Free Speech for the Left, Censorship for the Rest

1. 83

   Sharlee01posted 21 hours ago

   
   
   The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is the U.S. government agency responsible for regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable. Its primary mission is to ensure that the nation's communications infrastructure serves the public interest, convenience, and necessity. This includes issuing licenses to broadcasters, enforcing content regulations, and overseeing the spectrum allocation for various communication services.
   
   Recently, the FCC's role has come under scrutiny following controversial remarks made by late-night host Jimmy Kimmel. On September 15, 2025, Kimmel made a statement during his monologue regarding the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Kimmel said, "We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it." This comment was widely criticized for its misleading nature and lack of factual basis.
   
   In response, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr condemned Kimmel's remarks as "some of the sickest conduct possible" and suggested that the FCC might take regulatory action against ABC and its parent company, Disney, unless they addressed the issue. Carr emphasized that broadcasters have a responsibility to serve the public interest and that misleading or harmful content could jeopardize their licenses.
   
   Disney, as the parent company of ABC, faced significant pressure following Kimmel's comments. The company, led by CEO Bob Iger and co-chairman Dana Walden, decided to suspend Jimmy Kimmel Live! indefinitely. This decision was influenced by the backlash from viewers, affiliates, and regulatory bodies, reflecting the complex relationship between media content, corporate interests, and government oversight.
   
   The incident has sparked a broader debate about the balance between free speech and public responsibility. Supporters of the FCC's actions argue that broadcasters should be held accountable for content that may mislead or harm the public. Conversely, critics view this as an overreach that threatens free expression and sets a concerning precedent for government involvement in media content.
   
   What makes this situation so striking is the glaring hypocrisy from the left. Now, after Kimmel’s remarks, they rush to defend his “right to free speech,” claiming anyone criticizing him is attacking liberty. Yet when the Biden White House itself directly pressured social media platforms to remove posts that contradicted government messaging, these same voices said almost nothing. Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta, admitted before Congress that the administration contacted Facebook to flag content for removal during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the company complied in many instances. Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen also confirmed that government influence shaped what content could be seen by users. The left’s selective outrage makes it clear: free speech only matters when it serves their narrative, and they turn a blind eye when the government itself is actively censoring opposing viewpoints.

   replyreport
2. 84

   Kathryn L Hillposted 14 hours ago

   "... the Biden administration pressured social media platforms to remove posts that contradicted government messaging.
   
   Q. How did the government pressure social media sites?
   A.
   1. Content was flagged for removal during the COVID-19 pandemic.
   2. Social media platform executives were repeatedly called and emailed, (coerced against their will,) by government officials demanding removal of posts containing speech that was disliked.
   
   Q. What was the the government narrative?
   A.
   1. That the Covid -19 vaccine was safe.
   2. That the Covid -19 vaccine was effective.
   3. That the Covid -19 germ could only be eradicated with the vaccine.
   4. That the germ was so foreign and new that the human body had no natural defenses to fight it.
   
   Q. How did the posts contradict the government narrative?
   A.
   1. By suggesting the vaccines were not safe.
   2. By claiming that the germ could be naturally eradicated by the body.

   replyreport
3. 84

   Kathryn L Hillposted 13 hours ago

   Pretty bad. I know many people who naturally fought off the germ, including myself. Many people suffered injury from the vaccine, including my brother.

   replyreport
4. 84

   Kathryn L Hillposted 13 hours ago

   Kimmel was a threat to the survival of the company. It was not an issue of removing his freedom of speech.

   replyreport
5. 81

   Readmikenowposted 4 hours ago

   I wonder where the outrage from the left was when Tucker Carlson lost his show on Fox.
   
   I wonder where the outrage from the left was when Megan Kelley lost her show on Fox.
   
   I wonder where the outrage from the left was when Bill O’Reilly lost his show on Fox.
   
   Can you say selective outrage?

   replyreport
   1. 84

      Kathryn L Hillposted 4 hours agoin reply to this

      They had nothing to do with Trump being a dictator.

      replyreport
   2. 59

      Willowarborposted 3 hours agoin reply to this

      Did they lose their jobs due to pressure from the president?

      replyreport
   3. 83

      Sharlee01posted 2 hours agoin reply to this

      Mike,  I call it hypocrisy. I’ve moved beyond labeling it selective thinking, though I still see that as a core part of many on the left’s mindset. Some seem to have an odd method of weighing wrong, shaping the narrative in a way that makes it plausible in their own minds. From my conversations, I notice that some who lean left often downplay wrongdoing by comparing it—“well, he said it too,” or “or he lied more, in fact, so-and-so used even harsher words.” It’s a strange way of not recognizing the wrong itself, but instead measuring how wrong something is o suit a narrative. In my view, this kind of reasoning lacks intelligence and goes beyond hypocrisy.
      
