I don't recall instances where the canceling was being mandated by the government, e.g. via threatening government action like yanking a broadcast license. Or am I forgetting?
IDK what the talking heads say but if you read the actual legal communications it says the co made the decision not the gov. Definitely a way different case than rank & file employees people will litigate about this one for awhile. If you are a public voice right now you should def try and get facts right being a comedian doesn't shield you from this.
You can say evil shit on cable or on streaming if you want to. But the broadcast networks have agreed to abide by decency limits in exchange for exclusive access to the bandwidth commons. I actually prefer companies handle all this themselves (I think they would have here anyway) and gov doesn't get involved.
Was there an equivalent of this statement under a Democratic administration?
"Appearing on Benny Johnson’s podcast on Wednesday, Carr [head of the FCC] suggested that the FCC has remedies we can look at. 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.''”
Kind of - consequences have *always* been real, and I personally agree with any document I sign or I don't sign it, as everyone should. Easy to do.
I personally think the "cancel culture" thing of the 2010s was broadly frivolous and not at all the same (IE, there were very specific people like Bari Weiss and Dave Chapelle hunted down and cancelled simply because people didn't like their ideas (none were violent-promoting). I am against this.
But note you would def be fired then for the things people are being fired for now. Both sides draw the line at violence. The rest might be up for debate, which I said. I doubt you would want to work with people actively promoting violence, either though.
You can draw the line at violence, but racism and sexism de-humanize people and that was the main push in the previous waves of accountability. Remember that it started with BLM and MeToo which were highlighting how badly people of color and women were treated, and we rejected that.
For sure if you work for a major company and engage in open racism and sexism online I think you could expect to be let go as well. No one wants to work with people like that. I was only mentioning violence since that was the reason people were let go recently, the political violence thing is crazy and ongoing since Luigi (if not well before).
Some nuance here, I think it’s important to get right. A comedian on stage operates in a very different context. I'm a Jew, and people make jokes about Jews all the time, and honestly, I usually laugh - because I have a sense of humor about it and understand the context. There’s a difference between joking about a group I belong to and someone hunting me down or personally harassing me for being Jewish. I don’t think that kind of personal attack should happen to trans people either.
I think this (maybe) highlights a philosophical difference. I’m fine with jokes about my background or identity, as long as they stay in that realm and on a stage. To my knowledge, Dave Chappelle has never said he wants all trans people killed, nor has he singled out a specific trans person by name on stage. But if he - or anyone - said something like “all Jews should be rounded up and killed,” and was serious about it I would be against it, and I’d argue that person probably shouldn’t be booked. Maybe we agree on this or maybe you think specific groups are off limits for comedy, I'm not sure, but I think we agree on some of this at the least.
The nuance exists more in his jokes, which were more like statements denying the existence of transgender people. Comedy is fine, but using a comedy stage to say things like he did takes it too far. They cover it in the article above.
You can read the transcript - it's the first part of the quote, many media are talking about it - I'm not really interested in litigating specifics about this in my blog comments. This story was about rank & file people not Kimmel. Which is a way different kind of case than breaching social media guidelines. Anyway he should lawyer up if he thinks he was in the right
Nice dodge, didn't even touch the ramifications of the government's involvement. I raised it to make the point that this is not just private parties meting out consequences. The government weighed in, unconstitutionally, and the private parties felt the pressure. Nothing in that article suggests he was going to do or say anything that is unsafe for advertisers, certainly no less safe than the Fox host that recommended lethal injections for homeless people. All that safety shit is pretextual cover so they don't have to admit they cowered to government pressure. Trump himself has already called out all these guys from cancelation. How do you feel about that (without dodging)?
I mean I don't think you should get to lie on public airwaves, personally. I think companies should handle that via their own policies and government shouldn't get involved. With that what may be happened here is a bit of game theory - the left has been doing the cancelation thing for a long time, and so conservatives finally were like "well, maybe we need to show some strength here so the tactic isn't just used against us every time we're not in power and they see it will also be used against them." So maybe like the threat of nukes gov can back away and just let companies deal with it via their own policy here (I hope that happens). My original post was about rank and file employees not cases like this, btw, where there's usually pretty clear guidelines. I guess unfortunate timing I had been writing it since I saw the story clipped in my article on Monday.
Anything I publicly write or post, I think about what my family, friends or employer would say or do if/when they see it.
I have deleted 20x the amount of drafts than actual posts. I wish more people did the same.
Yes - if you aren't comfortable with it printed in the NYT, don't post it is a good rule of thumb
TALK ABOUT IT!!
I don't recall instances where the canceling was being mandated by the government, e.g. via threatening government action like yanking a broadcast license. Or am I forgetting?
IDK what the talking heads say but if you read the actual legal communications it says the co made the decision not the gov. Definitely a way different case than rank & file employees people will litigate about this one for awhile. If you are a public voice right now you should def try and get facts right being a comedian doesn't shield you from this.
“Talking heads? Actual legal communication” C’mon man wake up. This is from the FCC chair.
It’s “free speech for me, not for thee,” directly from the US government.
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2025/09/18/jimmy-kimmel-charlie-kirk-fcc-carr.html
You can say evil shit on cable or on streaming if you want to. But the broadcast networks have agreed to abide by decency limits in exchange for exclusive access to the bandwidth commons. I actually prefer companies handle all this themselves (I think they would have here anyway) and gov doesn't get involved.
The timing on your post is comically bad.
I mean Trump literally just suggested the federal government might revoke the licenses of broadcast TV networks that are "against me."
