This, alongside the cancelling of Jimmy Kimmel today, raises all kinds of red flags. We're about to find out just how well the First Amendment holds up under an autocrat.
hypeatei · 2h ago
> cancelling of Jimmy Kimmel today
Just to clarify for anyone skimming: ABC faced pressure from FCC chair Brendan Carr after he said their broadcasting license was at risk from Kimmel's statements on Tyler Robinson, the alleged Kirk assassin.
Relatedly, Sinclair Media (which owns several ABC-affiliated broadcasting stations and has long been regarded as skewing very conservative) issued a statement suggesting that Kimmel could only be rehabilitated by apologizing and making substantial donations to Kirk's estate and to Turning Point USA.
I highly suggest watching the clip in question. Pod Save America just covered this and included the FCC's explanation for why they're going after shows like Kimmel. Really chilling stuff[0]
I don’t think FCC pressure was what led to this. Nexstar, which owns stations that are affiliates of ABC, made a choice to remove the show from their stations. Their reasoning has nothing to do with the government or first amendment. Here is what they said:
> “Mr. Kimmel’s comments about the death of Mr. Kirk are offensive and insensitive at a critical time in our national political discourse, and we do not believe they reflect the spectrum of opinions, views, or values of the local communities in which we are located,” said Andrew Alford, President of Nexstar’s broadcasting division. “Continuing to give Mr. Kimmel a broadcast platform in the communities we serve is simply not in the public interest at the current time, and we have made the difficult decision to preempt his show in an effort to let cooler heads prevail as we move toward the resumption of respectful, constructive dialogue.”
This decision and their public statement about it, coupled with social media pressure, led ABC to making a decision afterwards about the show.
CodingJeebus · 2h ago
The implication here is that Nexstar wants a merger, which requires FCC approval. How does one get FCC approval under the current administration? Do them a favor and apply leverage to out a political opponent.
SilverElfin · 2h ago
The merger is a good point. Assuming that the commissioners (not just Carr) were to participate in such a scheme. But this type of indirect regulatory pressure wouldn’t be new. Many tech companies implemented government directed online censorship (for example on COVID related topics) because they were worried about antitrust actions.
CodingJeebus · 1h ago
Yeah, and that was wrong too. Are you saying that because the government has overreached in the past makes this situation acceptable?
Braxton1980 · 1h ago
And Republicans protested loudly about this making freedom of speech a key reason to vote for them
hypeatei · 1h ago
> Many tech companies implemented government directed online censorship
Can you provide evidence for this? Right wing truisms are not sufficient.
SilverElfin · 1h ago
It is very easy to find lots of evidence with a few searches if you’re curious. Here is one:
Edit: can’t reply to comment below me but that quote is referring to the instances where the company pushed back. It’s not saying they didn’t comply at all - they absolutely did on many instances, and Zuckerberg admitted guilt over it. See later quote:
> “I also think we made some choices that, with the benefit of hindsight and new information, we wouldn’t make today,” he said, without elaborating. “We’re ready to push back if something like this happens again.”
hypeatei · 1h ago
The officials “expressed a lot of frustration” when the company didn’t agree, he said in the letter.
This contradicts the point you made. Did they or did they not implement them?
I want to thank Nexstar for doing the right thing.
Local broadcasters have an obligation to serve the public interest. While this may be an unprecedented decision, it is important for broadcasters to push back on Disney programming that they determine falls short of community values.
I hope that other broadcasters follow Nexstar’s lead.
Amusingly, one of the replies quotes Carr in 2019 saying 'The FCC does not have a mandate to police speech in the name of the 'public interest.''
So Brendan Carr threatening their license and them cancelling the show is a coincidence? Is that what you're arguing?
SilverElfin · 2h ago
I’m saying the sequence of events was that Nexstar’s voluntary actions, which they shared their justification for, immediately led to broader ABC action, which they pretty much had to before other groups of stations did the same and turned it into an embarrassing moment for Disney.
As for Carr - he is staunchly in support of first amendment rights. Politico wrote about this yesterday since he split from the rest of the GOP on broader censorship (https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/16/fcc-brendan-carr-so...). He also can’t take unilateral action - the commissioners would have to vote. But the FCC has a lot of content rules for the mediums they regulate, which have thus far held up in courts (although I find it questionable). In that sense, what he was suggesting may be legal (unfortunately).
hypeatei · 2h ago
> As for Carr - he is staunchly in support of first amendment rights
Right, because he said this on a conservative podcast:
Hours earlier, FCC Chair Brendan Carr told conservative podcaster Benny Johnson that Kimmel’s comments were “truly sick,” and that there was a “strong case” for action against ABC and Disney.
“This is a very, very serious issue right now for Disney. We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr said. “These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel, or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”
"easy way or the hard way" sounds pretty staunchly against the first amendment to me and more like a fascist thug.
SilverElfin · 2h ago
I linked an article that you may want to read. He is against any actions taken around online speech due to the first amendment. He is okay with applying FCC’s regulatory authority because the courts - including SCOTUS - have upheld its constitutionality (prior to this administration).
anigbrowl · 1h ago
I'm confused - are you saying he didn't make the remarks quoted above?
SilverElfin · 1h ago
No, I am not saying that. What I am saying is that he seems to care about acting along the lines of what is constitutional. And the FCC has regulatory authority over broadcasted TV, including on the content itself to some extent. The authority of the FCC on regulating the actual content has been upheld across numerous court cases as being constitutional. The article I linked shows he is unwilling to implement censorship that is unconstitutional despite there being some calls for it on the political right.
anigbrowl · 1h ago
OK, but you are ignoring other stuff he said that appears to contradict that - the remarks posted above, and also his reaction to the suspension where he calls on other companies to do the same thing (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45284746).
I get that you support the remarks he made yesterday, but I would like to know what you think of the remarks he made today.
Braxton1980 · 1h ago
If he is unwilling then why did he say this
"“This is a very, very serious issue right now for Disney. We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr said. “These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel, or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead."
It's still censorship even if the FCC has regulatory ability. Censorship is a type of action.
If the FCC bans porn before 10pm that's still censorship. You can argue whether it's justified or not
SilverElfin · 59m ago
> It's still censorship even if the FCC has regulatory ability. Censorship is a type of action.
> If the FCC bans porn before 10pm that's still censorship. You can argue whether it's justified or not
I agree with both of these statements. But I don’t think that contradicts my point necessarily. I’m saying his approach is to do things that are censorship but are also legal, but to refuse to do things that are illegal even if there is political pressure to do so. I also noted in one of my other comments (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45284283) that I think it is unfortunate that the FCC has the authority to regulate content at all.
_DeadFred_ · 1h ago
It should be noted this FCC guy expressly stated in the past that the FCC should not do this sort of thing.
Braxton1980 · 1h ago
Upheld the rights with limits related to indecency
FCC v. Pacifica Foundation
fzeroracer · 2h ago
Right, don't listen to Brendan Carr's actions or the words he literally tells you, instead read this completely separate article about how he's totally in favor of Freedom of Speech while stomping on your rights. Do you even see the cognitive dissonance in play here or are you just completely in favor of running interference for someone taking actions against the constitution?
scheeseman486 · 2h ago
You're talking as if the rubicon hasn't been crossed. These aren't "red flags", they're concrete actions. It isn't the first amendment that needed to hold up, that is just a piece of paper. It's institutions like the Supreme Court that are supposed to stop these kinds of actions and they did not, since it's been stacked with those who uncritically support everything Trump does.
The United States is a fascist dictatorship. It's not turning into one, it has already happened.
hypeatei · 3h ago
I'm not sure you could consider Antifa an "organization" even in its prime ~5 years ago. Is anyone protesting fascism going to fall under this umbrella?
kccoder · 2h ago
That’s a feature for them. Are you against fascism? Congrats, your rights have been reduced. Pray they don’t reduce them further.
And with the neutering of lower courts to impose nationwide injunctions, they’ll get pretty far before we get a final judicial ruling, likely on the shadow docket.
CodingJeebus · 3h ago
> Is anyone protesting fascism going to fall under this umbrella?
That is correct.
Telaneo · 3h ago
Is Antifa even relevant anymore? I haven't heard any news about them since before COVID. What sparked this now?
panarchy · 2h ago
That's because Antifa never really existed but was a convenient boogeyman to keep people afraid and in line.
mycall · 3h ago
What is the opposite of Antifa? Have you heard that word a lot lately? What does Trump support?
rolph · 2h ago
turning point
Telaneo · 2h ago
I am aware of the current US administration. But what's the point in denouncing an organisation which barely even exists today (as far as I can tell)? I don't see them denouncing the Communist Party USA, but I would see about as much point in that as in this.
rolph · 2h ago
give the people something to hate, to fear, and lay the blame on that which must be removed.
defrost · 2h ago
It's a constant part of history wrt autocracy and securing power.
If, for example, I call you out for being a fascist (or even falsely accuse you of such) then I must be anti fascist and therefore a terrorist, an enemy of the state, someone that can be seized from the streets and cast into a black hole somewhere.
The particulars don't matter, be it Red Scare (and under the bed), Yellow Peril, Anti-Fa, et al. the playbook is familiar.
Telaneo · 2h ago
As if they needed more reasons to be authoritarian. They seem to be able to be that just fine without this, but I guess even they need some sort of reasoning, however flimsy, and more options to pick from probably does help them achieve their goals.
SilverElfin · 2h ago
Yes they still show up in masks and black outfits at events in particular cities (Portland and Seattle in particular), disrupting others’ legal activities, and intimidating people (for example by holding cans of pepper spray in their hand and shaking them), or committing outright violence.
I’m not sure how you haven’t heard of them since “before COVID”. They were far more active post COVID and George Floyd. You can find lots written about their activities online, and lots of videos as well.
Most of his content is literally just showing evidence in photos and videos of what is happening. The reason critics of him always deflect to some kind of character attack is because they know the evidence is damning.
TimorousBestie · 1h ago
The LA Times’ review of _Unmasked_ (2021):
> There is an alternate universe out there in which we never have to ponder, let alone read, “Unmasked,” provocateur Andy Ngo’s supremely dishonest new book on the left-wing anti-fascist movement known as antifa.
[. . . ]
> The right is always reminding us that ”facts don’t care about your feelings,” so let us set out some facts. Ngo writes that the “numbers and influence” of right-wing extremists “are grossly exaggerated by biased media,” while antifa poses “just as much, if not more, of a threat to the future of American liberal democracy.” He frequently references [2020’s] anti-racism protests, conveniently eliding the point that 93% were peaceful, according to a study from Princeton. A brief published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, hardly a lefty outfit, found that antifa had a “minor” role in what violence did occur, most of which was driven by local, autonomous actors, and that the organization’s threat was “relatively small.”
> January 6th administered the coup de grâce to Ngo’s already teetering thesis. It should not have taken this long, however. Trump’s own Department of Homeland Security warned last October that “white supremacist extremists” would remain the “most persistent and lethal threat” to the American homeland.
The LA Times is itself is biased, which makes sense given its location and audience (https://www.allsides.com/news-source/los-angeles-times-bias). But this article is frankly well beyond the typical lean left bias of the LA Times, annd it is just dripping with that bias - for example by flippantly claiming that the shake thrown at Andy Ngo by antifa, which gave him a head injury, must have been a “vegan blend heavy on cashew butter”. Funny perhaps, but far from credible. Let’s also not ignore that the author of this article is also author of at least one book and many articles criticizing the right, and is therefore not a balanced source in general, not just on this topic.
My suggestion - if you’re genuinely curious about this topic, go watch videos of antifa in cities like Portland or Seattle and decide with your own eyes what you want to believe.
TimorousBestie · 44m ago
Yes, I heard you the first time, you believe he’s a “solid journalist.” So it goes. I have no intention of convincing you otherwise. However, others may appreciate some context to your (also biased, obviously) account.
jonahbenton · 2h ago
Antifa is a meme, not an organization, you say.
And now you see: that is the point.
SilverElfin · 2h ago
It’s an organization. Decentralization doesn’t change that.
phs318u · 34m ago
Any kind of proof? Because at this stage, you're reminding me of the scene in the Monty Python film "Life of Brian" when poor old Brian keeps denying that he is the messiah only to be told by his followers that "Only the true messiah denies his divinity".
