ACC Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

a lot of people were like “Jimmy Kimmel being back on PROVES there was no government coercion against free speech” and then Trump just posted he’s going to sue ABC for putting Jimmy Kimmel back on pic.twitter.com/IaVGi6R12B

— Armand Domalewski (@ArmandDoma) September 24, 2025

---

Totally fair post. Trump's statements are highly problematic.

Given the most recent revelations and written admissions from Google, are you still going to claim that the Biden admin didn't engage in equally problematic behavior?

---

I think the Biden admin's stuff was problematic, yes. I don't think it's equally problematic, unless someone can show me where in the evidence it shows that they directly threatened any private company with lawsuits or regulatory action (as Trump has clearly done) if they don't suppress certain content. I don't buy the conservative argument that Trump's stuff is "better" because it's happening out in the open. To me the brazen nature of it makes it worse; they don't even try to pretend like they're respecting free speech laws.

I also think that these tech companies are blowing in the wind and saying things to placate the current Republican power structure, and conversely in the past they said things to make the Dems happy when they had the power. "We took suggestions and made content decisions on our own" becomes "The Biden people were pressuring us!" when there's a new President. To be clear, I don't think the Biden admin should have done what they were doing, and I don't think the companies should have done the censoring. I also think all parties have an incentive to exaggerate how bad it was now when Republicans are in power and will probably change their tune again when Democrats are.

(Also, as an aside, I think we've also seen that these attempts to soft-censor don't work anyway. Kimmel's relevance was actually raised by the fact that Trump went after him so blatantly. The stuff the tech companies tried to suppress got out and became a dominant ideology despite their efforts. It's dumb! Don't do it!)

---

Super interesting that you can't simply say both are bad. Trump has to be worse because . . . ? And then, after making Jimmy Kimmel a free speech martyr, you throw in "but soft censorship doesn't work" so no big deal.

Regarding dem efforts/threats to censor social media:

Here are the dems threatening to remove Section 230 protections with the "Health Misinformation Act" due to "health misinformation" (i.e., because social media wouldn't censor covid posts):

https://www.npr.org/2021/07/22/1019346177/democrats-want-to-hold-social-media-companies-responsible-for-health-misinformat?utm_source=chatgpt.com

More examples of Dem demands here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/21/hamas-israeli-x-musk//?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Klobachur here: https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2025/09/an-obligation-klobuchar-says-congress-must-do-more-to-rein-in-hate-speech-online-00566595

---

Actually, I will make one more point here:

I don't personally agree with the argument, but when it comes to combatting "misinformation" about vaccines and the COVID virus there is at least an argument for it.

---

Except it wasn't misinformation, you twat. The vaccine didn't stop transmission and the virus did not come from a wet market.

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Donald Trump finally weighed in on Jimmy Kimmel's return to the air on Tuesday, with a not-so-veiled threat that his administration would still go after ABC.

Trump posted on Truth Social, "I can't believe ABC Fake News gave Jimmy Kimmel his job back. The White House was told by ABC that his Show was cancelled! Something happened between then and now because his audience is GONE, and his 'talent' was never there. Why would they want someone back who does so poorly, who's not funny, and who puts the Network in jeopardy by playing 99% positive Democrat GARBAGE. He is yet another arm of the DNC and, to the best of my knowledge, that would be a major Illegal Campaign Contribution. I think we're going to test ABC out on this. Let's see how we do. Last time I went after them, they gave me $16 Million Dollars. This one sounds even more lucrative. A true bunch of losers! Let Jimmy Kimmel rot in his bad Ratings."

---

For Trump, it never was about Charlie Kirk. It was always about finding a way to collect $$$.

Not sure how I clicked on the smile icon. It wasn't deliberate.

---

Wrong again. Charlie got Trump elected. It was absolutely about Charlie for Trump

---

You think Trump cares about the people he used while getting elected? You don't know Trump very well.

---

No, you just know the lies you're fed too well.

---

DiabloWags said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Donald Trump finally weighed in on Jimmy Kimmel's return to the air on Tuesday, with a not-so-veiled threat that his administration would still go after ABC.

