. Vullo, holding that government officials cannot pressure or coerce private parties into punishing disfavored views. Carr’s remarks—“we can do this the easy way or the hard way”—fit the very pattern the Court warned against. Legal experts have already noted the similarity, and even Senator Ted Cruz, hardly a liberal defender of the press, called Carr’s actions “unbelievably dangerous.”

That’s why members of Congress have called for an Inspector General investigation. When the FCC chair echoes the president’s desire to punish networks for unfavorable coverage, it isn’t regulation—it’s jawboning. And when regulatory threats start to mirror the tactics of leaders like Viktor Orbán, it should set off alarm bells for anyone who values a free press in a functioning democracy. If we accept this as normal, we’ve already lowered the bar for government censorship.

This 'opinion' by the FCC chair was not a personal opinion; it was a veiled threat, directed and implying that retaliation would follow if Kimmel were not fired, ipso facto, in legal parlance.
Click to expand...
Well, members of congress can call for Inspector General investigations all they want. But one of trump’s acts was to fire them. Oops, no oversight anymore.
 
I can't tell you how much joy it brings me to see him become a victim of the very cancel culture morons like him created.😂
 
YDB95 said:
If it's age appropriate, yes.
Click to expand...
"Age appropriate" with a grade schoolers? And not their parents? So you are the judge of age appropriate conversions with other peoples grade schooler? Sick.
But Charlie talking to college age kids (age of majority) is weird. Got it.

So basically you are self identifying as a predator/groomer. Got it.

Gotta explain that one away. But doubtful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

THROBBS
ABC Exhausting, though not Exhaustive
Replies
9
Views
8K
Sunlover102
Sunlover102
L
Hey busybody, the Dumoz are brutally trampling on the Constitution
Replies
1
Views
218
Le Jacquelope
L
spacekowboy
Classic Film Fans Rejoice!
Replies
10
Views
1K
spacekowboy
spacekowboy
Lovelynice
Glad I don't own one of these
Replies
8
Views
860
leZilla
L
I
Did you know?
Replies
10
Views
2K
the_single_gal_unconfidential
the_single_gal_unconfidential
Back
Top