FCC chair threatens ABC O&O's over Jimmy Kimmel’s remarks

[TheBigA]

Please show us data that proves that absurd statement.

Sure:

"[It] obviously was a joke about their age difference, and the look of joy we see on her face every time they're together," the late night host adds​

Jimmy Kimmel Defends ‘Expectant Widow’ Joke as ‘Light Roast,’ Urges Melania to Confront Trump’s ‘Violent Rhetoric’ | Video

Jimmy Kimmel fired back at Melania and Donald Trump's calls for his termination after his "widow" joke pre-The White House Correspondents' Dinner went viral in the wake of the shooting.

www.yahoo.com

You don't agree with the person who said it. He said/He said. Case dismissed.

In this case, the Kimmel remark is thought by some to encourage the death of a president. If that is the case, the remark is not protected by the First Amendment as it has to potential to foment something harmful or illegal.

What some people think is not admissible in court.

 

[davideduardo]

Sure:

Jimmy Kimmel Defends ‘Expectant Widow’ Joke as ‘Light Roast,’ Urges Melania to Confront Trump’s ‘Violent Rhetoric’ | Video

Jimmy Kimmel fired back at Melania and Donald Trump's calls for his termination after his "widow" joke pre-The White House Correspondents' Dinner went viral in the wake of the shooting.

www.yahoo.com

The person's own unsubstantiated defense does nothing but make those who believe he was wrong become more convinced of that fact.

(You know, Melania may have a "look of job" because she enjoys being First Lady for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with wishing her husband were dead!)

His response is even less funny to many than the original remark was.

 

[TheBigA]

The person's own unsubstantiated defense does nothing but make those who believe he was wrong become more convinced of that fact.

So you're saying there is no law anymore. Just what some people think? Those some people who happen to be the government?

When the actual person who said it is "unsubstantiated," that alone ends the first amendment in this country.

Why weren't those same people offended by the calls to "hang Mike Pence?" I guess that was a joke too.

Donald Trump repeated "hang" Mike Pence chant: Cassidy Hutchinson

The former White House aide claims she heard Trump repeatedly say "hang" as the January 6 attack was unfolding.

www.newsweek.com

This is why "some people" don't trust their government anymore. Meanwhile the federal government has indicted a private citizen:

James Comey indicted over seashell photo that officials said threatened Trump

The former FBI director posted a beach photo last year that shows shells in the shape of "8647," which Trump allies portrayed as a threat against the president.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

Again, many posters are forgetting that the First Amendment has limitations. This is why I will mention the classic example of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. That speech is neither "free" not "protected" because it has a likely potential of causing harm.

Making a joke has no such correlation. Kimmel did not cause anyone harm.

In this case, the Kimmel remark is thought by some to encourage the death of a president.

Saying it doesn’t make it true.

If that is the case,

It isn’t

the remark is not protected by the First Amendment

It is

as it has to potential to foment something harmful or illegal.

This is almost laughably absurd. Are we going to ban all jokes now? That’s the natural conclusion of this line of thinking.

Of course, nearly all the old Cheech and Chong jokes promoted the use of pot... which at the time was pretty much illegal everywhere. Nobody tried to keep an album rock station from running one of their bits between songs...

And? That should apply here as well.

I’m sorry, it cannot be a serious position that a late night comedian making a joke about a “gold digger”, FLOTUS or not, is a through line to someone acting out. Never mind that in this case it’s easily disproven. Let’s just set that fact aside. Where do you propose the line be drawn? No jokes about anything? Because someone may take it seriously? No discussion of anything because someone might take it seriously?

Or is such humor allowed so long as the target isn’t who it was here? Because that appears to be the issue and the entire rationale for the blatant government overreach. There’s a word for that.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

The person's own unsubstantiated defense does nothing but make those who believe he was wrong become more convinced of that fact.

You never believed otherwise. And it doesn’t matter. Him being “wrong” in your eyes is not justification for using the power of the FCC as political retribution.

(You know, Melania may have a "look of job" because she enjoys being First Lady for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with wishing her husband were dead!)

🤣🤣🤣

His response is even less funny to many than the original remark was.

And? That has nothing to do with the underlying issue of the FCC seeking payback over a joke.

 

[Deus Ex Machiato]

Why weren't those same people offended by the calls to "hang Mike Pence?" I guess that was a joke too.

Those same people who laughed uproariously when the aforementioned Rush Limbaugh made fun of a President's daughter's looks but have no problem if the current President calls various women ugly? Hmm...

Incidentally, there was one famous person who made a joke about another attempted assassination...one that almost succeeded. The President had just been shot in the chest, and this Hollywood celebrity cracked wise about the incident.

That famous person? President Ronald Reagan.

While he was being wheeled into the hospital, Ronnie told his wife "honey, I forgot to duck." He also was joking with the doctors and nurses on his way to surgery.

 

[Mediafrog+]

In this case, the Kimmel remark is thought by some to encourage the death of a president.

Only the most devout MAGA types believe that. They think he’s going to live forever, or, if he should somehow die, will be resurrected on the third day.

Hard reality: If you are a woman who marries someone 24 years older than you, then you are an “expectant widow.” It is commonplace in the business world for male corporate executives to marry someone young enough to be their daughter, so maybe the major age difference isn’t perceived as an issue by that cohort, or those that aspire to the upper echelons of the business world.

Does Melania think that when she turns 90 that her husband is still going to be around at age 114?

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

Only the most devout MAGA types believe that.

Can we drill down on this particular joke? The suspect has been reported to have planned and been in the hotel ahead of that episode of JKL. There is no way to draw a connection from that broadcast to the action. Not that one could do that regardless, but the timing of this scenario shoots that to h-e-double hockey sticks. And makes the response of the government somehow, remarkably, even more outlandish.