      Take January 6th as an example. They often circulate a photo of an officer injured with his head caught in a door. Yet when the death of Ashli Babbitt is brought up, with actual video of her being killed, they dismiss it as “not as bad” as the officer’s injury. At the same time, they brush aside the so-called “Summer of Love,” when riots stretched on for more than 90 days, leaving, I believe, 25 or 30 people killed tied to the riots, looting, arson, or clashes, and entire communities scarred by violence.
      
      I think it's fair to add some facts behind the photo. His testimony to Congress
      https://www.congress.gov/117/meeting/ho … 210727.pdf
      Page 3 and 4 the officer speaks of when he was caught between the door.
      
      "this position the momentum shifted and we lost the ground that got me there. On my left was a man with a clear riot shield stolen during the assault. He slammed it against me and, with the weight of all the bodies pushing behind him, trapped me. My arms were pinned and effectively useless, trapped against the either the shield on my left or the door frame on my right. With my posture granting me no functional strength or freedom of movement, I was effectively defenseless and gradually sustaining
      injury from the increasing pressure of the mob.
      
      Directly in front of me a man seized the opportunity of my vulnerability. He grabbed the front of my gas mask and used it to beat my head against the door. He switched to pulling it off my head, the straps stretching against my skull and straining my neck. He never uttered any words I recognized, but opted instead for guttural screams. I swear I remember him foaming at the mouth. He also put his cell phone in his mouth so that he had both hands free to assault me. Eventually, he succeeded in stripping away my gas mask, and a new rush of exposure to CS gas and OC spray hit me. The mob of terrorists were coordinating their efforts now, shouting “Heave! Ho!” as they synchronized pushing their weight forward, crushing me further against the metal door frame. The man in front of me grabbed my baton
      that I still held in my hands and in my current state I was unable to retain my weapon. He bashed me in the head and face with it, rupturing my lip and adding additional injury to my skull.
      
      At this point I knew that I couldn't sustain much more damage and remain upright. At best I would collapse and be a liability to my colleagues, at worst be dragged out into the crowd and lynched. Unable to move or otherwise signal the Officers behind me that I needed to fall back, I did the only thing I could still do and screamed for help. Thankfully my voice was heard over the cacophony of yells and the blaring alarm. The Officer closest to me was able to extricate me from my position and another helped me fall back to the building again. I found some water and decontaminated my face as best as I could. I don't know how long I waited in the halls but soon after got back on my feet and went to where the fight was again. Until reinforcements arrived every able body made a difference.
      Without my gas mask I was afraid I'd be a liability in the hallway so I took the exit outside to the upperlanding above the west terrace. I found a police line being held and the terrorists encircling us, much like on the west terrace. It was getting later in the day however, and it appeared we weren't the only ones getting tired. It seemed most of the mob was  s content to yell rather than to break our line again.
      
      After some time of guarding the upper landing I saw reinforcements arrive from the south. I'm not sure which law enforcement agency it was but I turned to them and started clapping, as it was a sign that badly needed help was starting to finally arrive. Soon after that I started feeling the effects of the day taking their toll, and I went back inside to rest.
      
      Gradually all the members of CDU 42 gathered in the room known as the Capitol Crypt. We checked on each other and convalesced, glad to see each other in one piece. Despite our exhaustion, we all would have ran out to the fight again should the need have arisen. Thankfully, as the day wore on, more and more resources arrived at the Capitol to drive off the terrorists. We stayed in the Crypt until quite late,  and even after we were allowed to leave the grounds we didn't get to go home. Those who needed
      immediate medical attention took a van to the local hospital while the rest of us parked near the city center until the city was deemed secure enough for us to check off.
      
      I believe we finally got that message around 1 AM the following morning. We drove back to the Fourth district and from there went home."
      
      My point is that there’s no value in weighing one violent act against another, nor in claiming that one was incited by Rhedric while the other was not—because both were. But then, should we even try to put weight on a violent act? Was one truly more violent than another? In the end, I see the officer’s photo posted again and again, and I hear Babbitt’s death referenced repeatedly as an example of “right violence.” At the same time, I see Charlie’s death being blamed on “leftist violence.”
      
      The truth is that hate speech fuels hate, often cloaked under the guise of free speech, and it can ultimately ignite violence. Violence, in turn, can end in death: the death of a young woman, a man, or even a child. Isn’t it clear by now that hate speech can bear responsibility for such tragic outcomes? Yet it continues to find a stage under what some argue is the protection of the First Amendment, a document written so broadly that its intent is still fiercely debated. Why does hate speech fester and grow until it reaches the point of murder? Could it be the endless discourse in our media, the polarization in our politics, or the divisions across society itself? I believe it is all of these. And from where I stand, one side has not only embraced hate speech but elevated it, weaponizing it into something more dangerous than our founders could have ever imagined.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Willowarborposted 114 minutes agoin reply to this

         "They often circulate a photo of an officer injured with his head caught in a door"
         
         Do you really believe his head was "caught" in the door after you posted the testimony? Really?
         
