Edit: oh here we go. Partisan first amendment issues were perfectly fine to discuss here when it was about Twitter. But, different ox being gored now, so we’re going to flag this into oblivion. Absolute frauds.
He has better-than-typical odds of clearing the standing hurdle. He was directly harmed, right.
But he's going to have some pretty high evidentiary hurdles, right? Discovery may well turn up that Nextar pulled his shows preemptively, both because of political affiliation and because of an upcoming merger. They didn't need to be "jawboned", and there's not much indication that they were even contacted by the FCC.
When the largest affiliate network in the country pulls your show, it's harder to make the case that ABC itself was responding directly to the FCC, which is what Kimmel will need to establish.
These are positive and not normative arguments and my confidence level is extremely low.
Brendan Carr: "This is a very, very serious issue right now for Disney. We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel, or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead."
Nice merger you have planned there, sure would be a shame if something were to happen to it.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/18/entertainment/abc-jimmy-kimme...
I imagine a smoking gun will be demanded by this SCOTUS though, and this kind of stochastic "would be nice if someone..." pressure/threat will get a pass.
Hmm, with ABC or the government? (Can individuals claim damages in court against the government for First Amendment violations?)
If it were found Carr was acting unconstitutionally, and thus clearly outside the colour of law, could he be found personally liable?
(Side note: thank you, this is what I was hoping for when I posted this here.)
"Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors."
This gives the legal grounds that he KNEW what he was doing is a violation of law/the Constitution. It is not a grey area and the Trump admin would not be unaware of a case that the NRA WON last year.
https://bsky.app/profile/barbarasobel.bsky.social/post/3lz4u...
There's also just a large affiliate station ownership that is conservative, and a large number of affiliates in markets that are themselves very conservative, and Kimmel did say something really dumb that probably did piss a lot of people off in a diffuse, organic way.
Again: I hope he sues, I hope he gets to the inside of a courtroom, and obviously I hope he wins. But speaking descriptively, rather than just what I want to see happening: he has bigger problems than standing ahead of him.
See: Republicans Kill Attempt to Subpoena FCC Chair After Jimmy Kimmel Suspension https://talkingpointsmemo.com/where-things-stand/republicans...
and other sources.
Hard to know if that's true, of course.
source?
is one article discussing such. gets more vague the further in.
> Anna Gomez, the FCC’s lone Democratic commissioner, tells TNR that chairman Brendan Carr’s move violates both the First Amendment and the Communications Act. Democrats must extract consequences.
* https://newrepublic.com/article/200649/trump-ouster-kimmel-a...
* https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2025/aug/...
"The Rule of Law Is Dead in the US":
* https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/the-rule-of-law-i...
Quite seriously
He has a right to speak his mind, not to have a show.
Short answer: depends on his contract.
Longer answer: if ABC fired him because of illegal threats from Carr, one could construct the argument that ABC and Carr conspired illegally to subvert Kimmel’s First Amendment rights. (Whether this is legal nonsense is beyond me.)
Late night has been dying for a decade. Disney gets cover to end the show.
Kimmel knows it’s over. He gets to go down looking like he’s fighting instead of unentertaining.
Trump gets to claim he took down Kimmel, red meat for his base.
News and Social Media gets something to boost their numbers.
Even better: he uses the opportunity to make it clear that any kind of comment that is out of line with the administration will not be tolerated.
He didn't go down fighting. He went out demonstrating the consequence of not agreeing.
The chilling effect is not "kayfabe".
Plus of you're going out in a blaze, it's something more substantive than what he said.
Did this antifa compile lists of "enemy" professors in colleges and media for their supporters to attack?.. No, that was Charlie that did that.
>As is comparing it to a recently assassinated political leader.
Charlie wasn't a political leader he was podcaster making money off advertising. I realize the line is a little blurred for you but the difference is a politician is someone that runs in elections.
Terrorists do terrorism. What terrorism has Antifa done? (Answer: little to none [1].)
I’m not a fan of them. But they’re about as obnoxious as several far-right groups that have been legally sanctioned by both parties.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/27/us-rightwing-e...
I guess my case is made by the hysterical nature of this comment. The people arguing Antifa are terrorists aren’t working with facts, but hyperactive emotions.
However consider that you may have the emotional "difficulty" if, in your view, the observer who looks at the frequent terroristic violence of the Antifa domestic violent extremists (DVEs) is the location of the emotional problem.
Do you remember when Antifa kicked-in a full-wall of entrance-door windows at UC Davis, where Charlie Kirk was speaking?
That frightening event is on-video from the perspective of the attendees and security guards who were being terrorized on the other side of the doors.
This being one of countless on-video Antifa terrorist actions. Do you wish to litigate more of the on-video Antifa terrorist acts? Many are much worse.
High level political leader Charlie Kirk is now dead due to an assassin's bullet. An assassin who carved antifascist phrases onto multiple bullets.
What was that, again, in regard to hyperactive emotions and working with facts?
Objectively, Antifa are terrorists. Antifa is being designated a terrorist organization for that reason.
Defend them all that you like, but keep that reality in-mind.
What's your guess on the percentage of people commenting here who felt elation at Kirk's assassination? That disgusting percentage would be a true tell.
No need to answer, as everyone knows what it is and I don't need to read a lie that literally no one believes.
Antifa is being designated a terrorist org for good reason.
Moreover, the American left has a structural DVE problem. In terms of both actors and, crucially, in terms of supporters of their actions.
This widespread DVE support problem in the DNC voter population, highlighted after a high level political assassination, is why Kimmel is now off of the air.
If Kimmel fights this, he'll essentially be fighting an anti-radicalization effort initiated by the US government to confront a true political stability crisis after an assassination. Which is a US National Security issue.
If your high profile speech serves to maintain or further the radicalization of the DVE's after a catastrophic DVE event, then expect legal pushback. Not understanding where you are in the timeline will be continuously frustrating.
But keep talking, if you still think that you aren't entirely oblivious to how the most powerful governments in the World see Antifa in this moment in history.
Do you think that you can convince them, let alone the populace of the United States of your views? The wheels have long-been turning.
Antifa's self-proclaimed popularity is a fiction. Anyone who has differing views from them feels intimidated by them, hates them, and is terrorized by them. Which is the definition of effective terrorism.
Nothing like Antifa can be allowed to continue to exist in civilization. Common citizens cannot be afraid of being accosted by political actors when attending events of any kind. They cannot be afraid of walking or driving through an Antifa mob, when not going to events. Which they are, for very good reason rooted in Antifa terroristic behaviors. There was always a clock on Antifa.
Like all significant criminal enterprises, Antifa can only continue to exist within civilization because it is protected by at least portions of the government and institutions. Which is what everyone witnessed in 2020, at minimum. Otherwise, police and agencies easily and eagerly would have destroyed any will to organize as violent Black Bloc. Believing anything else is self-delusion. Antifa's self-concept has always been a farce.
But that support is 100% over once designated as a terrorist org.
Antifa had high-level institutional protection. Now it can not.
I recommend de-radicalization.
Antifascists is an adolescent and violent ideology, to match their declared opponents. But if you push too much against it, you might create an united front that is ideologically way more dangerous (especially with how low the confidence in capitalism is) and the US will have to go full McCarthyism again.