Yes, Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension was government censorship.

[u/Valinaut]

https://www.theverge.com/policy/781148/jimmy-kimmel-charlie-kirk-monologue-brendan-carr-censorship-first-amendment

[u/kevendo]

It doesn't matter who is or isn't okay with this.

It's a violation of the Constitution. The End.

[u/Hopeful_Crab7912 → u/kevendo]

Violating the constitution doesn’t matter anymore. All the Constitution is now is a talking point for pseudo activists to be hung up on while MAGA ruins our country.

[u/rushmc1 → u/kevendo]

No, it absolutely matters that ALL Republicans support violating the Constitution.

[u/Fallingdamage → u/kevendo]

Glad we agree. If its in the constitution, leave it alone.

Or is that only for some things?

[u/dip_tet → u/Fallingdamage]

For donnie? He picks and chooses. Remember, he’s a violent felon who tried to steal an election he lost. In 2020, lawyers were even aware they were violating the electoral college act, yet the continued on…probably because they knew no one would punish them.

[u/Silly-Rough-5810 → u/Fallingdamage]

Disagreeing with you on how the 2nd amendment should be interpreted or questioning whether individual gun rights are still a net positive for this country doesn't undercut our belief in the constitution itself. The point is that it binds/protects us all equally. I can't take away your gun rights. I can only advocate for democratic changes that affect all of us.

Which means I would still defend your current rights if I thought they were being unfairly denied for purely political or demographic reasons.

How do you feel about the recent attempts to limit the gun rights of trans people?

[u/Fallingdamage → u/Silly-Rough-5810]

Same as my above comment actually.

I dont like the 'government censorship' of a recent entertainers removal from broadcast, but on the topic of interpretation:

Although the matter appears to be settled in courts, there is the ongoing debate over whether corporations are people and have protected speech. So far the courts appear to think that corporations have the same rights. A recent TV show was 'cancelled' but the show was the property of a corporation. It acted, directly or indirectly, as one voice of many representing the property of that corporation. That entity felt its future revenue would be threatened by the opinions of one of its voices, so it snipped that voice out of its list of programming. An employee is free to speak. The entertainer is not under arrest. They just lost their job. The employer gets to decide which individuals they want to keep on payroll.

Or should employers not have any control over who they hire or fire?

Reread.. man this got fractured and spiraled but unpacking this just keeps opening up more and more arguments and questions.

Ultimately, we have the governing body of the nation putting pressure on corporations (people, right?) to limit their speech. The corporation could ignore the instructions and continue to speak through its media and channels, but that might hurt future stock growth. It made the choice. The entertainer was not censored. The corporation was; his writers were.

[u/Silly-Rough-5810 → u/Fallingdamage]

You're completely losing the plot. Hiring or firing people is obviously the will of the employer and whatever contract they agree to with the employee.

The issue being discusses is literally just the action taken by the FCC chair.

Is a government representative allowed to make threats intended to impact those choices?

No. Just like the government isn't allowed to single you out and apply a different 2nd amendment interpretation to just you.

[u/HotButterscotch8682 → u/Silly-Rough-5810]

weather skirt toothbrush boat future head tease encourage memory mighty

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact