Jimmy Kimmel’s short-lived ratings spike comes to screeching halt

Damocles said:
And if he did it like someone in government rather than like someone in "Sanitation" who just witnessed 'dis radio wut fell off da truck' it may have still have been going, instead he gave them a route to "First Amendment" by addressing it in public with a threat...
Click to expand...
No, the FCC rule on the "public interest" does nor involve First Amendment consideration. The FCC has an exception to the First Amendment to control the content of the airwaves "in the public interest."

There are many exceptions to the First Amendment.

The Communications Act of 1934 is a United States federal law signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on June 19, 1934, and codified as Chapter 5 of Title 47 of the United States Code, 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. The act replaced the Federal Radio Commission with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

The Act and its amendments have not been successfully challenged.

Since I have a FCC license and had to pass a test on its rules and regulations, I claim the "Supremacy Clause."
I have to have a copy of PART 97—Amateur Radio Service Rules, in my home.
 
Last edited:
Earl said:
No, the FCC rule on the "public interest" does nor involve First Amendment consideration. The FCC has an exception to the First Amendment to control the content of the airwaves "in the public interest."

There are many exceptions to the First Amendment.
Click to expand...
However, threats in public by someone official to take someone off the air "the easy way or the hard way" do. If there were none he would not be on the air.

If Carr was not inept, Kimmel would not be on the air. Carr is inept and stupid, doesn't know how to use plausible deniability, and created the result he has wrought.

Basically, if he acted like someone in government and used the phone and not a podcast, it would not look like the government was punishing someone for speech giving a path back to the airwaves. We know that this happened, because Kimmel is on the air. We don't need any further proof of it than that.
 
Damocles said:
And if he did it like someone in government rather than like someone in "Sanitation" who just witnessed 'dis radio wut fell off da truck' it may have still have been going, instead he gave them a route to "First Amendment" by addressing it in public with a threat...
Click to expand...
That is ridiculous. They whined about the 1st amendment when he clearly violated FCC standards. It's no different than Kimmel using the F word on the public's airwaves. Carr cut ABC a break. If Carr had fined ABC liberals would have whined about that too. Carr just fired a shot across ABC's bow and said you fix this or we will. 100% appropriate thing to do. ABC should count themselves lucky. Kimmel overstepped he got his hand slapped. The FCC is satisfied but they are still watching.
 
Damocles said:
However, threats in public by someone official to take someone off the air "the easy way or the hard way" do. If there were none he would not be on the air.

If Carr was not inept, Kimmel would not be on the air. Carr is inept and stupid, doesn't know how to use plausible deniability, and created the result he has wrought.

Basically, if he acted like someone in government and used the phone and not a podcast, it would not look like the government was punishing someone for speech giving a path back to the airwaves. We know that this happened, because Kimmel is on the air. We don't need any further proof of it than that.
Click to expand...
No, the statement by Commissioner Carr was part of his responsibility to control the public airwaves "in the the public interest."

It was a warning that Kimmel was not operating in the public interest.

Kimmel's viability as a late night comedian will be determined by the public's interest in his show, of which for years has been very low.

Nothing has changed to make Kimmel a better comedian.

The content of his show is under the control of the FCC.

The FCC regulates broadcast content to ensure compliance with federal laws.

There is no need for plausible deniability, Commissioner Carr has done his job.
 
FastLane said:
That is ridiculous. They whined about the 1st amendment when he clearly violated FCC standards. It's no different than Kimmel using the F word on the public's airwaves. Carr cut ABC a break. If Carr had fined ABC liberals would have whined about that too. Carr just fired a shot across ABC's bow and said you fix this or we will. 100% appropriate thing to do. ABC should count themselves lucky. Kimmel overstepped he got his hand slapped. The FCC is satisfied but they are still watching.
Click to expand...

One hundred percent.

Try violating an FCC reg. and you will receive a call from the FCC Engineer in Charge.

I have seen it happen.

Damo has no clue as to the power of the FCC...given to them by Congress.
 
Hate is what caused the murder of a man of God, Charlie Kirk.

His widow is trying to carry on his mission.

His two young children have no father.

There are some cretins on this forum, the poster of no. 49 is one.
 
Earl said:
No, the statement by Commissioner Carr was part of his responsibility to control the public airwaves "in the the public interest."

It was a warning that Kimmel was not operating in the public interest.

Kimmel's viability as a late night comedian will be determined by the public's interest in his show, of which for years has been very low.

Nothing has changed to make Kimmel a better comedian.

The content of his show is under the control of the FCC.

The FCC regulates broadcast content to ensure compliance with federal laws.

There is no need for plausible deniability, Commissioner Carr has done his job.
Click to expand...
Read this again -

The FCC regulates broadcast content to ensure compliance with federal laws.

What law did Kimmel violate? Remember that the first amendment is part of the supreme law of the land. When it comes to showing a violation of the law you have to use actual facts of what Kimmel said. Not what you on the RW spout about how bad it was.
 
Phantasmal said:
There are even some MAGAts criticizing her behavior.
Click to expand...
Her behavior is valiant, her husband was murdered and she is trying to carry on his mission.

Charlie’s mission was simple yet profound: to defend free speech, to champion open debate, and to keep alive the promise of a free society.

And to get young people back to God.

A noble mission cut short by a radical, a murderer.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Read this again -

The FCC regulates broadcast content to ensure compliance with federal laws.

What law did Kimmel violate? Remember that the first amendment is part of the supreme law of the land. When it comes to showing a violation of the law you have to use actual facts of what Kimmel said. Not what you on the RW spout about how bad it was.
Click to expand...
Is that you, Pobre?

I can't hear you because you are too irrelevant, and if the past is any indication, too uneducated.

Poor Pobre.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top