Trump posted on Truth Social, "I can't believe ABC Fake News gave Jimmy Kimmel his job back. The White House was told by ABC that his Show was cancelled! Something happened between then and now because his audience is GONE, and his 'talent' was never there. Why would they want someone back who does so poorly, who's not funny, and who puts the Network in jeopardy by playing 99% positive Democrat GARBAGE. He is yet another arm of the DNC and, to the best of my knowledge, that would be a major Illegal Campaign Contribution. I think we're going to test ABC out on this. Let's see how we do. Last time I went after them, they gave me $16 Million Dollars. This one sounds even more lucrative. A true bunch of losers! Let Jimmy Kimmel rot in his bad Ratings."

---

For Trump, it never was about Charlie Kirk. It was always about finding a way to collect $$$.

Not sure how I clicked on the smile icon. It wasn't deliberate.

---

Wrong again. Charlie got Trump elected. It was absolutely about Charlie for Trump

---

You think Trump cares about the people he used while getting elected? You don't know Trump very well.

---

No, you just know the lies you're fed too well.

---

Bwahahahahaha!

Raise a pint to the gullible, ignorant, and idiotic.

Lmfao.

---

DiabloWags said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Donald Trump finally weighed in on Jimmy Kimmel's return to the air on Tuesday, with a not-so-veiled threat that his administration would still go after ABC.

Trump posted on Truth Social, "I can't believe ABC Fake News gave Jimmy Kimmel his job back. The White House was told by ABC that his Show was cancelled! Something happened between then and now because his audience is GONE, and his 'talent' was never there. Why would they want someone back who does so poorly, who's not funny, and who puts the Network in jeopardy by playing 99% positive Democrat GARBAGE. He is yet another arm of the DNC and, to the best of my knowledge, that would be a major Illegal Campaign Contribution. I think we're going to test ABC out on this. Let's see how we do. Last time I went after them, they gave me $16 Million Dollars. This one sounds even more lucrative. A true bunch of losers! Let Jimmy Kimmel rot in his bad Ratings."

---

For Trump, it never was about Charlie Kirk. It was always about finding a way to collect $$$.

Not sure how I clicked on the smile icon. It wasn't deliberate.

---

Wrong again. Charlie got Trump elected. It was absolutely about Charlie for Trump

---

You think Trump cares about the people he used while getting elected? You don't know Trump very well.

---

No, you just know the lies you're fed too well.

---

Bwahahahahaha!

Raise a pint to the gullible, ignorant, and idiotic.

Lmfao.

---

sycasey said:

---

ACC Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

a lot of people were like “Jimmy Kimmel being back on PROVES there was no government coercion against free speech” and then Trump just posted he’s going to sue ABC for putting Jimmy Kimmel back on pic.twitter.com/IaVGi6R12B

— Armand Domalewski (@ArmandDoma) September 24, 2025

---

Totally fair post. Trump's statements are highly problematic.

Given the most recent revelations and written admissions from Google, are you still going to claim that the Biden admin didn't engage in equally problematic behavior?

---

I think the Biden admin's stuff was problematic, yes. I don't think it's equally problematic, unless someone can show me where in the evidence it shows that they directly threatened any private company with lawsuits or regulatory action (as Trump has clearly done) if they don't suppress certain content. I don't buy the conservative argument that Trump's stuff is "better" because it's happening out in the open. To me the brazen nature of it makes it worse; they don't even try to pretend like they're respecting free speech laws.

I also think that these tech companies are blowing in the wind and saying things to placate the current Republican power structure, and conversely in the past they said things to make the Dems happy when they had the power. "We took suggestions and made content decisions on our own" becomes "The Biden people were pressuring us!" when there's a new President. To be clear, I don't think the Biden admin should have done what they were doing, and I don't think the companies should have done the censoring. I also think all parties have an incentive to exaggerate how bad it was now when Republicans are in power and will probably change their tune again when Democrats are.

(Also, as an aside, I think we've also seen that these attempts to soft-censor don't work anyway. Kimmel's relevance was actually raised by the fact that Trump went after him so blatantly. The stuff the tech companies tried to suppress got out and became a dominant ideology despite their efforts. It's dumb! Don't do it!)

---

Super interesting that you can't simply say both are bad. Trump has to be worse because . . . ? And then, after making Jimmy Kimmel a free speech martyr, you throw in "but soft censorship doesn't work" so no big deal.

Regarding dem efforts/threats to censor social media:

Here are the dems threatening to remove Section 230 protections with the "Health Misinformation Act" due to "health misinformation" (i.e., because social media wouldn't censor covid posts):

https://www.npr.org/2021/07/22/1019346177/democrats-want-to-hold-social-media-companies-responsible-for-health-misinformat?utm_source=chatgpt.com

More examples of Dem demands here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/21/hamas-israeli-x-musk//?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Klobachur here: https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2025/09/an-obligation-klobuchar-says-congress-must-do-more-to-rein-in-hate-speech-online-00566595

---

Actually, I will make one more point here:

I don't personally agree with the argument, but when it comes to combatting "misinformation" about vaccines and the COVID virus there is at least an argument for it.

---

Except it wasn't misinformation, you twat. The vaccine didn't stop transmission and the virus did not come from a wet market.

---

I don't think those were the only claims being made, but sure. Part of the issue with determining "misinformation" was that it could change pretty quickly with a new disease like COVID-19.

---

sycasey said:

---

ACC Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

ACC Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

a lot of people were like “Jimmy Kimmel being back on PROVES there was no government coercion against free speech” and then Trump just posted he’s going to sue ABC for putting Jimmy Kimmel back on pic.twitter.com/IaVGi6R12B

— Armand Domalewski (@ArmandDoma) September 24, 2025

---

Totally fair post. Trump's statements are highly problematic.

Given the most recent revelations and written admissions from Google, are you still going to claim that the Biden admin didn't engage in equally problematic behavior?

---

I think the Biden admin's stuff was problematic, yes. I don't think it's equally problematic, unless someone can show me where in the evidence it shows that they directly threatened any private company with lawsuits or regulatory action (as Trump has clearly done) if they don't suppress certain content. I don't buy the conservative argument that Trump's stuff is "better" because it's happening out in the open. To me the brazen nature of it makes it worse; they don't even try to pretend like they're respecting free speech laws.

I also think that these tech companies are blowing in the wind and saying things to placate the current Republican power structure, and conversely in the past they said things to make the Dems happy when they had the power. "We took suggestions and made content decisions on our own" becomes "The Biden people were pressuring us!" when there's a new President. To be clear, I don't think the Biden admin should have done what they were doing, and I don't think the companies should have done the censoring. I also think all parties have an incentive to exaggerate how bad it was now when Republicans are in power and will probably change their tune again when Democrats are.

(Also, as an aside, I think we've also seen that these attempts to soft-censor don't work anyway. Kimmel's relevance was actually raised by the fact that Trump went after him so blatantly. The stuff the tech companies tried to suppress got out and became a dominant ideology despite their efforts. It's dumb! Don't do it!)

---

Super interesting that you can't simply say both are bad. Trump has to be worse because . . . ? And then, after making Jimmy Kimmel a free speech martyr, you throw in "but soft censorship doesn't work" so no big deal.

Regarding dem efforts/threats to censor social media:

Here are the dems threatening to remove Section 230 protections with the "Health Misinformation Act" due to "health misinformation" (i.e., because social media wouldn't censor covid posts):

https://www.npr.org/2021/07/22/1019346177/democrats-want-to-hold-social-media-companies-responsible-for-health-misinformat?utm_source=chatgpt.com

More examples of Dem demands here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/21/hamas-israeli-x-musk//?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Klobachur here: https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2025/09/an-obligation-klobuchar-says-congress-must-do-more-to-rein-in-hate-speech-online-00566595

---

Actually, I will make one more point here:

I don't personally agree with the argument, but when it comes to combatting "misinformation" about vaccines and the COVID virus there is at least an argument for it.

---

Except it wasn't misinformation, you twat. The vaccine didn't stop transmission and the virus did not come from a wet market.

---

I don't think those were the only claims being made, but sure. Part of the issue with determining "misinformation" was that it could change pretty quickly with a new disease like COVID-19.

---

I'll let these guys continue to make you look silly on this topic.

---

I'm not sitting through 2.5 hours of this.

---

Sinclair announces end of preemption of Jimmy Kimmel Live! - show returns to air this evening on Sinclair’s ABC affiliates pic.twitter.com/DvBwhhuV4Z

— Sinclair, Inc. (@WeAreSinclair) September 26, 2025

dajo9 said:

---

BSHH has a strong ability to just completely ignore reality in favor of propaganda. No fact matters to him. He's a good fascist.

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MAGA thought they had more cultural power than they really did here, and attempts to bully Kimmel off the air for his political views failed. Even a lot of folks ordinarily "on the right" who can't stand Kimmel objected to the government getting involved in his cancellation.

