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

[AbrahamJSimpson]

That was not a joke.

It quite literally was.

Wishing for the death of a person, even in a joke, is never funny.

So…it was a joke.

Oh by the way, what does that make actually celebrating the death of a citizen? What does it make threatening to wipe out an entire civilization? A bit…sick, perhaps?

Thinking that it is is sick.

And thinking or stating is not the FCC’s purview to regulate.

Even smaller broadcast operations have someone in charge of “Standards and Practices” and their job is to prevent this kind of sickness.

Joke. The word is joke.

 

[TheBigA]

Here's an example of something that was later described as a joke:

Trump accuses Democrats of 'seditious behavior, punishable by death,' for urging military to ignore illegal orders

Trump called for the Democratic lawmakers to be "arrested and placed on trial" in social media posts.

www.nbcnews.com

Lots of radio & TV stations broadcast it. Nobody was targeted by the FCC. It's free speech, protected by the first amendment.

 

[davideduardo]

Regardless, the first amendment protects all speech including the disgusting speech. Kimmel explained that it had to do with the huge age difference. Not an uncommon thought. Some have used phrases such as "sugar daddies" or "trophy wife" to describe that kind of relationship.

I follow polices here and in quite a few international situations and I've not seen any such age difference issues brought up in this manner. In fact, John Tyler, Grover Cleveland and Benjamin Harrison had even greater age differences.

This kind of government targeting is what caused Howard Stern to leave broadcast radio for satellite.

No, it is not. Stern wanted to be able to use language which was theoretically not permitted on radio and he felt controlled by "corporate" standards people who put barriers on his content.

Conservative talk radio uses the same type of speech talking about LGBT people or even democrats. Perhaps it's time for them to get sued too.

I don't listen to conservative talk radio, but I've never heard of any recognizable host joking about the death of a public figure.

Nobody was "wishing for the death of a person." You're inventing things, in the way others invented racism in Jason Aldean's song Try That In a Small Town.

I don't see any interpretation of "expectant widow" other than thinking about and finding humor in the death of a person's husband.

Some thought the song was promoting lynching of black people.

But that was a song which was at best ambiguous. In the Kimmel case, it was a direct reference to Melania Trump becoming a widow and grinning over the thought.

It was all made up. Same with this. The shooting happened AFTER the comment. Nobody complained about the comment until 5 days later.

Whether before or after, making an attempt at humor based on the death of the President seems pretty sick to me.

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

Use of the FCC and the full power of the government to retaliate over a joke, and send a warning to every other entity not to offend the regime, is far worse than any joke. It’s almost like there’s a word for that kind of action.

Although perhaps having moved on from the feigned outrage over the “he was one of theirs” is progress, of a sort.

And perhaps the government under the thumb of someone who celebrates a citizen’s death should be less concerned about a late-night joke.

True too it’s from within. But then again the first amendment comes into play and we have to wait for the ceo of Disney to respond to this Jimmy Kimmel incident.

 

[TheBigA]

No, it is not. Stern wanted to be able to use language which was theoretically not permitted on radio and he felt controlled by "corporate" standards people who put barriers on his content.

Not true. His company was fined by the FCC. Stern has commented on this FCC persecution of Kimmel:

“The driving force,” he wrote in his memoir Howard Stern Comes Again, “was getting away from the FCC.”

https://www.cracked.com/article_48494_howard-stern-was-original-face-of-fcc-persecution.html

No one knows better than Stern what Jimmy Kimmel has faced in recent weeks, albeit under different circumstances. “He’s one of the few people I can really turn to when I need advice, because he’s been through all of this stuff and then some,” Kimmel told Rolling Stone earlier this year.

Mel Karmazin left CBS for Sirius, and when he got there, he offered Stern a job.

 

[lanceventa]

KEEP YOUR PERSONAL POLITICAL BELIEFS OUT OF THE DISCUSSION.

I'm not closing yet another thread because one or two people, one of whom is a moderator cannot follow the limited site rules and does not know how to discuss something merely on the merits of the actions without putting their personal political beliefs into it. But based on the emails I have received lately, YOU ARE ALL DRIVING OTHER CONTRIBUTORS AWAY.

