> What Kimmel Said, and the affiliates broadcasted, was a claim that Charlie Kirk’s assassin was a “maga” supporter.
This is the actual quote:
"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,"
Note that he doesn't say that the shooter was MAGA, only that those within the right wing influencer sphere were desperately trying to characterize the shooter as anything other than one of them. This is unambiguously and factually true.
I swear, media literacy in the united states is in the fucking toilet.
Really, literacy in generally is tanking in the US. In 2024 over half the adults in the country couldn't even read at a sixth grade level! 21% are outright illiterate.
That isn't the same and you know it. Kimmel made no direct comment about what the shooter was aligned with, only about what the right wing sphere was attempting to frame them as being. Anyone with a moderate grasp of English should be able to tell the difference.
>That isn't the same and you know it. Kimmel made no direct comment about what the shooter was aligned with, only about what the right wing sphere was attempting to frame them as being. Anyone with a moderate grasp of English should be able to tell the difference.
You're falling into the "trap." Which is that even though you're correct, the way it's being framed is having you defend Kimmel WRT what he did say rather than his right to say all kinds of stuff -- including the stuff they claim he said, but didn't.
Even if Kimmel had said that Robinson was absolutely a MAGAt with ties to literal neo-nazis (the groypers), that's still protected speech.
He didn't go that far (and it may or may not be true), but his right to free expression is what needs to be protected.
While you don't see it that way, the folks with whom you're arguing can come back later and say, "well, scheeseman486 agreed that if Kimmel had called Robinson a MAGA and/or a Nazi, that was a bridge too far. So now that Fallon/whoever said something similar, off to prison for him, because even those baby molesting/eating librul freaks agree!"
Don't fall into that trap. The Federal (and through the 14th Amendment, state and local) government is forbidden from taking action against legal speech, full stop.
Fight against that -- don't let yourself be hemmed in to a corner by those who don't want or care about freedom of expression unless it's theirs.
I was focused on that one specific argument. I agree that he shouldn't have been taken off the air by the FCC regardless of what he said (unless he explicitly encourages violent action against an individual or group of people be taken, ie illegal speech).
>I was focused on that one specific argument. I agree that he shouldn't have been taken off the air by the FCC regardless of what he said (unless he explicitly encourages violent action against an individual or group of people be taken, ie illegal speech).
I get that. I wasn't attacking you even a little. Yours was a reasonable and cogent argument.
I'm just pointing out that care should be taken with those who aren't operating in good faith. Because such folks will throw your words back in your face without regard for context or nuance.
Because they care nothing for the truth, just for their own feeling of rightness and will to power whether that be political power or just "pwning the libs."
> he doesn't say that the shooter was MAGA, only that those within the right wing influencer sphere were desperately trying to characterize the shooter as anything other than one of them. This is unambiguously and factually true.
I'll put it in the technically true but ambiguously misinformation category. (Which is on every metric better than what goes on at Fox.)
which has been the backbone of satirical and scathing social and political commentary in the western world for 50 years at least.
The Daily Show, The -s30e102- 2025-09-18 Maria Ressa episode with Jon Stewart's monologue and interview went another way, "rolling over" completely into total Trump submission followed by drawing direct comparisons to Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte popularist seizing of control of government.
The number of people defending this makes me seriously wonder if we need a two-speed democracy. One class that is given safety. The other who is exposed to dangerous elements like Jimmy Kimmel…
> There’s a relatively narrow rule which prohibits fcc licensed stations from knowing broadcasting false information if it has the possibility of creating civil unrest.
Oh wow, I didn't realize Fox News wasn't FCC-licensed.
Well, the subset of stations that pulled the show were the ones owned by a (right-wing) company, Nexstar, that has proposed a merger that is up for FCC review. It wasn’t fear of being punished for allowing a “falsehood” on the air, it was pursuit of favorable treatment from a political appointee.
Sinclair (38 stations) also pulled it and they own more than Nexstar (28 stations).
FWIW The Hollywood Reporter also is reporting that advertisers started threatening to pull their support as well[0] as several smaller stations.
> Meanwhile, the advertiser calls began to roll in and then the big affiliate conglomerates, Nexstar and Sinclair, threatened to preempt the show. The second source says that the blowback was snowballing enough that had ABC not acted, Kimmel’s show would have been dark in a large swath of the country, even beyond the Sinclair and Nexstar territories (including in the Washington, D.C., metro area).
> was a claim that Charlie Kirk’s assassin was a “maga” supporter.
I just watched the video.
What he said was that MAGA supporters were too quick to blame anyone but the right, before there was any evidence about the shooter’s identity or political stance.
It's 100% true that MAGA people were being very vocal all over social media trying to characterize him as not being a trump supporter. What part of that do you think was a lie?
How is it false? It isn't making the claim that the shooter was MAGA, but commenting on the right wing influencer sphere's recurring habit of accusing mass shooters of being associated with any group other than themselves.
> "anything other than one of them" can very easily be interpreted in two ways, one of them leading a person to believe that the adult (not a kid) was somehow "MAGA"
Anything can be interpreted in any way you want as long as you're arguing in bad faith
> at the very least, the situation as tense as it was (is?), Jimmy could have chosen to leave it alone for a bit - why say that MAGA is trying to "score political points" at this time? Why not consider that many people are genuinely grieving and upset?
lmao, no one, right wing influencers nor the government, is doing this.
> ABC fired his butt, not the FCC or anyone else. A sternly worded message from the FCC chairman doesn't make a company like DIS fire someone unless it is convenient for DIS. That's a fact.
It isn't "a fact". If a mob goon threatens action on an employer unless that employer punishes an employee, who the hell do you think is actually responsible?
He never said he was a MAGA supporter but that he was being claimed to be not “one of them”. Given that the shooter came from a conservative family in a conservative town and attended trade school and spent his time gaming, I think it’s reasonable to say that he was a product of the right wing milieu, and not a product of left wing indoctrination as the right alleges.
The fact that you believe this is the exact reasoning behind trying to prevent things like what Jimmy Kimmel did here.
It could not be more cut and dry than this. In fact it is so cut and dry that a conspiracy theory on both the left and the right is that the text messages demonstrating his political motivations aren’t genuine.
Are you asserting that he followed left wing influencers or read left wing books or attended left wing classes or somehow got his indoctrination from left wing sources?
There isn’t any evidence of that - there is only evidence that he hated the right wing (and to the contrary there is obvious evidence he came from a right wing milieu - just take a look at his parents). Simply hating a side doesn’t mean you have been indoctrinated by the other side - just look at people who left fundamentalist religious sects.