"I have read someplace that the networks were 97% against me again … They're 97% against, they give me only bad press. They're getting a license."
"I would think maybe their license should be taken away."
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/18/trump-jimmy-kimmel-tv-network-licenses.html
I agree they should be politically neutral I am not for any government asserting control. I said in the post this actually isn't political.
Yeah I mean sure, if staying neutral was the goal then your post certainly achieved that. Emotionless and milquetoast. Cool.
I just think you’re at your best when you tell it how it really is. This feels like an (oddly) poorly timed cop-out.
Just remember that authoritarianism always starts by cracking down on opposing media. Putin. Jinping. Erdogan. You know this.
Was there an equivalent of this statement under a Democratic administration?
"Appearing on Benny Johnson’s podcast on Wednesday, Carr [head of the FCC] suggested that the FCC has remedies we can look at. 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.''”
https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/brendan-carr-abc-fcc-jimmy-kimmel-charlie-kirk-1236522406/
Well there was stuff like this: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/rodeo-clown-who-mocked-obama-missouri-state-fair-banned-performing-flna6c10901988
But really I think a simple apology would have been sufficient from Kimmel if I were in charge I'd just ask for that
It's still cancel culture, just now with topics you agree with.
Kind of - consequences have *always* been real, and I personally agree with any document I sign or I don't sign it, as everyone should. Easy to do.
I personally think the "cancel culture" thing of the 2010s was broadly frivolous and not at all the same (IE, there were very specific people like Bari Weiss and Dave Chapelle hunted down and cancelled simply because people didn't like their ideas (none were violent-promoting). I am against this.
But note you would def be fired then for the things people are being fired for now. Both sides draw the line at violence. The rest might be up for debate, which I said. I doubt you would want to work with people actively promoting violence, either though.
You can draw the line at violence, but racism and sexism de-humanize people and that was the main push in the previous waves of accountability. Remember that it started with BLM and MeToo which were highlighting how badly people of color and women were treated, and we rejected that.
For sure if you work for a major company and engage in open racism and sexism online I think you could expect to be let go as well. No one wants to work with people like that. I was only mentioning violence since that was the reason people were let go recently, the political violence thing is crazy and ongoing since Luigi (if not well before).
But that's what hit Dave Chapelle? It wasn't his "ideas" it was his transphobic jokes. https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-62249771
Some nuance here, I think it’s important to get right. A comedian on stage operates in a very different context. I'm a Jew, and people make jokes about Jews all the time, and honestly, I usually laugh - because I have a sense of humor about it and understand the context. There’s a difference between joking about a group I belong to and someone hunting me down or personally harassing me for being Jewish. I don’t think that kind of personal attack should happen to trans people either.
I think this (maybe) highlights a philosophical difference. I’m fine with jokes about my background or identity, as long as they stay in that realm and on a stage. To my knowledge, Dave Chappelle has never said he wants all trans people killed, nor has he singled out a specific trans person by name on stage. But if he - or anyone - said something like “all Jews should be rounded up and killed,” and was serious about it I would be against it, and I’d argue that person probably shouldn’t be booked. Maybe we agree on this or maybe you think specific groups are off limits for comedy, I'm not sure, but I think we agree on some of this at the least.
The nuance exists more in his jokes, which were more like statements denying the existence of transgender people. Comedy is fine, but using a comedy stage to say things like he did takes it too far. They cover it in the article above.
Curious what you think of the effective role of the FCC Chair in the current situation?
How Brendan Carr, the attack-dog FCC chair, helped take down Jimmy Kimmel with words, not actions | CNN Business https://share.google/ISoJQsk9XDG0sHUmS
It really sounds like he wanted to get fired if you read what happened - I think he could have apologized and chose not to (see: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/how-jimmy-kimmel-benched-by-disney-dana-walden-1236374959/). Either way I personally think the company should just handle and can do it without gov
Have a few thoughts on this overall post I want to mull over, but I’m curious: what is Kimmel supposed to apologize for?
Getting basic facts wrong, and when his network asked him to tone it down, he said he was going come out and double down and do it again.
What facts - at the time he said them - were wrong?
You can read the transcript - it's the first part of the quote, many media are talking about it - I'm not really interested in litigating specifics about this in my blog comments. This story was about rank & file people not Kimmel. Which is a way different kind of case than breaching social media guidelines. Anyway he should lawyer up if he thinks he was in the right
Nice dodge, didn't even touch the ramifications of the government's involvement. I raised it to make the point that this is not just private parties meting out consequences. The government weighed in, unconstitutionally, and the private parties felt the pressure. Nothing in that article suggests he was going to do or say anything that is unsafe for advertisers, certainly no less safe than the Fox host that recommended lethal injections for homeless people. All that safety shit is pretextual cover so they don't have to admit they cowered to government pressure. Trump himself has already called out all these guys from cancelation. How do you feel about that (without dodging)?
I mean I don't think you should get to lie on public airwaves, personally. I think companies should handle that via their own policies and government shouldn't get involved. With that what may be happened here is a bit of game theory - the left has been doing the cancelation thing for a long time, and so conservatives finally were like "well, maybe we need to show some strength here so the tactic isn't just used against us every time we're not in power and they see it will also be used against them." So maybe like the threat of nukes gov can back away and just let companies deal with it via their own policy here (I hope that happens). My original post was about rank and file employees not cases like this, btw, where there's usually pretty clear guidelines. I guess unfortunate timing I had been writing it since I saw the story clipped in my article on Monday.