Sinclair, the nation’s largest ABC affiliate group, objects to recent comments made by Mr. Kimmel concerning the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
As discussed with ABC earlier today, Sinclair decided to indefinitely preempt “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” beginning tonight. Following these discussions, ABC has suspended production of “Jimmy Kimmel Live!”
“Mr. Kimmel’s remarks were inappropriate and deeply insensitive at a critical moment for our country,” said Vice Chairman Jason Smith. “We believe broadcasters have a responsibility to educate and elevate respectful, constructive dialogue in our communities. We appreciate FCC Chairman Carr’s remarks today and this incident highlights the critical need for the FCC to take immediate regulatory action to address control held over local broadcasters by the big national networks.”
Sinclair’s ABC stations will air a special in remembrance of Charlie Kirk this Friday, during Jimmy Kimmel Live’s timeslot. The special will also air across all Sinclair stations this weekend. In addition, Sinclair is offering the special to all ABC affiliates across the country.
Sinclair will not lift the suspension of “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” on our stations until formal discussions are held with ABC regarding the network’s commitment to professionalism and accountability.
Sinclair also calls upon Mr. Kimmel to issue a direct apology to the Kirk family. Furthermore, we ask Mr. Kimmel to make a meaningful personal donation to the Kirk Family and Turning Point USA.
Regardless of ABC’s plans for the future of the program, Sinclair intends not to return “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” to our air until we are confident that appropriate steps have been taken to uphold the standards expected of a national broadcast platform.
You probably got shouted at in the past because you were wrong then, just as you are now.
Free speech applies only to the government not interfering with your speech for good reason: the government should not stifle speech (with limits regarding shouting fire, or compelling violence ‘kill that guy!’). If a person hosting a forum or (via owning a business) talk show or tiny Lemmy instance decides they don’t want statements against their beliefs on the platform, its their free speech being exercised by removing it or placing rules stating “no nazi talk” on their service.
If free speech applies to private businesses and they are forced by the government to host all opinions then it becomes compelled speech. “You must host Nazis rhetoric on your message board, by order of the government, you cannot infringe on an individual’s free speech”. It becomes a paradox, free speech of the individual overrules free speech of the hosting individual or group.
The example you’re using here is particularly backwards - because the FCC (the government) is pushing to have pro-Alt-right (pro Charlie Kirk) messaging pushed on all privately owned platforms, and punishing any platforms or individuals who disagree. They are compelling speech. That is the antithesis of free speech, yet you somehow see it as, “look, Sinclair banning Kimmel is the same as Nazis being banned from Substack,” and they are actually not the same at all when you look at context.
In addition, if your platform hosts hate speech (Nazis, alt-right fascists, etc) then congrats - your platform is not a ‘free speech haven’, it’s just a fascist platform. Look at 4chan, 8chan, 8kun, even Twitter - once the site runners decide it’s ok to keep fascist content up, they become fascist / white supremacist platforms. If site owners don’t want that to happen to their site, they moderate and ban and post rules - their free speech but your argument is that this is a bad thing and they should instead host all opinions?
Completely agree, that would be terrible. That’s not what I am talking about.
I actually went further than saying they’re “not the same,” I said they’re not even equivalent.
Glad to hear we agree on so many things. Including among other things the horror of the FCC going around and ordering people to remove speech on this topic. If only I’d mentioned that in some way.
You’re wrong in the above statements. It is a slam dunk. The situation with Kimmel and the FCC and Sinclair is a counterpoint to your argument, not backing. You don’t wanna see if that way. Thats fine 🤷🏻
Let me ask you a question: The behavior of Sinclair before this happened, when they were just buying up local TV stations and corrupting them with propaganda (“this is extremely dangerous to our democracy”), was that fine? Because they’re a private company, and free speech? The government wasn’t involved in that.
Was Apple TV cancelling Jon Stewart’s podcast because he criticized China fine? I don’t think the government told them to do that, that was just a private business doing private business things.
I’m not asking if those things were legal, I’m asking if you think there was nothing of concern about them.