What the government and FCC are doing is a violation of the first amendment which protects the right to express opinions, including unpopular ones, without government censorship. This applies to spoken words, writing, and symbolic acts.

What I am doing is not a first amendment violation because as a private citizen, I am able to operate the site as I see fit.

Now tie that into Kimmel's comments. They are trying to censor ABC and Kimmel from speaking whether you agree with it or not.

 

[davideduardo]

It quite literally was.

So…it was a joke.

Oh by the way, what does that make actually celebrating the death of a citizen? What does it make threatening to wipe out an entire civilization? A bit…sick, perhaps?

And thinking or stating is not the FCC’s purview to regulate.

Joke. The word is joke.

You use "joke" multiple times.

Google AI: A joke is a display of humor in which words are used within a specific, well-defined narrative structure to make people laugh.

I can't see any situation where thinking the death of a president is even remotely humerous. So, by that standard, what was said is not a "joke" and is, at best, horrible taste.

There is something in the FCC rules and regulations about "public interest".

Again, Google AI: FCC license holders, particularly radio and television broadcasters, are required by the Communications Act of 1934 to operate in the “public interest, convenience, and necessity”. This mandate obligates stations to air programming addressing local community needs, maintain a public inspection file{:target="_blank"} on the FCC website, and provide diverse viewpoint"

Broadcast companies have "Standards and Practices" departments or managers who follow what "public interest" may be, and try to insure that nobody endangers a license by going outside of the realm of decency.

 

[almaniac27]

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?

 

[davideduardo]

Not true. His company was fined by the FCC. Stern has commented on this FCC persecution of Kimmel:

And my point is that Stern took offense... or felt restricted... or whatever... by that FCC action and left commercial, regulated radio and a company he felt wanted to excessively restrict him

Mel Karmazin left CBS for Sirius, and when he got there, he offered Stern a job.

And Sirius is a paid service and not subject to the content standards and regulations of over the air broadcasters.

A great part of the responsibilities of a licensee lies in keeping within "public interest, convenience, and necessity”.

 

[lanceventa]

I don't listen to conservative talk radio, but I've never heard of any recognizable host joking about the death of a public figure.

So because you don't listen and never heard it, it never happened? Ask Rush...

Fact Check: Did Rush Limbaugh Mock AIDS Deaths on His Radio Show?

While conservatives mourned Limbaugh's death, many left-leaning voices criticized the radio host who had been long accused of espousing racist, sexist and homophobic views throughout his career.

www.newsweek.com

Rush Limbaugh Spent His Lifetime Speaking Ill of the Dead

William Thomas CainConventional etiquette dictates that we do not speak ill of the dead. But Rush Limbaugh isn’t just any dead guy.He’s a dead guy who made himself a multimillionaire many times over b...

www.yahoo.com

I’ll Never Forget Rush Limbaugh Mocking Michael J. Fox’s Parkinson’s

Ilya S. Savenok/GettyWhen the news broke that Rush Limbaugh died Tuesday at age 70, in an unusual occurrence, other celebrity names began trending in connection with him: The people he had cruelly moc...

www.yahoo.com

You use "joke" multiple times.

Comedy is subjective. What you don't get is how it is delivered.

That doesn't give our government or FCC the ability to force a show off the air or revoke a station license. And don't say the Democrats have done it, because THEY HAVE NOT.

 

[TheBigA]

A great part of the responsibilities of a licensee lies in keeping within "public interest, convenience, and necessity”.

The government cannot use that to stifle free speech. That's what the first amendment is all about.

Here's an example of the Biden administration pressuring Facebook, which isn't even licensed by the government

Mark Zuckerberg says Biden officials would 'scream' and 'curse' when seeking removal of Facebook content

The Meta CEO said on a podcast that administration officials had asked the company to remove certain posts, including "things that are true."

www.nbcnews.com

This is all selective enforcement. The government wants to use its power to silence its critics.

This mandate obligates stations to air programming addressing local community needs, maintain a public inspection file{:target="_blank"} on the FCC website, and provide diverse viewpoint"

Which includes occasionally making fun of the president.

