ABC yanks Jimmy Kimmel’s show ‘indefinitely’ after threat from FCC chair

2025-09-1723:006511070www.cnn.com

Disney’s ABC is taking Jimmy Kimmel’s late night talk show off the air indefinitely amid a controversy over his recent comments about Charlie Kirk’s suspected killer.

Disney’s ABC is taking Jimmy Kimmel’s late night talk show off the air indefinitely amid a controversy over his recent comments about Charlie Kirk’s suspected killer.

“Jimmy Kimmel Live will be pre-empted indefinitely,” an ABC spokesperson said, declining to share any further details.

A representative for Kimmel did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The stunning decision came just a few hours after the Trump administration official responsible for licensing ABC’s local stations publicly pressured the company to punish Kimmel.

At least two major owners of ABC-affiliated stations subsequently said they would preempt Kimmel’s show, sparking speculation that the owners were trying to curry favor with the administration. The local media conglomerates are each seeking mergers that would require administration approval.

As Kimmel prepared to tape Wednesday night’s episode in Hollywood, ABC decided to pull the plug, much to the astonishment of the entertainment industry.

Free speech and free expression groups immediately condemned ABC, calling the suspension cowardly, while President Trump, who frequently sparred with Kimmel, celebrated all the way from the UK, where he is on a state visit.

“Congratulations to ABC for finally having the courage to do what had to be done,” Trump wrote in a post on his Truth Social platform. “That leaves Jimmy (Fallon) and Seth, two total losers, on Fake News NBC. Their ratings are also horrible. Do it NBC!!!”

The indefinite hiatus underscores how politicized opinions and comments around the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk have become, with high-profile campaigns urging employers to fire people who make comments perceived as unflattering about Kirk.

And the president has also gone after media companies, specifically, when they displease him, as with a $15 billion defamation lawsuit he filed against the New York Times this week and lawsuits against other outlets.

During his Monday evening monologue, Kimmel said the MAGA movement was trying to score political points by trying to prove that Kirk’s alleged killer, Tyler Robinson, was not one of its own.

“The MAGA Gang (is) desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,” Kimmel said. “In between the finger-pointing, there was grieving.”

The ABC late-night host’s remarks constituted “the sickest conduct possible,” FCC chair Brendan Carr told right-wing podcaster Benny Johnson on Wednesday. Carr suggested his FCC could move to revoke ABC affiliate licenses as a way to force Disney to punish Kimmel.

“We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr said. “These companies can find ways to change conduct and take actions on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

And speaking on Fox Wednesday night, Carr suggested broadcasters would see more of this kind of pressure in the future.

“We at the FCC are going to force the public interest obligation. There are broadcasters out there that don’t like it, they can turn in their license in to the FCC,” Carr said. “But that’s our job. Again, we’re making some progress now.”

But Anna Gomez, the lone Democratic commissioner at the FCC, wrote on X that while “an inexcusable act of political violence by one disturbed individual must never be exploited as justification for broader censorship and control,” the Trump administration “is increasingly using the weight of government power to suppress lawful expression.”

Speaking with CNN’s Erin Burnett after Kimmel’s show was taken off the air, Gomez said “the First Amendment does not allow us, the FCC, to tell broadcasters what they can broadcast.”

“I saw the clip. He did not make any unfounded claims, but he did make a joke, one that others may even find crude, but that is neither illegal nor grounds for companies to capitulate to this administration in ways that violate the First Amendment,” Gomez told CNN. “This sets a dangerous new precedent, and companies must stand firm against any efforts to trade away First Amendment freedom.”

Pro-Trump websites and TV shows began to criticize Kimmel for his remarks on Tuesday, and as the story gained traction on Wednesday, some owners of ABC-affiliated stations felt compelled to speak out.

Nexstar, which operates about two dozen ABC affiliates, issued a press release saying it “strongly objects” to Kimmel’s remarks and saying its stations would “replace the show with other programming in its ABC-affiliated markets.”

