Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Kimmel discussed the political response to Kirk's death, not the man, which is a class move that respects his family and the law. I can't see the problem.

How many companies, media people and politicians need to bend the knee before someone stands up and says this has all gone far enough?



The problem is that America is now ruled by a de facto king, who uses the power of the state to submit corporations and people to do his bidding.


Also, there is quite a bit of money on the line, you can't really blame ABC for acting as a corporation:

https://latenighter.com/news/jimmy-kimmels-removal-comes-ami...


I believe that you can.

"Well, we needed to acquiesce to fascism for our stock price" is not acceptable. Over and over and over we are told about how corporations are job creators and serve a valuable function in our society. We are told that having power distributed across corporations that are in competition with one another is a protection against tyranny.

Fat lot of good that did.


Didn't Mussolini describe fascism as the fusion of state and corporate power?


There is no evidence he did.


I mean, to be fair, it did. There are other media personalities syndicated by other broadcasters that aren't bending the knee to autocratic rule. ABC has shown its not ripe for the fight, and has separated itself as the chaff from the wheat.

If there were a monopoly on media from ONE broadcaster, and that broadcaster didn't fight back, that's a wrap.

But to be sure, competition is NOT an innate feature of capitalism (economic power naturally consolidates in laissez-faire markets), but competition is an external check on capitalism's power; which is empowered by government regulation; and creates mixed market economies. Just as well, mixed market economies - and the ability to have multiple companies for goods and services - are an external check on government AND society power, as well as other companies themselves. It allows people to choose who to work for, buy/sell from, and build their own enterprise if they don't agree with present-day offerings.


> you can't really blame ABC for acting as a corporation

More accurate to say "I" as you'll find quite a large number of people blaming ABC for their actions in the coming days.


I give them through today before I cancel my Hulu/Disney+ to explain what 'indefinite' is. Fired or a week cooldown?

Also, you can cancel and then re-sub right away with one extra click (and keep any discounted rate). Let them see the numbers and a warning.


I had never seen Kimmel until I watched the YouTube clip¹ linked elsewhere in this thread earlier today. After doing so, I cancelled my Disney+ subscription, giving “cancellation of Jimmy Kimmel” as the reason and won’t be in any hurry to re-join (though I heard the new Alien TV show is worth watching).

I hate cancel culture whether it’s coming from the conservative right (we’ve had that in Ireland for most of the 20th century) or the liberal left (more recently) and I believe that comedy should be able to transgress social norms and push up against boundaries but what I saw of Kimmel was wholly innocuous.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j3YdxNSzTk&t=123s


No statement from ABC so canceled.

If you can fit in the Aliens show before your billing date it's worth watching if you are a normal person that can allow yourself to enjoy TV shows.


Not that I or anyone has done it, but there is theoretically there is a way to enjoy these TV shows for free from companies one doesn't want to fund. sailing or something...


Yeah, if supporting fascism is okay, a little bit of copyright infringement is definitely okay.


I'd love to know how many people cancelled in the last 24 hours. Based on my social circle, it might be a lot.


Actually. You can.

Money isn't an excuse to do whatever you want


The incentive for a corporation leans heavily into making deals worth billions of dollars, which is also happening here.

A change of status quo in this case, will require massive loss of Disney+ subscriptions, which is not that probable.


> The incentive for a corporation leans heavily

That's why you can blame them, because billions of private dollars should not outweigh maintaining a stable democracy and civil society for all. "Just following market incentives to maximize shareholder value" is 2025's "just following orders".


Dont forget those private prisons need customers.


As Sam Harris so eloquently put it: "What's the point of having 'fuck you' money if you never actually say 'fuck you'?"


Sort of like Vladimir Putin would say: "What's the point of having nuclear weapons if you never actually nuke someone?"


Fuck you. Yes I can blame them. They’re selling democracy and civil society down the river for profit. It’s greed, it’s corruption, it’s disgusting!

They might think it will save them but acquiescing to a bully never works. It just shows you’re weak and can be pushed around.


> I can't see the problem.

lese majesty /s


The problem is that he gave Trump a fig leaf of an excuse to go after him, and that's all they needed.


An Australian reporter recently asked Trump how much money he has made since returning to office and if it is ethical for a person in his position. His org got locked out of a press conference in retaliation and we get the mafia boss threats about it not being good for our country to ask those sorts of questions.

Anyone living in the USA should by now have made a decision where their line in the sand lies. Without a free press or opposition things can move quickly so decide now. If I was a member of a minority likely to be a target I would want to know I had an exit strategy.


If any was curious, it's >$5 billion.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-wlfi-world-liberty-financ... ("New crypto token boosts Trump family's wealth by $5 billion")


Trump also said he's gonna tell Australia's prime minister about the reporter, which is kinda nuts (and hilarious?)

