Jimmy Kimmel

[AggiesAreWe]

18 minutes ago, Eagle11 said:

When folks get on here and post things that go against the rules they get banned..........no crying about free speech

Very true.

This is a single ownership website. No democracy here. His rules. Like it or leave it.

[thetragichippy]

1 hour ago, TxHoops said:

A government official using his position to exert pressure on the network to do so is a free speech violation.

I don't recall the left being free speech champions during the 2016 election when Trump lost his platform on Twitter during a Presidential election....OR, during covid with everyone. 

I posted receipts in this tread earlier of Kamala, Schumer and Jefferies of trying to persuade free speech. 

To me, banning a Presidential candidate from the largest social media platform was one of the worst "free speech" issues in my lifetime, yet the left seemed pretty happy about it....... 

[thetragichippy]

11 minutes ago, AggiesAreWe said:

Very true.

This is a single ownership website. No democracy here. His rules. Like it or leave it.

That would ring true on any website not owned by the Government. 

[baddog]

Jimmy Kimmel and his hate filled “free speech” is responsible for Charlie Kirk’s death. Freedom of speech is not a license to incite hate. Even Geraldo Rivera said that. Who is really going to miss Kimmel’s show? It wasn’t even a talk show. It was simply a mouthpiece for the left.

[OlDawg]

The truth of the matter is, most people only want free speech when it agrees with their own thoughts and ideas.

[baddog]

21 minutes ago, OlDawg said:

The truth of the matter is, most people only want free speech when it agrees with their own thoughts and ideas.

I’m certainly not most people and I agree with this search. Obscenity would shut a lot of mouths. I don’t believe anyone should say “F” you to police.

Freedom of speech in the U.S. is not absolute and does not cover 

incitement to imminent lawless action, defamation, obscenity, child pornography, fraud, true threats, or speech that causes a substantial and material disruption in specific contexts, like a school. The First Amendment applies only to government restrictions, not actions by private entities like employers or social media companies. 

Categories of Unprotected Speech
The First Amendment does not protect the following types of speech: 

 

• This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
  :Speech that is intended and likely to produce immediate illegal activity. 
• This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
  :False statements of fact that harm someone's reputation. 
• This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
  :Material that appeals to the prurient interest, is patently offensive, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. 
• This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
  :Any material depicting actual minors engaged in sexually suggestive conduct or nudity. 
• This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
  :False statements made with the intent to deceive. 
• This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
  :Statements that express a serious intent to commit an act of unlawful violence against a particular individual or group. 
• This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
  :Insults that are likely to provoke a violent physical response. 

Context-Specific Limitations

 

• Schools:Speech by students can be restricted if it causes a material and substantial disruption to the school environment. 
• This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
  :The police can break up a lawful protest if there is a clear and present danger to public safety, the protest interferes with traffic, or there's an immediate threat. 

Limitations on the Application of the First Amendment

 

• Government vs. Private Entities:The First Amendment only restricts government action; it does not apply to private companies or organizations. For example, a private company can fire an employee for their speech, or a social media platform can ban users for content that the government could not

[thetragichippy]

36 minutes ago, OlDawg said:

The truth of the matter is, most people only want free speech when it agrees with their own thoughts and ideas.

Yup - Republicans were up in arms when Trump was kicked off twitter during his campaign.  Democrats not so much.

This is just the opposite, although, Kimmel is not running for an elected office. 

[TxHoops]

2 hours ago, thetragichippy said:

I don't recall the left being free speech champions during the 2016 election when Trump lost his platform on Twitter during a Presidential election....OR, during covid with everyone. 

I posted receipts in this tread earlier of Kamala, Schumer and Jefferies of trying to persuade free speech. 

To me, banning a Presidential candidate from the largest social media platform was one of the worst "free speech" issues in my lifetime, yet the left seemed pretty happy about it....... 

Yep, just as bad.  Although you miss the distinction that Twitter isn’t government owned.  I just love being in the middle while the hypocritical idiots on the fringes of both sides continue to play whataboutism.  Super productive. 

[thetragichippy]

Just now, TxHoops said:

 Although you miss the distinction that Twitter isn’t government owned.

I did not miss it, ABC is not Government owned.

Whataboutism's is what folks use when they don't want to be called a hypocrite. You did say just as bad, so that was not aimed at you. I would disagree and say it is worse silencing someone running for President versus a talk show host trying to make people laugh or whatever it was he as trying to do.  Lastly, had he just apologized as his Boss asked him to do, he would be back on television. 

We can ignore the past or learn from it. 

[TxHoops]

10 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

I did not miss it, ABC is not Government owned.

Whataboutism's is what folks use when they don't want to be called a hypocrite. You did say just as bad, so that was not aimed at you. I would disagree and say it is worse silencing someone running for President versus a talk show host trying to make people laugh or whatever it was he as trying to do.  Lastly, had he just apologized as his Boss asked him to do, he would be back on television. 

We can ignore the past or learn from it. 

Correct as I originally stated in my first post ITT supporting ABC’s right to suspend, fire him, whatever.  The post you quoted, or the exact portion you quoted, however, was the line dealing with a governmental official; specifically the FCC chair using his position to suppress speech.  Which coincidentally was the whole point of the article that was linked where Ted Cruz was also criticizing him for the same reason I was. 
 

Every time I come to this board, usually takes about 24 hours for me to remember why it’s been weeks or sometimes months since my last visit 😂