We may as well go ahead and get the People's Front of Judea banned as a terrorist organisation.
jonahbenton · 1h ago
No, it's a joke.
Braxton1980 · 1h ago
What makes it an organization?
scarecrowbob · 42m ago
I mean, I have a t-shirt and anarchists sometimes call me to wear a hi viz vest and hold a walkie talkie during demonstrations.
There is "organization" but it's certainly not -an- organization. Anybody that says there is doesn't know what they are talking about.
gcau · 2h ago
I'm not sure if they meet the requirements for being a terrorist group or if I agree with them being considered terrorists, but I just want to point out the name of the organisation isn't a valid argument in favour of them, the actions of the organisation matter a lot more than the name, for example on many occasions they've used violence to prevent people from political speech (is that antifascism or fascism?)
macawfish · 2h ago
It's not an organization, it's a grass roots movement.
However, I agree with you in a sense, in that movements with names are inherently vulnerable to cooptation and suppression.
SilverElfin · 2h ago
It is obviously a terrorist organization and this is long overdue. Antifa members engage in intimidation, violence, and criminality in support of political goals. That meets the definition of “terrorism” explicitly. As for people trying to claim there is no such group - the gaslighting isn’t working anymore. Decentralization doesn’t change what it is. And there are clearly well known, well documented, organized cells like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_City_Antifa
In the USA you can't declare domestic organization terrorists. This is to prevent the government from weaponizing such declarations against political opponents. You might want to understand our government, laws, and political protections before cheering on something like this.
FYI the United State just starting extra judicially using the US military to execute people on random boats in the name of fighting terrorist organizations. And now you are cheering them on taking steps to have the same authority they claim allows them to do that on US soil?
bediger4000 · 1h ago
I thought that there really wasn't an "Antifa" as such, that anyone could call themselves or their organization "Antifa".
But if there is an "Antifa", and it's made up of US citizens, under what law are they terrorists? Again, I may be misinformed, but I had understood "terrorist" as a legal designation was for non-US-citizens.
_DeadFred_ · 2h ago
In the United States the terrorist designation process is legally limited to foreign organizations and not allowed for domestic ones because there is a fear that allowing that could be weaponized against Americans or political foes.
Just to clarify for anyone skimming: ABC faced pressure from FCC chair Brendan Carr after he said their broadcasting license was at risk from Kimmel's statements on Tyler Robinson, the alleged Kirk assassin.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/17/charlie-kirk-jimmy-kimmel-ab...
https://x.com/WeAreSinclair/status/1968474667049525634
0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIFuvI2ruS8
> “Mr. Kimmel’s comments about the death of Mr. Kirk are offensive and insensitive at a critical time in our national political discourse, and we do not believe they reflect the spectrum of opinions, views, or values of the local communities in which we are located,” said Andrew Alford, President of Nexstar’s broadcasting division. “Continuing to give Mr. Kimmel a broadcast platform in the communities we serve is simply not in the public interest at the current time, and we have made the difficult decision to preempt his show in an effort to let cooler heads prevail as we move toward the resumption of respectful, constructive dialogue.”
This decision and their public statement about it, coupled with social media pressure, led ABC to making a decision afterwards about the show.
Can you provide evidence for this? Right wing truisms are not sufficient.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/zuckerberg-says-the-wh...
Edit: can’t reply to comment below me but that quote is referring to the instances where the company pushed back. It’s not saying they didn’t comply at all - they absolutely did on many instances, and Zuckerberg admitted guilt over it. See later quote:
> “I also think we made some choices that, with the benefit of hindsight and new information, we wouldn’t make today,” he said, without elaborating. “We’re ready to push back if something like this happens again.”
I want to thank Nexstar for doing the right thing.
Local broadcasters have an obligation to serve the public interest. While this may be an unprecedented decision, it is important for broadcasters to push back on Disney programming that they determine falls short of community values.
I hope that other broadcasters follow Nexstar’s lead.
Amusingly, one of the replies quotes Carr in 2019 saying 'The FCC does not have a mandate to police speech in the name of the 'public interest.''
https://x.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1968485214511878199
As for Carr - he is staunchly in support of first amendment rights. Politico wrote about this yesterday since he split from the rest of the GOP on broader censorship (https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/16/fcc-brendan-carr-so...). He also can’t take unilateral action - the commissioners would have to vote. But the FCC has a lot of content rules for the mediums they regulate, which have thus far held up in courts (although I find it questionable). In that sense, what he was suggesting may be legal (unfortunately).