Old track, but just hard to imagine what would have happened if Biden was asked about his corruption and answered like that. But it's hypothetical anyway, since no previous president would ever be rug-pulling crypto scams or selling watches and bibles.

I just can't believe how weekly, or sometimes daily, I share these wild stories and videos with some friends and they keep behaving like anything about this is normal. There are so many things that would make me go WTF even without the context of the constant grift it all comes with.


The naked emperor was already a pissy chad over Jimmy; this grudge-holding isn't new at all. Trump, back in July:

> The word is, and it's a strong word at that, Jimmy Kimmel is NEXT to go in the untalented Late Night Sweepstakes and, shortly thereafter, Fallon will be gone. These are people with absolutely NO TALENT, who were paid Millions of Dollars for, in all cases, destroying what used to be GREAT Television. It's really good to see them go, and I hope I played a major part in it!

Nexstar owns outright a bunch of broadcast zones in America, with zero conpetition in those broadcast areas. So them folding and everyone else following suit isn't much of a surprise. It's pathetic that media ownership has degraded to such a sorry lame ass state, that there's many markets where almost all broadcast media is via one company. The decayed anti-health of media continues to plague this nation, allow the worst poxes to spread.


[flagged]


The First Amendment protects my rights to say you are being an asshole.

The First Amendment also forbids the government from punishing you for merely being an asshole.


Yeah, that argument too. I didn't mention the first amendment though. For example it is also a requirement for basic science within the framework of enlightenment.

I get the xkcd and it certainly has a valid context. This is not it though. This retort just underlines a perspective that is characterized by severe lack of foresight, simple as that.


Perspective: “you can’t point out that I’m being an asshole to my friends and employers” is very non-free-speech. First Amendment or not.

Doubly so when the people saying you can’t are the government.


I don't even get the point you are trying to make. The issue is removing people due to their political opinions. This might have happened to Kimmel now.

You are still free to associate with anyone freely, but there is an expectation that you behave like an adult and can withstand different opinions. Otherwise no sensible dialogue is possible. Obviously that was not the case for the murderer of Kirk and the general sentiment is that some political factions have had difficulties here as well.


> The issue is removing people due to their political opinions.

No. The issue is who is doing that action. Illegal speech is not the same as rude speech. My boss can’t declare my opinions illegal. They can fire me.

> You are still free to associate with anyone freely, but there is an expectation that you behave like an adult and can withstand different opinions.

Nah. I can throw a tantrum, publicly decry you as an asshole and go no-contact with you. That’s legal, and part of my freedom of expression and association.

The government can’t confiscate my license over the tantrum.


> No. The issue is who is doing that action.

I wholeheartedly disagree. If you are excluded in research for your opinion, we could just as well install the church again. The vanity is the same.

This time it is Trump directly. Sure, that is also a problem. Previously it was the handlers of government, so it didn't need to intervene directly. NGOs or just companies getting government grants, didn't matter.

> I can throw a tantrum, publicly decry you as an asshole and go no-contact with you. That’s legal, and part of my freedom of expression and association.

Of course and I welcome you to do so.

We are not talking about instances where people were rude to their bosses. We are talking about instances where people had the wrong political opinion and some faculties are in dire need of reform because of the structures they formed by excluding everyone not in line. That is a problem, obviously. A problem best described as a violation of freedom of expression. You can look up the definition on wikipedia. In the first sentence there is something about repercussions. Easy concept, you would think...

> Wiki: Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction

What do think retaliation would mean, hm?


If you make your church the government, it is... the government.

Again, "I think your speech sucks" and "I have the authority to jail you for your speech because I think it sucks" are vastly different things.

> We are not talking about instances where people were rude to their bosses.

We're talking about Jimmy Kimmell's employer being threatened by the government to punish him for his speech. Which wasn't even particularly rude.


He was fired by Disney. In the same way others were fired from their position due to political pressures. I don't see a difference.


> He was fired by Disney.

After very clear threats of official action from the FCC chair up to and including revocation of their broadcasting licenses. For protected speech. That is a very, very clear First Amendment violation.

https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/brendan-carr-abc-fcc-jimmy-...

"FCC chairman Brendan Carr has threatened to take action against ABC after Jimmy Kimmel said in a monologue that 'the MAGA gang' was attempting to portray Charlie Kirk‘s assassin as 'anything other than one of them.' 'We can do this the easy way or the hard way,' Carr said. 'These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.'... 'You could certainly see a path forward for suspension over this,' Carr said."

> I don't see a difference.

Well, we don't have a cure for blindness.


The FCC threatened to revoke ABC's license, that's the difference


The hypocrisy of his predecessors doesn't mean that this is not dangerous though.


True. It is relevant to complaints against censorship in this case though. They are not at all believable, they are motivated by partisanship.


But it does mean freedom from government imposed consequences. You still haven't learned the lesson




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: