> Was it really though? Paraphrased, Kimmel said that the killer was a republican. He had a republican background, but it didn't motivate the killing which didn't seem to have any particular ideology beyond (maybe) trans identity politics. So yeah, that was wrong.
Look I don't even pretend to know the truth. But the sitting governor of Utah, the highest authority on the investigation (which is being done by Utah state investigators), said the shooter had a "leftest ideology". NYT source: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/14/us/kirk-shooting-suspect-...
Now its fine to not believe the governor, but I am not one of the investigators so thats as good as I can get unless I believe in a conspiracy by the state of Utah itself, which I think warrants evidence.
Personally I don't believe in "group X verbed Y", as I do not believe that groups can act. Liberals didn't shoot anyone, conservatives didn't shoot anyone; a single individual person shot someone. Group identity is not interesting to me, nor do I find it helpful. I do find it very inflammatory tho, and think is a deplorable thing to say to uninformed viewers at home.
By "not nearly as bad as you think", what I mean is, the FCC has always policed content on broadcast television. Shows have been cut mid-air due to foul language. We have never had "freedom of speech" on broadcast television. And, if you notice that it's not even clear the FCC took any action, that it was actually ABC's distributors who caused the ruckus, then this is bog-standard "cancel culture", which, while bad, is hardly the death of free speech. I'd be perfectly unbothered if broadcast television died completely, thus reducing the FCCs ability to control the media period.
Yes, I'd love to live in a world with less censorship, less stupidity, less government control, but that's not the world we live in, and its not the world we used to live in, either.
> By "not nearly as bad as you think", what I mean is, the FCC has always policed content on broadcast television
For boring stuff like sex and profanity! When was the last time a show was pulled under threat of FCC action because of political speech? Has it ever happened before? And it's happening again, just days after it worked the first time.
Your cynicism, whether it's deliberate or not, is serving you very badly here.
> And, if you notice that it's not even clear the FCC took any action
Good grief. Brendan Carr literally made the threat on camera, in public. That's the way extortion works. You don't have to take the action because the target submits.
Extortion doesn't count for much if the FCC had no leg to stand on. I would have loved to have seen the fine and the resulting court-case, but unfortunately for everyone ABC pulled the program because of complaints from its broadcasters. We do not (as far as I know), have the ability to know to what extent the FCC Chair's comments mattered at all.
I absolutely agree the FCC is overstepping and that the FCC Chair is doing a bad thing by making such comments, but until the FCC as an organization actually issues a fine or pulls a license, nothing has actually happened. If what I'm saying puts me into some particular camp that you're opposed to, well, the scissor statement worked. And that makes me much more upset than any of this drama.
> We do not (as far as I know), have the ability to know to what extent the FCC Chair's comments mattered at all.
Two things - firstly, it wasn't a comment, it was a threat to kill ABC's ability to broadcast by the person with power to revoke their license. There's a difference.
Secondly, if you don't want to have the appearance of responsibility for your thumb on the scale, don't put your thumb on the scale. Don't just say that your thumb was one of many and it could've been anyone's pressure that caused the cancellation. There should be no confusion.
> Extortion doesn't count for much if the FCC had no leg to stand on.
What on earth are you saying here? It worked. Obviously it "counts", it actually happened! The show was pulled from the air! You're saying that censorship isn't "technically censorship" if in some alternative universe Disney fought back and won? They didn't!
As for your opinion about the reach of the FCC's powers or the risk to broadcasters of regulatory action, clearly Bob Iger's lawyers disagree with you, and I'm going to bet they're rather better at their jobs than median HN commenters.
Edit: I'm going to call it here. The final reply below seems like 100% apoloigsm to me. The argument seems to be that somehow this is all a mistake, that Disney just got the wrong idea and torpedoed their own show by no fault of the government. And we all know that's not what happened. I don't know how to reply, so I won't.
Do you have any statement from ABC or Disney that they pulled the show due to FCC comments?
Per PBS.org:
> ABC, which has aired “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” since 2003, did not immediately explain why it suspended the show on Wednesday. But its announcement came after both Nexstar and Sinclair said they would stop airing Kimmel’s show on their ABC-affiliated stations.
Until we get any indication that the FCC chair's comments were the source of the cancelation, I maintain that while what Carr said was stupid and bad, and what the FCC mostly does is stupid and bad, and while what Disney mostly does is stupid and bad, that this is not some new form of fascism.
It's clear you think I'm an idiot, so I'm quite sure my words will mean nothing to you, but please, hear this: A megacorporation took an action that has caused you to have strong animosity towards a fellow citizen based on perceived but not actual happenings. Resist the urge to be pissed off. I will happily march with you when and if the federal government actually attacks freedom of speech.
> unless I believe in a conspiracy by the state of Utah itself
What about political incentives? The conservative media sphere was falling over themselves to rush to label the shooter before any evidence or even a statement of "ideology" was given by the Utah gov, such that the WSJ posted and retracted an article about how the shooter was trans. An observation of that was what got Kimmel turned off the air. It wasn't what the Utah gov eventually said, it was all that had taken place before then.
> And, if you notice that it's not even clear the FCC took any action, that it was actually ABC's distributors who caused the ruckus
What if the chair caused the ruckus with the distributors by making public comment and explicitly threatening to pull ABC's status, on a timeline before the distributor made the call? Why is this explicit threat of removal, not just taken against the show, but against the entire network, not considered an action?
> Look I don't even pretend to know the truth. But the sitting governor of Utah, the highest authority on the investigation (which is being done by Utah state investigators), said the shooter had a "leftest ideology".
Look I don't even pretend to know the truth. But the sitting governor of Utah, the highest authority on the investigation (which is being done by Utah state investigators), said the shooter had a "leftest ideology". NYT source: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/14/us/kirk-shooting-suspect-...
Now its fine to not believe the governor, but I am not one of the investigators so thats as good as I can get unless I believe in a conspiracy by the state of Utah itself, which I think warrants evidence.
Personally I don't believe in "group X verbed Y", as I do not believe that groups can act. Liberals didn't shoot anyone, conservatives didn't shoot anyone; a single individual person shot someone. Group identity is not interesting to me, nor do I find it helpful. I do find it very inflammatory tho, and think is a deplorable thing to say to uninformed viewers at home.
By "not nearly as bad as you think", what I mean is, the FCC has always policed content on broadcast television. Shows have been cut mid-air due to foul language. We have never had "freedom of speech" on broadcast television. And, if you notice that it's not even clear the FCC took any action, that it was actually ABC's distributors who caused the ruckus, then this is bog-standard "cancel culture", which, while bad, is hardly the death of free speech. I'd be perfectly unbothered if broadcast television died completely, thus reducing the FCCs ability to control the media period.
Yes, I'd love to live in a world with less censorship, less stupidity, less government control, but that's not the world we live in, and its not the world we used to live in, either.