 

[davideduardo]

KEEP YOUR PERSONAL POLITICAL BELIEFS OUT OF THE DISCUSSION.

This is the hottest broadcast subject of the moment. Some believe the "joke" was just "good humor" and fail to see that others thought it to be tasteless, morbid and suggestive that the death of a president was "funny".

I'm not closing yet another thread because one or two people, one of whom is a moderator cannot follow the limited site rules and does not know how to discuss something merely on the merits of the actions without putting their personal political beliefs into it. But based on the emails I have received lately, YOU ARE ALL DRIVING OTHER CONTRIBUTORS AWAY.

One of the political issues of this era is the inability to see that opposing perspectives are, per se, valid as long as they do not suggest illegal, violent or otherwise unacceptable acts.

Example: Suggesting people go out to protest the action of a faction is legal. Suggesting they take weapons and cause harm to that faction is not.

In this case, a percentage of the population finds the "widow" statement to be approving or even in enticement of harm. As such, it is no different than yelling "fire" in a theater: if not blatantly illegal, it is improper and does not meet the requirements of "public interest".

What the government and FCC are doing is a violation of the first amendment which protects the right to express opinions, including unpopular ones, without government censorship. This applies to spoken words, writing, and symbolic acts.

You are wrong here. Our licenses as broadcasters are based on the overview of all the FCC rules that talks about “public interest, convenience, and necessity”.

One can consider suggestions of death to not meet that standard. Just as yelling "fire" in a theater goes beyond freedom of speech... just as saying libelous things goes beyond freedom of speech... just as falsifying a news item goes beyond freedom of speech... a case can be made that there is a limit on how harmful a joke can be if it can be construed as potentially making light of the commitment of a crime... in this case, murder.

What I am doing is not a first amendment violation because as a private citizen, I am able to operate the site as I see fit.

And it would be appropriate to allow and encourage the discussion of true broadcast issues that are seen, perhaps, differently by huge segments of America.

Now tie that into Kimmel's comments. They are trying to censor ABC and Kimmel from speaking whether you agree with it or not.

What is being criticized is the same thing as, and I will say it again, yelling "fire" in a theater. The very fact that an actual attack on either the President or his cabinet or both occurred so soon after that missed attempt at "humor" indicates a situation in our country that should not be encouraged on broadcast stations. Again, that "joke" contributed towards a negative mood that was already well developed; throwing gasoline on that fire violates the basic foundation of broadcast regulation in the United States.

 

[davideduardo]

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.

Please show us data that proves that absurd statement.

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

That is "drama". Viewers know that, like novels, they are make-believe. This was an attempt at humor involving the death of the President of this country. Very different.

In any case, the issue here is whether the FCC has the authority and right to decide if a joke is appropriate. Some of us believe that, if content encourages or condones violence in any way, it should not be allowed.

 

[almaniac27]

One can read any number of comments to social media posts about Melania and see that it's a fairly common joke people are making. Your algorithms just aren't delivering it to you. The couple just fits the archetype of "old rich guy marries a materialistic younger woman" too well for people to not comment on it. Sorry for not being able to pull up a Gallup poll showing that.

And yes it's drama, but it's not unheard of to map that trope onto real life situations. In those dramas the message is that those family members are being horrible. And that's the conceit to Kimmel's joke: that Melania is greedy and callous. A matter of opinion completely protected by the first amendment.

If anyone wants an actual example of someone wishing death on a president in the guise of a joke:

GOP Sen. David Perdue: Pray that Obama's 'days be few'

A Republican senator says conservatives should pray for President Barack Obama using a biblical passage that says, "Let his days be few." Georgia Sen.

apnews.com

 

[davideduardo]

So because you don't listen and never heard it, it never happened? Ask Rush...

Fact Check: Did Rush Limbaugh Mock AIDS Deaths on His Radio Show?

While conservatives mourned Limbaugh's death, many left-leaning voices criticized the radio host who had been long accused of espousing racist, sexist and homophobic views throughout his career.

www.newsweek.com

Where did he speak of the death of LGBTQ+ persons?

Rush Limbaugh Spent His Lifetime Speaking Ill of the Dead

William Thomas CainConventional etiquette dictates that we do not speak ill of the dead. But Rush Limbaugh isn’t just any dead guy.He’s a dead guy who made himself a multimillionaire many times over b...

www.yahoo.com

That person was already gone.

I’ll Never Forget Rush Limbaugh Mocking Michael J. Fox’s Parkinson’s

Ilya S. Savenok/GettyWhen the news broke that Rush Limbaugh died Tuesday at age 70, in an unusual occurrence, other celebrity names began trending in connection with him: The people he had cruelly moc...

www.yahoo.com

While much of the content referenced is not in good taste... is reprehensible... in the case of Michael Fox he observed that he saw Fox act "sicker" in public than on other occasions. Again, kind'a a subject that should be respectfully treated, but not about the upcoming death of a living president.

I had the chance about 25 years back to meet Christopher Reeve at the bar/restaurant at the hotel right across from our stations in New York City. He casually mentioned to a group of us waiting for tables at the bar that he was concerned about comedians who made fun of any disabled person to create a joke. His point was not about legality, but about propriety

That doesn't give our government or FCC the ability to force a show off the air or revoke a station license. And don't say the Democrats have done it, because THEY HAVE NOT.

Just because something has not been done does not mean that it should not be explored periodically.

The FCC has taken a license due to obscenity and profanity. Neither are prohibited in the Constitution. So there is not reason not to explore a case based on attempting to make fun of the death of a living person.

Just like profanity, even a half century after Carlin's dirty words, we really don't know what words or what subjects are "prohibited". This is a case of "I know it when I see it".

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

You use "joke" multiple times.

Indeed. Because what he said on his comedy show was a joke. He is hardly the first to make jokes about public figures. That comes with the territory.

Google AI: A joke is a display of humor in which words are used within a specific, well-defined narrative structure to make people laugh.

And many people laughed so…yeah, what he said on his first-amendment protected television show was a joke.

I can't see any situation where thinking the death of a president is even remotely humerous.

The great thing about the first amendment? It doesn’t mean that because you can’t think of such a situation doesn’t mean that the speech is forbidden any more than if I or any other person cannot think of such a situation. I found the vast majority of Howard Stern’s radio show to be deplorable and would absolutely stand up for his right to make jokes and statements I did not like.

So, by that standard, what was said is not a "joke" and is, at best, horrible taste.

That isn’t how it works. Neither you nor anyone else is the single arbiter of what is or is not a joke.

There is something in the FCC rules and regulations about "public interest".

Again, Google AI: FCC license holders, particularly radio and television broadcasters, are required by the Communications Act of 1934 to operate in the “public interest, convenience, and necessity”. This mandate obligates stations to air programming addressing local community needs, maintain a public inspection file{:target="_blank"} on the FCC website, and provide diverse viewpoint"

It does not however mandate them to air only programming addressing local community interests.

Broadcast companies have "Standards and Practices" departments or managers who follow what "public interest" may be, and try to insure that nobody endangers a license by going outside of the realm of decency.

Again, neither you nor I nor anyone else determines the realm of decency beyond very broad parameters of things like well-established words (even then a dubious proposition) and nudity.

Meanwhile, there are millions of us whose public interest is well served by that and other shows. All of which are protected by the pesky first amendment. There are lots of jokes on lots of shows I find to be in poor taste. That doesn’t matter. I’m free to boycott the programmer, free to boycott the advertisers, free to speak out against the jokes. And I have zero power over anything.

When the full force of the FCC is used because one thin-skinned person didn’t like something that was said, that is a dangerous, unconstitutional action. It is not for the government to act out in response to someone mocking the president or anyone else. It’s not for the government to act out even if such a sentiment is made in the course of a serious discussion program. The president has every right to complain, however beneath the dignity of the office it may be. There is a bright red line when the FCC does his bidding by threatening the operators over that joke.

 

[TheBigA]

The very fact that an actual attack on either the President or his cabinet or both occurred so soon after that missed attempt at "humor" indicates a situation in our country that should not be encouraged on broadcast stations.

OK, then using your basis, Karoline Leavitt should be fired from the white house:

“It will be funny. It will be entertaining. There will be some shots fired tonight in the room,” Leavitt told Fox News on the red carpet just moments before the dinner at the Washington Hilton hotel.