Right, because he said this on a conservative podcast:
"easy way or the hard way" sounds pretty staunchly against the first amendment to me and more like a fascist thug.I get that you support the remarks he made yesterday, but I would like to know what you think of the remarks he made today.
"“This is a very, very serious issue right now for Disney. We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr said. “These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel, or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead."
It's still censorship even if the FCC has regulatory ability. Censorship is a type of action.
If the FCC bans porn before 10pm that's still censorship. You can argue whether it's justified or not
> If the FCC bans porn before 10pm that's still censorship. You can argue whether it's justified or not
I agree with both of these statements. But I don’t think that contradicts my point necessarily. I’m saying his approach is to do things that are censorship but are also legal, but to refuse to do things that are illegal even if there is political pressure to do so. I also noted in one of my other comments (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45284283) that I think it is unfortunate that the FCC has the authority to regulate content at all.
FCC v. Pacifica Foundation
The United States is a fascist dictatorship. It's not turning into one, it has already happened.
And with the neutering of lower courts to impose nationwide injunctions, they’ll get pretty far before we get a final judicial ruling, likely on the shadow docket.
That is correct.
If, for example, I call you out for being a fascist (or even falsely accuse you of such) then I must be anti fascist and therefore a terrorist, an enemy of the state, someone that can be seized from the streets and cast into a black hole somewhere.
The particulars don't matter, be it Red Scare (and under the bed), Yellow Peril, Anti-Fa, et al. the playbook is familiar.
I’m not sure how you haven’t heard of them since “before COVID”. They were far more active post COVID and George Floyd. You can find lots written about their activities online, and lots of videos as well.
Andy Ngo has done a great job documenting this. I’m sure someone is going to respond to my comment with character attacks on Andy Ngo but his journalism is solid. He wrote a book about Antifa (https://www.centerstreet.com/titles/andy-ngo/unmasked/978154...) and also has a lot of content on his website (https://www.ngocomment.com/)
https://www.reddit.com/r/BreadTube/comments/10cxkk2/getting_...
> There is an alternate universe out there in which we never have to ponder, let alone read, “Unmasked,” provocateur Andy Ngo’s supremely dishonest new book on the left-wing anti-fascist movement known as antifa.
[. . . ]
> The right is always reminding us that ”facts don’t care about your feelings,” so let us set out some facts. Ngo writes that the “numbers and influence” of right-wing extremists “are grossly exaggerated by biased media,” while antifa poses “just as much, if not more, of a threat to the future of American liberal democracy.” He frequently references [2020’s] anti-racism protests, conveniently eliding the point that 93% were peaceful, according to a study from Princeton. A brief published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, hardly a lefty outfit, found that antifa had a “minor” role in what violence did occur, most of which was driven by local, autonomous actors, and that the organization’s threat was “relatively small.”
> January 6th administered the coup de grâce to Ngo’s already teetering thesis. It should not have taken this long, however. Trump’s own Department of Homeland Security warned last October that “white supremacist extremists” would remain the “most persistent and lethal threat” to the American homeland.
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/books/story/2021-...
My suggestion - if you’re genuinely curious about this topic, go watch videos of antifa in cities like Portland or Seattle and decide with your own eyes what you want to believe.
And now you see: that is the point.
We may as well go ahead and get the People's Front of Judea banned as a terrorist organisation.
There is "organization" but it's certainly not -an- organization. Anybody that says there is doesn't know what they are talking about.
However, I agree with you in a sense, in that movements with names are inherently vulnerable to cooptation and suppression.
No comments yet
FYI the United State just starting extra judicially using the US military to execute people on random boats in the name of fighting terrorist organizations. And now you are cheering them on taking steps to have the same authority they claim allows them to do that on US soil?
But if there is an "Antifa", and it's made up of US citizens, under what law are they terrorists? Again, I may be misinformed, but I had understood "terrorist" as a legal designation was for non-US-citizens.