---

The government didn't get involved. Private companies did. If the government got involved, I would agree that's a bad thing.

---

Trump threatening to pull broadcast licenses because he didn't like what Kimmel said seems to like pretty significant government involvement to me.

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MAGA thought they had more cultural power than they really did here, and attempts to bully Kimmel off the air for his political views failed. Even a lot of folks ordinarily "on the right" who can't stand Kimmel objected to the government getting involved in his cancellation.

---

The government didn't get involved. Private companies did. If the government got involved, I would agree that's a bad thing.

---

Trump threatening to pull broadcast licenses because he didn't like what Kimmel said seems to like pretty significant government involvement to me.

---

He has no power to do that, there was no threat of that happening

---

I'm pretty sure the FCC does have the power to do that.

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MAGA thought they had more cultural power than they really did here, and attempts to bully Kimmel off the air for his political views failed. Even a lot of folks ordinarily "on the right" who can't stand Kimmel objected to the government getting involved in his cancellation.

---

The government didn't get involved. Private companies did. If the government got involved, I would agree that's a bad thing.

---

Trump threatening to pull broadcast licenses because he didn't like what Kimmel said seems to like pretty significant government involvement to me.

---

He has no power to do that, there was no threat of that happening

---

I'm pretty sure the FCC does have the power to do that.

---

The FCC is an independent federal agency. The FCC reports to congress, not the president

---

REPUBLICANS: Trump wasn’t involved in Kimmel getting cancelled.

TRUMP: I was involved and I’m gonna try again. pic.twitter.com/rL5iwzRsPU

— Micah (@micah_erfan) September 24, 2025

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MAGA thought they had more cultural power than they really did here, and attempts to bully Kimmel off the air for his political views failed. Even a lot of folks ordinarily "on the right" who can't stand Kimmel objected to the government getting involved in his cancellation.

---

The government didn't get involved. Private companies did. If the government got involved, I would agree that's a bad thing.

---

Trump threatening to pull broadcast licenses because he didn't like what Kimmel said seems to like pretty significant government involvement to me.

---

He has no power to do that, there was no threat of that happening

---

I'm pretty sure the FCC does have the power to do that.

---

The FCC is an independent federal agency. The FCC reports to congress, not the president

---

REPUBLICANS: Trump wasn’t involved in Kimmel getting cancelled.

TRUMP: I was involved and I’m gonna try again. pic.twitter.com/rL5iwzRsPU

— Micah (@micah_erfan) September 24, 2025

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MAGA thought they had more cultural power than they really did here, and attempts to bully Kimmel off the air for his political views failed. Even a lot of folks ordinarily "on the right" who can't stand Kimmel objected to the government getting involved in his cancellation.

---

The government didn't get involved. Private companies did. If the government got involved, I would agree that's a bad thing.

---

Trump threatening to pull broadcast licenses because he didn't like what Kimmel said seems to like pretty significant government involvement to me.

---

He has no power to do that, there was no threat of that happening

---

I'm pretty sure the FCC does have the power to do that.

---

The FCC is an independent federal agency. The FCC reports to congress, not the president

---

REPUBLICANS: Trump wasn’t involved in Kimmel getting cancelled.

TRUMP: I was involved and I’m gonna try again. pic.twitter.com/rL5iwzRsPU

— Micah (@micah_erfan) September 24, 2025

---

He's ****ing with you. If yall haven't learned by now that Trump is a master troll, idk where you've been. I heard something recently, " Don't take Trump literally, but take him seriously". He exaggerates, he jokes, he trolls. He has gotten so into the lefts heads that he's already won.

He has no power to tell ABC what to do in this situation. Again the FCC is independent from the President, as by design

---

Quote:

---

Surely this current Congress would never listen to the President if he really wanted to do something.

But this is getting afield from the original point, which is that the current government did indeed involve itself in the Kimmel issue.

---

there was a nationwide crackdown on the free speech of students protesting israel last year. which jake tapper supported https://t.co/v1pvTIiH6n

— matt (@mattxiv) September 25, 2025

sycasey said:

---

MAGA thought they had more cultural power than they really did here, and attempts to bully Kimmel off the air for his political views failed. Even a lot of folks ordinarily "on the right" who can't stand Kimmel objected to the government getting involved in his cancellation.

---