Karoline Leavitt Used An Unfortunate Phrase Just Hours Before The Correspondents Dinner Shooting — And It’s Going Viral

Trump was abruptly evacuated from the White House Correspondents' Dinner after shots rang out.

www.huffpost.com

'Shots will be fired': Karoline Leavitt's ominous remark moments before gunfire jolted White House Correspondents' Dinner

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt's remark about "shots fired" during President Trump's address gained a chilling significance after an armed attacker opened fire at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. The incident, which occurred near the event's screening area, triggered panic...

economictimes.indiatimes.com

Keep in mind that the president wasn't the only person in the room. Leavitt apparently thinks its funny that the media will get shot.

 

[TheBigA]

The FCC has taken a license due to obscenity and profanity. Neither are prohibited in the Constitution.

Really? When?? All I know about are fines, and right now the Supreme Court ruling questions any agency's ability to levy fines.

In a major ruling, the Supreme Court on Friday cut back sharply on the power of federal agencies to interpret the laws they administer and ruled that courts should rely on their own interpretion of ambiguous laws. The decision will likely have far-reaching effects across the country, from environmental regulation to healthcare costs.

Supreme Court strikes down Chevron, curtailing power of federal agencies

This article was updated on June 28 at 3:46 p.m. In a major ruling, the Supreme Court on Friday cut back sharply on the power of federal agencies to interpret the laws they administer and ruled that…

www.scotusblog.com

Justice Clarence Thomas penned a brief concurring opinion in which he emphasized that the Chevron doctrine was inconsistent not only with the Administrative Procedure Act but also with the Constitution’s division of power among the three branches of government. The Chevron doctrine, he argued, requires judges to give up their constitutional power to exercise their independent judgment, and it allows the executive branch to “exercise powers not given to it.”

There's nothing in the communications act that makes the FCC an arbiter of the public interest.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

That person was already gone.

So that makes it proper? Like really, what is the line where the FCC should be intervening. If the joke is about someone dead, carry on? If it’s about someone alive, threaten their license?

Because one day, this president will be gone. And there will be jokes and celebrations by millions, whether anyone considers it right, wrong or indifferent. So is the thought that once he is dead, as happens to every single person, the jokes are completely allowed? Or will there be another twist to come after those who, as the saying goes, speak ill of the dead?

While much of the content referenced is not in good taste... is reprehensible... in the case of Michael Fox he observed that he saw Fox act "sicker" in public than on other occasions. Again, kind'a a subject that should be respectfully treated, but not about the upcoming death of a living president.

Political humor is biting. It is rough and tumble. The president, any president, is not off limits to being mocked by anyone on any broadcast platform.

I had the chance about 25 years back to meet Christopher Reeve at the bar/restaurant at the hotel right across from our stations in New York City. He casually mentioned to a group of us waiting for tables at the bar that he was concerned about comedians who made fun of any disabled person to create a joke. His point was not about legality, but about propriety

I don’t disagree, but the proper response is not to blatantly violate the constitution. If we don’t protect speech that makes us uncomfortable, we’re not protecting speech at all.

Just because something has not been done does not mean that it should not be explored periodically.

Like state control of media?

The FCC has taken a license due to obscenity and profanity. Neither are prohibited in the Constitution. So there is not reason not to explore a case based on attempting to make fun of the death of a living person.

There is a gigantic difference. Like a galactic difference. And can we be honest for a moment? This feigned outrage is not over “a” living person. It’s the specific living person.

Just like profanity, even a half century after Carlin's dirty words, we really don't know what words or what subjects are "prohibited". This is a case of "I know it when I see it".

What we know is you don’t like the joke. Millions of us do. The FCC belongs nowhere near that.

 

[davideduardo]

The great thing about the first amendment? It doesn’t mean that because you can’t think of such a situation doesn’t mean that the speech is forbidden any more than if I or any other person cannot think of such a situation. I found the vast majority of Howard Stern’s radio show to be deplorable and would absolutely stand up for his right to make jokes and statements I did not like.

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.

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.

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...