Notably, Nexstar is seeking Trump administration approval to acquire another big US station group, Tegna. The deal requires the FCC to loosen the government’s limits on broadcast station ownership.

Minutes after Nexstar criticized Kimmel publicly, ABC said the show was being yanked nationwide.

Later in the evening, another big station group, Sinclair, said it had also told ABC that it was preempting Kimmel’s show on its ABC-affiliated stations before the network announced its nationwide decision.

Sinclair, too, has business pending before the Trump administration, and it made a bid for Tegna a day before Nexstar stepped in with its bid. The company announced Wednesday night that it will air a one-hour special tribute to Kirk on Friday night in Kimmel’s usual time slot.

Following ABC’s action to indefinitely pull Kimmel’s show off the air, Sinclair issued a statement saying the late-night host’s suspension “is not enough” and called on the network, the FCC and Kimmel to go further.

“Sinclair will not lift the suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live! on our stations until formal discussions are held with ABC regarding the network’s commitment to professionalism and accountability,” the company said in its statement. “Regardless of ABC’s plans for the future of the program, Sinclair intends not to return Jimmy Kimmel Live! to our air until we are confident that appropriate steps have been taken to uphold the standards expected of a national broadcast platform.”

Sinclair said it demanded Kimmel directly apologize to the Kirk family and make a “meaningful” donation to Kirk’s family and his organization, Turning Point USA.

The FCC regulates the public airwaves, including broadcast signals and content. Before Trump appointed Carr to lead the agency, the FCC, for the most part, had taken a hands-off approach to broadcasters’ political content in recent years.

But Carr has taken a broader view of the FCC’s remit to serve the public interest, and has served as a political attack dog for Trump, threatening his perceived enemies in the broadcast media.

“I can’t imagine another time when we’ve had local broadcasters tell a national programmer like Disney that your content no longer meets the needs and the values of our community,” Carr told Fox News’ Sean Hannity on Wednesday. “So this is an important turning point.”

The Center for American Rights, which has previously lodged bias complaints against NBC, ABC and CBS, on Wednesday filed a complaint with the FCC over Kimmel’s comments, writing that “it is no defense to say that Kimmel was engaging in satire or late-night comedy rather than traditional news.”

“ABC’s affiliates need to step up and hold ABC accountable as a network for passing through material that fails to respect the public-interest standard to which they are held,” Daniel Suhr, president of the Center for American Rights, wrote in the complaint. “Disney as ABC’s corporate owner needs to act directly to correct this problem.”

Kimmel has also been a frequent target of President Trump’s ire. Shortly after CBS announced the cancellation of Stephen Colbert’s late-night talk show — a move Carr publicly celebrated — Trump suggested that “Next up will be an even less talented Jimmy Kimmel.”


Read the original article

Comments

  • By dada78641 2025-09-1810:217 reply

    It really is kind of incredible. I just saw the clip and there really is absolutely nothing there. This is not even 10% as poignant of what Jon Stewart would say in his day. He doesn't even say anything about Kirk himself, or even about the murder—he just talks about the reaction to it.

    I already thought it was very suspicious that Sinclair's official press release just talks about how the remarks were "inappropriate and deeply insensitive" without describing anything about the actual remarks. And it even calls for the FCC to get involved?

    What this really says is: you should be very afraid, because we will completely demolish if it suits us and we don't need a pretext.

    • By fhdkweig 2025-09-1817:042 reply

      For those who want to see the full clip in context, he has a youtube channel (for now). The video in question is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHT7ICvMtlA (Sept 16, 2025) and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j3YdxNSzTk (Sept 15, 2025)

      • By belter 2025-09-1821:151 reply

        "The F.C.C. Threatened to Punish Kimmel ‘the Hard Way.’ ABC Made It Easy." - https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/18/arts/television/jimmy-kim...

        • By somenameforme 2025-09-194:531 reply

          Something I wasn't aware of before this event is that broadcast licensees, such as ABC, are required to 'serve the public interest' as a component of receiving and retaining their broadcast license, probably because there's a limited number of such licenses available and they are publicly broadcast for free. It's a significant aspect of their operational obligations including each renewal requiring a further description of how they have continued (and will continue) to serve the public interest.