Hard reality: If you are a woman who marries someone 24 years older than you, then you are an “expectant widow.” It is commonplace in the business world for male corporate executives to marry someone young enough to be their daughter, so maybe the major age difference isn’t perceived as an issue by that cohort, or those that aspire to the upper echelons of the business world.

Much as things like “starter wife” is a “thing” and the subject of myriad jokes.

 

[TheBigA]

Some analysis of this story:

First Amendment advocates blast the FCC's early review of ABC broadcast licenses

"The FCC is neither the journalism police nor the humor police," a free speech nonprofit group said of the Trump administration's broadcast industry watchdog.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[TheBigA]

CNN reports the FCC has sent this order to Disney:

“Disney’s ABC is hereby directed to file license renewals for all of their licensed TV stations within 30 days — in other words, by May 28, 2026,” the agency said in an order published Tuesday afternoon.

It will likely come up during the regular FCC public meeting this Thursday.

Carr was asked about it during the Katie Miller podcast:

“There’s lots of options,” Carr said. “You have a license. The licenses come due every so often. You can accelerate when a license comes due and say, ‘Hey, we have significant concerns with the value of conducting your operations. We want to review your license now. And decide if you’re in the public interest.'”
He continued: “If we find that a broadcaster hasn’t been doing that, then the statute requires us to issue a hearing designation order.”

 

[Fighting Irish]

CNN reports the FCC has sent this order to Disney:



It will likely come up during the regular FCC public meeting this Thursday.

Carr was asked about it during the Katie Miller podcast:

If I ran Disney, I would unleash an army of First Amendment lawyers on Brendan Carr and hound him day and night. Carr is not the arbiter of what is or isn't acceptable. ABC Television Stations are currently licensed for two more years, and the government has no right to threaten them because a network personality said something that they didn't like.

Carr needs to pull his head out of Trump's fat ass and stop being a pathetic, whiny b***h. Perhaps that sniveling cockroach should read the Constitution for once.

 

[TheBigA]

ABC confirms it has received the order from the FCC:

Disney stands ground as Trump admin pressures ABC over Kimmel remarks

The FCC’s move to pull forward all Disney/ABC station licenses for early review comes at a moment of heightened sensitivity around political speech and media criticism.

www.newsweek.com

"We are confident that record demonstrates our continued qualifications as licensees under the Communications Act and the First Amendment and are prepared to show that through the appropriate legal channels. Our focus remains, as always, on serving viewers in the local communities where our stations operate.”

 

[Deus Ex Machiato]

We live in disturbing times. The head of the FCC - nominally a non-partisan agency - goes on a podcast hosted by the wife of one of the President's top advisors, and threatens to (essentially) censor a whole raft of stations because apparently making a joke at the expense of the President (and/or First Lady) means they don't "have value" or serve "in the public interest."

I'd be surprised if the courts would side with the administration if the House of Mouse decided to bring their very competent legal team to bear on this clear First Amendment issue, but that's not the point of this exercise. They are trying to bully ABC to fire a comic that hurt the President's widdle fee fees.

 

[vw86]

Jake Tapper does a great piece explaining the situation, the law, and shows clips that show the blatant hypocrisy from the administration on the issue: https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/28/politics/video/fcc-abc-free-speech-lead-jake-tapper

 

[Ed Nielson]

That was not a joke. Wishing for the death of a person, even in a joke, is never funny. Thinking that it is is sick. Even smaller broadcast operations have someone in charge of “Standards and Practices” and their job is to prevent this kind of sickness.

Try going to some other countries and mock their leaders on TV. There are many places in this world where that sort of behavior would result in extremely unpleasant things happening to you.

 

[Fighting Irish]

Try going to some other countries and mock their leaders on TV. There are many places in this world where that sort of behavior would result in extremely unpleasant things happening to you.

But that's in other countries, not here. In the US, we've always been assured our right to question authority. And many hope that we don't become like those "other countries".

 

[gr8oldies]

The punchline to the joke isn't "he's dead lol" it's playing off the pretty widespread perception that Melania doesn't love him, is only in it for the wealth and prestige and won't be broken up at all whenever he eventually does go. It does not imply any humor in his death itself whatsoever.

How many movie and TV show plots center around family members circling an elderly family member's will like vultures?

Had the event on Saturday night not happened, the joke would have been forgotten by now.

 

[gr8oldies]

Those same people who laughed uproariously when the aforementioned Rush Limbaugh made fun of a President's daughter's looks but have no problem if the current President calls various women ugly? Hmm...

Incidentally, there was one famous person who made a joke about another attempted assassination...one that almost succeeded. The President had just been shot in the chest, and this Hollywood celebrity cracked wise about the incident.

That famous person? President Ronald Reagan.

While he was being wheeled into the hospital, Ronnie told his wife "honey, I forgot to duck." He also was joking with the doctors and nurses on his way to surgery.

The bipartisanship we used to have. Civil Rights attorney Vernon Jordan was shot in Fort Wayne. Candidate Reagan visited him in the hospital. After President Reagan's assassination attempt, Vernon Jordan, who was a fierce critic of Reagan, was his first outside visitor. Both agreed "getting shot hurts"

 

[kevtronics]

So have we yet reached the point of government censorship/control of the media that when the same thing happened in other nations run by authoritarian regimes we said "why did nobody try to stop it"?

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

So have we yet reached the point of government censorship/control of the media that when the same thing happened in other nations run by authoritarian regimes we said "why did nobody try to stop it"?

Long past that point.