And its flagged.

The country may be collapsing but don't worry. Hackernews' anti controversy systems will ensure nothing gets to the front page to force you to confront anything uncomfortable

Fire has a good statement on the FCC threat: https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-statement-fcc-threat-revok...

It is good to see there are principled organisations defending free speech.

It s more than that. The fact that they did not conceal that they publicly coerced the tv station to fire him serves as a warning to other media.

I can't believe he got cancelled for such a mild statement.

Link in case the flaggers take it down: https://www.theverge.com/policy/781148/jimmy-kimmel-charlie-...

ABC/Disney made the choice to pull Kimmel, bent at the knee in fear of losing their broadcast license. That decision itself is one worth questioning...what if they didn't? Would the FCC actually do it? If they did, how many lawsuits would come their way since that's the greatest infringement of the First Amendment the US has ever witnessed? Wouldn't ABC, the public, and the First Amendment win out massively at the end?

What if that bit of libertarian anarchy played out?

ABC ignores the backlash and threats, and keeps Kimmel on the air, maybe even encouraging speech against those bullies and hatred. Then FCC pulls their license, but ABC keeps broadcasting. Their pirate broadcasts would escalate both sides even further: stoking a great groundswell of support for the freedom of speech from liberals/the left, a storm of legal battles representing We The People v. the Government would form, and a massive (possibly violent) outcry from far-right conservatives and nationalists. What happens then would redefine our nation. Would corporations back ABC and capitalism retake the reins, and grassroots efforts steer the misguided Right back to normalcy? Or would an explosive sabotage and a bloody battle over the fate of our nation take place before any progress, or regression, would happen?

As much of a work of fiction as that sounds, it's almost more believable given the timeline we're already on.

SCOTUS ruled 6-3 last year in Murthy v. Missouri that the states lacked standing to sue the government for first amendment violations from pressuring speech platforms to moderate. I'm afraid that decision will effectively immunize the FCC from pressuring ABC in this case. The states were found not to have the necessary injury, causation, or redressability. Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch dissented.

This is one of the reasons that large-scale corporate ownership of media is very bad for citizens, and very good for oppressive governments. The FCC can make one phone call to one powerful person running one large corporate entity. If the same couple corporations own all the media (almost where we are today), it’s trivial for the government to shut down one voice.

ABC doesn’t give a shit about truth, fairness, journalism, or any such fuzzy concepts. They want short-term profits and long-term media monopolies, so cancelling one comedian or another makes no difference to them.

This is what fascism actually is — a blending of corporate and government power for the benefit of both, and against the interests of citizens.

For a historical reference of another famous censorship, here’s the front page of the NY Times in Feb 1939, reporting that Goebbels ended the career of 5 actors for “witticisms” made about the Nazis: https://www.nytimes.com/1939/02/04/archives/goebbels-ends-ca...

The tech industry largely thrives on basic freedoms, especially freedom of speech, and on university innovation, both of which are under direct attack.

Those who cry that these are "no concern" of tech and Hacker News won't be happy when their projects and companies are shut down in order to do eugenics "research" or to turn their work into ways of sequestering and managing inmates of what are already concentration camps[0]

Hacker News and the industry are reduced to rubber stamps and prison administrators when basic freedoms are lost.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust

I remember in Murthy v. Missouri you had lawyers and politicans on the right arguing that even just a phone call to a reporter or social media company qualified as coercion. Even a few right wing SCOTUS judges agreed with them ...

Now we have every branch of government deployed by right wing politicians targeting individuals speech.

We have them placed as employees in news organizations, required by the government, as "bias monitors". https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-fcc-cbs-ne...

We have the government forcing media companies to sell to their cronies ...

We have the FCC chairman making threats taking issue with speech they don't like.

Trump threatening reporters with investigation because they asked a question he didn't like.

I guess they're ok with that as long as it's their people.

Folks, it’s time to burn in all down. We have the power. We have to, enough is enough.

The most enduring quality of fascism so far is how pervasively stupid it is. I fear for the future.

Executive Order 14149 of January 20, 2025 by Donald J. Trump: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/28/2025-01...

Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Purpose. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, an amendment essential to the success of our Republic, enshrines the right of the American people to speak freely in the public square without Government interference. Over the last 4 years, the previous administration trampled free speech rights by censoring Americans’ speech on online platforms, often by exerting substantial coercive pressure on third parties, such as social media companies, to moderate, deplatform, or otherwise suppress speech that the Federal Government did not approve. Under the guise of combatting ‘‘misinformation,’’ ‘‘disinformation,’’ and ‘‘malinformation,’’ the Federal Government infringed on the constitutionally protected speech rights of American citizens across the United States in a manner that advanced the Government’s preferred narrative about significant matters of public debate. Government censorship of speech is intolerable in a free society.

Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to:

(a) secure the right of the American people to engage in constitutionally protected speech;

(b) ensure that no Federal Government officer, employee, or agent engages in or facilitates any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen;

(c) ensure that no taxpayer resources are used to engage in or facilitate any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen; and

(d) identify and take appropriate action to correct past misconduct by the Federal Government related to censorship of protected speech.

Sec. 3. Ending Censorship of Protected Speech. (a) No Federal department, agency, entity, officer, employee, or agent may act or use any Federal resources in a manner contrary to section 2 of this order.

He didn't even criticize Kirk. The criticism was levied against Trump / The Republican party.

[dead]

[dead]

[flagged]

[flagged]

Unless the innocuous quote in tfa is what was said (I'm not sure I could believe it if so), can someone please post an exact quote of what all the fuss is about?