          This is not the case for cable licensees, which goes a long way towards explaining why ABC/NBC/CBS/etc have all remained relatively sane in an era where it's clearly become most profitable to pick a side, pander, and confirm their every possible bias. This is because e.g. Fox News or MSNBC can get away with far more than ABC. And this is probably simply an example of something that you cannot get away with on public broadcasts.

          Deciding to try to 'joke' about a domestic political assassination, for which countless people are still grieving was dumb. Stating, "We hit some new lows with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them." was very dumb. I think the only issue that makes this debatable for people is the radicalized nature of politics.

          If this had been a white wing extremist who murdered a liberal guy who made a living posting public (and atypically respectful) debates, and Kimmel was then mocking it in a similar way, while further implying that killer himself was a Progressive or whatever, then obviously nobody, and I include conservatives there, would see any issues with him being canned.

      • By hnuser123456 2025-09-1818:5310 reply

        The quote cited in TFA claims that the murderer was "one of them". Now, why would someone take out a prominent spokesperson for their own party? They wouldn't, because that's not something that people do to other people they agree with. But somehow, people interpret that remark to make sense? The remark only makes sense if "one of them" refers to the fact the shooter was a white male, and the reader believes all white males are on the same side, and the enemy, and that the incident serves as entertainment. So, yes, I find that remark extremely problematic, and representative of increasingly tribal and divisive "us vs. them" mentality that is gridlocking the country. Not to mention, the comment is itself using the event for political "told-you-so"-ism, while criticizing others for doing exactly that, so it's utterly hypocritical. We can and must set a higher standard for our talking heads. If you want to be a popular figure without burning bridges, maybe don't be so brazenly racist and sexist to the point of publicly celebrating murder because it was "one of them", thinking that proves anything other than that the speaker is a sociopath?

        • By fhdkweig 2025-09-1819:21

          The "one of them" was a reference to the speculation that the killer would turn out to be a blue hair "tranny". https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/trump-loyalist-spreads-w...

          There was also the theory that it was a black person, hence all the death threats to historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) https://duckduckgo.com/?q=death+threats+hbcu

          So, yes, there was quite a bit of "see, it wasn't one of ours, it was one of yours" after the guy was caught. Especially when the images of the shooter's mother started surfacing indicating he was raised that way. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=tyler+robinson+mother+gun . Charlie Kirk's mother at the memorial service specifically blamed college for radicalizing him, saying that good mother's wouldn't send their kids to college. (I don't have that clip.)

          In general, my philosophy is to not speculate publicly when the shooter was going to get caught and identified quickly anyway.

        • By clw8 2025-09-1820:081 reply

          The governor of Utah used similar language:

          “For 33 hours, I was praying that if this had to happen here that it wouldn't be one of us — that somebody drove from another state, somebody came from another country… Sadly, that prayer was not answered the way I hoped for… But it did happen here, and it was one of us.”

          • By hnuser123456 2025-09-1820:45

            I took issue with that statement too. He's the governor. He must be aware that out of the millions of citizens of his own state, some commit crime. I think he went too far in trying to affirm people who believe their entire state is free of violence.

        • By justin66 2025-09-191:261 reply

          > Now, why would someone take out a prominent spokesperson for their own party?

          That's a question that actually has some easy examples if you'd care to study parties like Sinn Fein or Fatah or the CCCP or... you get the point. American politics has largely been free of this sort of in-fighting (and other kinds of political violence), but a political movement's leaders or followers can be targeted because they're deemed not sufficiently radical or too radical or what have you, or they've fallen out of favor, or they've done something the membership cannot accept, or whatever.

          Or, you know: maybe the person doing the "taking out" is just insane.

          > They wouldn't, because that's not something that people do to other people they agree with.

          Because that's just what a political party always is. A group of calm, rational people who are in total agreement on principles, goals and tactics and are entirely content with their place in the power structure. Ahem.