         "The mob of terrorists were coordinating their efforts now, shouting “Heave! Ho!” as they synchronized pushing their weight forward, crushing me further against the metal door frame.
         
         The mob purposely coordinated to attack this officer...
          
         Are you really trying to make an argument that purposeful coordinated violence was perpetrated on Babbitt?  Just random violence?  A woman who was in the process of trying to break onto the house floor . Are you really trying to compare her situation to the coordinated violence that rioters use toward an officer doing his job?????
         
         I hadn't seen the testimony of Hodges before. I appreciate posting it, what the officer  went through at the hands of those rioters was brutal.

         replyreport
      2. 81

         Readmikenowposted 3 minutes agoin reply to this

         Shar,
         
         There are plenty of pictures of the George Floyd riots.  Maybe we should post them at every chance.
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         

         replyreport
6. 59

   Willowarborposted 3 hours ago

   Trump: "They give only me bad publicity or press—they’re getting a license, I think maybe their license should be taken away..."
   
   Is this how it works???
   
   Trump is nothing but a 300lb bully made of eggshell.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Readmikenowposted 2 hours agoin reply to this

      I think maybe their license should be taken away
      
      You may not realize this but the President of the United States can't order a station to have its broadcast license revoked.
      
      That is the job of the Federal Communications Commission.
      
      There is a whole, long, procedure involved. 
      
      Reasons a station can lose their license
      
      Financial corruption/misconduct and bankruptcy
      
      A station can lose their license due to serious financial corruption by the station’s owner: tax evasion, fraudulent business practices, and so forth. Bankruptcy can also see a station go off the air, and thus give up their license.
      
      The biggest example of this is RKO General. The company was involved in a decades-long series of lawsuits with the FCC over RKO’s business practices. RKO was the owner of WOR-TV (now WWOR-TV) in Secaucus, New Jersey, and other stations across the country.
      
      Starting in the mid-1960s, RKO was accused of various actions of corporate and fiscal malfeasance (involving how it sold advertising on stations, etc.). While the company dragged the fight out for decades, RKO ultimately lost all of its licenses by the mid-80s.
      
      Technical misconduct
      Failing to broadcast an adequate signal, adhere to FCC technical requirements, or other technical issues (such as causing interference, etc.) can also see the FCC step in.
      
      The only example I could find is Evansville, Indiana’s former CW affiliate, the now-defunct WAZE. Specifically, the FCC cancelled its license after its failure to convert in a timely manner to digital broadcasting. It was also plagued with fiscal problems, plus its main transmitter was located 50 miles (80 kilometers) south of Evansville and barely served the city (outside of a few low-powered repeaters).
      
      Failure to renew their license
      Failing to renew a license is another way to lose it, though this is often tied to bankruptcy or other factors.
      
      Failure to serve the public
      The FCC requires radio and television station licensees to serve the public interest in some way; failure to do so can result in a station losing its license. However, this is extremely rare, as it requires something particularly egregious and ongoing on the station’s part.
      
      A famous example of this is Jackson, Mississippi’s WLBT. An NBC affiliate, the station’s owner in the 1950s and 60s was pro-segregation. As such, they’d pre-empt any network programming that mentioned or depicted African-Americans in a positive light; the owners claimed “technical difficulties” were the reason. Civil rights protesters filed formal complaints and lawsuits over WLBT’s actions.
      
      The protests and lawsuits against WLBT dragged out for some years, including several initial rulings in favor of the station’s owner. However, in 1969, the FCC finally revoked the owner’s license, awarding a new one (though under the same call letters) to a more diverse group of owners.
      
      To date, this is apparently the only time a television station owner permanently lost their license due to failing to serve the public.

      replyreport
7. 59

   Willowarborposted 29 minutes ago

   TRUMP
   "I have read someplace that the networks were 97% against me, I get 97% negative, and yet I won and easily... I would think maybe their license should be taken away. It will be up to Brendan Carr".
   
   "When you have a network and you have evening shows and all they do is hit Trump... They're licensed. They're not allowed to do that. They're an arm of the Democrat Party".
   
   Translation, "I'm a snowflake say nice things about me or else..."

   replyreport
   1. 84

      Kathryn L Hillposted 11 minutes agoin reply to this

      He has a lot to loose. He is trying to keep his good reputation, (with his supporters at least,) so that the electorate will not turn against him. He has a country to save, after all.
      
      Respect

      replyreport