        • By slg 2025-09-1821:182 reply

          >Now, why would someone take out a prominent spokesperson for their own party? They wouldn't, because that's not something that people do to other people they agree with.

          This is why I think the American government is doomed in its current construction. First past the post voting has conditioned people like you to believe that everything is binary. You describe a world with only two parties that can have no dissention in those parties and no possible disagreements among their members. Isn't it obvious how flawed that mindset is?

          This country desperately needs more than two options to every issue, but our system is inadvertently designed to ensure that doesn't happen.

          • By qcnguy 2025-09-198:082 reply

            The US isn't designed to ensure a two party system. FPTP can allow many parties. The UK is an example of that.

            America has two parties because both parties are very internally open. Democrats have given up on that in the last few primaries but that's still very new, and Republicans are still open. You can enter as an outsider and take over the parties. That's how the Republicans ended up with Trump.

            If the two parties were less internally democratic you'd see the same situation in the UK where there are two dominant parties and a bunch of smaller parties that occasionally end up in coalition but mostly act to push the main parties around by threatening to take too many votes.

            • By jfengel 2025-09-1919:131 reply

              The UK has two major parties, the Tories and Labour. Nobody else has come anywhere near a majority for decades. All of the other parties exist in orbit around one or the other.

              • By qcnguy 2025-09-2019:10

                The Tories were in a coalition not long ago and if an election were held tomorrow Reform would win a landslide victory. The SNP has dominated Scotland for years.

            • By slg 2025-09-1916:11

              I'll admit I was being somewhat simplistic blaming exclusively first past the post voting. The real problem is the combination of FPTP and our presidential system. That is what makes the US converge to a two party system, not the open primaries you mention.

              The UK having a parliamentary system counteracts this due to when the coalition building step happens. In a parliamentary system, the government is formed via coalition building in the parliament after an election. However, the US being a presidential system means that post-election coalition building would be too late to impact the chief executive, the coalition must be built before the election. This combined with FPTP is what yields our two party system.

              For example, imagine the US has an even 50/50 split between Democrats and Republicans. Now imagine the tension in the Democratic Party boils over and the party splits into Liberals and Progressives. Maybe some Republicans were really centrists, so they peel off to the center-left Liberal party. That might leave us with a breakdown of 45% Republicans, 35% Liberals, and 20% Progressives. This almost guarantees the president will be a Republican. Despite attracting a majority of voters, the Progressives and Liberals costs themselves a chance at winning by splitting. They would have a natural incentive to merge their parties again before the next presidential election. But if this was a parliamentary system, the Liberals and Progressives would now make up 55% of the parliament and they could successfully form a government together and choose a PM without having to actually merge parties.

              The reason I blamed this entirely on FPTP in my original comment is because something like ranked choice voting is a much more reasonable change that the US could adopt. Shifting from a presidential system to a parliamentary system is an unlikely enough change that I didn't think it was worth mentioning.

          • By hnuser123456 2025-09-1822:331 reply

            Oh trust me, I saw the CGPgrey video about the issues with first past the post pretty soon after it was uploaded 14 years ago, I know that it doesn't have to be two parties who have to convert all opinions into binary and pick a side. If there's ever an initiative to change that to ranked voting, I'll gladly vote for that proposal. People will have to do a lot more critical thinking if they can't just keep pointing to the same bogeyman over and over.

            • By slg 2025-09-1823:321 reply

              It is funny that you skipped over my criticism of you to agree with my criticism of the US government as if I didn't make a clear connection between those two. If you "know that it doesn't have to be two parties who have to convert all opinions into binary and pick a side", why did your original comment reduce this issue down to a binary? Can you admit that it is possible for someone to disagree with Kirk from the right?

              • By hnuser123456 2025-09-190:103 reply

                Yes, but the casings were engraved with things like "catch, fascist", so it's pretty clear the shooter fell into leftist propaganda, which is a thing because currently, we are forced to pick from 1 of 2 parties. Perhaps he thought he would be seen like Luigi but instead he's just a weirdo.

        • By throwaway-11-1 2025-09-1819:19

          is this post sarcasm? I can't even tell anymore

        • By somenameforme 2025-09-194:121 reply

          There was a lot of fake news following the shooting trying to suggest that the shooter was MAGA and decided to kill Charlie Kirk because he 'wasn't MAGA enough.' In particular a photoshopped image of him wearing a MAGA shirt was shared millions of times on social media [1], along with suggestions he was a "groyper" which is apparently some fringe right wing group. You can see the substantial impact of this by looking at Google trends on the term. [2]

          This fake news was wide spread and even leaked into Hacker News through at least dozens of comments. [3] People are still implicitly trying to promote this misinformation by flagging any comment that mentions it, and spinning Kimmel stating, "with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them" to mean anything other than what it does.

          [1] - https://xcancel.com/CollinRugg/status/1966575444435890341

          [2] - https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=groyper&...

          [3] - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

          • By croon 2025-09-196:542 reply

            I have never seen that photo, and the one supporting source for the claim that fake news was spread is someone who apparently runs this[1]?

            I was not familiar with the term before either, but afaict it was based on the the shell casing engravings, halloween costumes etc, which I don't believe have been refuted [2]?

            Not that this matters to the topic at hand as that isn't a claim Kimmel made either way, nor does it play into how tragic any murder is.

            [1] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/trending-politics/

            [2] https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/09/17/how-charli...

            • By somenameforme 2025-09-198:081 reply

              The source that pushed the fake picture is this [1] account with some 5 million followers that regularly posts disinformation and agitprop. That is also the same account that claimed he was a 'groyper'. Go check its stream and you can find endless more absurd claims.

              People then simply unquestioningly repeated the claims, cited the same disinformation, and away we go - social media style. For instance here [2] it showed up in an Anandtech discussion, and I already linked to the claims making their way onto hacker news in dozens of posts as well. To say nothing of the cess pools that are Reddit, X, Facebook, etc.

              [1] - https://xcancel.com/YourAnonCentral

              [2] - https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/charlie-kirk-shot-in-th...

              • By croon 2025-09-198:114 reply

                Again, I don't think that picture is relevant to the claim, and you ignored everything else from my comment.

                > Halloween photos showing Robinson riding on the back of an inflatable Donald Trump or dressed as a gopnik offshoot of Pepe the frog, the now-anachronistic alt-right meme that evolved into the groyper mascot.

                > Groypers had hassled Kirk at public appearances over the years for what they saw as his insufficiently radical conservatism. (Fuentes has forcefully denied any connection to the shooting and told his followers he would “disavow” and “disown” any who “take up arms.”)

                > But as the internet quickly pointed out, “Bella Ciao” is both an anti-fascist anthem from post-WWII Italy and a remixed track on a groyper Spotify playlist.

                This would be misinformation if it would turn out to be false, but it would not be misinformation based on whether or not the shooter is leaning this way or that way or no way.

                • By muddi900 2025-09-2112:36

                  That is not misinformation.

                  If you have sufficient evidence to make reasonable conclusion, which is negated by newer evidence. It is not misinformation.

                  Misinformation would be if you know something is not true and you twist facts around and present speculation in a factual manner to imply that it is true.

                • By somenameforme 2025-09-198:401 reply

                  Are you done editing your post?

                  The source for the killer being a groyper is solely the disinformation account. The things you've mentioned are postfacto efforts to try to support the disinformation, in rather nonsensical ways I'd add. A Spotify playlist from some random guy, to try to create some 5d chess argument - also known as mental gymnastics, and Robinson riding around on a demeaned looking Trump doll 8 years ago? [1] If that's the best people can dig up, you should realize you're obviously being lied to.

                  [1] - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15092455/Trump-cost...

                  • By croon 2025-09-199:211 reply

                    > The source for the killer being a groyper is solely the disinformation account

                    No, the source is the string of corroborating incidents.

                    Sure, the two examples you bring up could be innocuous by themselves, but together with a "gopnik offshoot of Pepe the frog", his upbringing, and the fact that there are clearly fractures within the otherwise very top-down right-wing movement?

                    You're very adamant to dismiss any pieces of evidence as inconsequential (not as incorrect, mind you), yet resistant to provide any counter-factuals?

                    • By somenameforme 2025-09-1912:13

                      No, the source is literally the disinformation account. What you're seeing now is people trying to further spread disinformation by searching through his entire online past and trying to connect them to the groypers. And the best they've been able to come up with is him dressed as a gopnik (and that's all it was - the pepe stuff is more misinformation), and another with him with a Trump doll in a demeaning pose.

                      Nobody would, in a million years, reasonably think 'Ah hah - this must mean he's actually a groyper.' Stuff like this is exactly why Trump won the popular vote, something no Republican had done in 20 years. There is an increasingly rampant level of mental illness in the liberal camp regularly paired alongside outright denials of reality, and child-like efforts to gaslight.

                      A few more assassinations other degrees of political stupidity and we'll be well on our way to a one-party country. And I say this as somebody who has never once voted Republican, and until recently I would have readily identified as liberal. But now? It's starting to feel like a tainted term. My views haven't changed, but the distribution of views amongst self described liberals have, and I do not want to be associated with this madness.

            • By qcnguy 2025-09-198:311 reply

              Kimmel made that exact claim. Fake news has been spread by the left by way more people than him. The lying is so far off the charts that the left is having a massive collective break from reality. YouGov has found Democrats mostly believe that Kirk's killer was either right wing, or they aren't sure.

              https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/52988-donald-trum...

              Even The Atlantic has had to admit that this is stupid and they can't work out why anyone believes it. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/09/charlie-ki...

              > "The evidence that Robinson was a “Groyper”—a member of an online further-right-than-thou movement that had harassed Kirk and President Donald Trump—was paltry. Why did anyone believe that idea to begin with? Already it bore the marks of an incipient conspiracy theory, a soothing nugget of esoteric knowledge, suppressed for political purposes. Many of those suckered in were victims of their own motivated reasoning. It hurts to admit that a movement you like has produced a bad person, and it hurts even more to admit that bitter truth to a gloating member of a movement you hate."

              They're soothing themselves. Nobody on the right is "gloating" over Kirk being killed. This really happened because leftists have deliberately tried to confuse everyone about the truth. On their safe space Bluesky they even admit to it:

              https://substack.com/@mrandyngo/note/c-157561235

              > "Anyway probably for the best if everyone asserts he's a Groyper whether he is or not. The narrative really does matter more than the truth in this case"

              > "Lying to flood the news is good actually"

              > "Spending the last week repeating that the killer was one of the right's own may have helped take the wind out of their sails. Regardless of whether that ends up being true it was rhetorically useful in the interim. Now you can pivot. Nobody is going to care what your last position was."

              These tactics work. The internet has filled up with leftists who genuinely believe Kirk was killed for not being right wing enough, and anyone who tries to talk them back to reality gets answers like "I won't read any right wing sources". It's a self-created filter bubble of madness.

              • By croon 2025-09-199:231 reply

                > Kimmel made that exact claim.

                Where? The rest of your post as connection to this topic hinges on this claim, yet it isn't supported.

                • By qcnguy 2025-09-1910:011 reply

                  He said, "The MAGA Gang is desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it"

                  Which is repeating the lie that Robinson is right wing. 100% false. He deserved to be fired for saying this, because it is delusional misinformation.

                  • By croon 2025-09-1910:331 reply

                    > He said, "The MAGA Gang is desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it"

                    What he said is a critique on the "MAGA Gang"'s handling of the murder, in that they are less concerned with doing anything productive and more concerned with "scoring political points".

                    Whether or not "this kid" is one of them or not is inconsequential to the statement, and that sentence does not claim so.

                    • By qcnguy 2025-09-1912:08

                      Desperate. The meaning of "desperately trying to characterize as anything other than one of them" is clear. Kimmel either didn't know the killer is a left wing fanatic, which is so ill informed that's a firing offense, or he knew and decided to lie about it anyway as the Blueskyers are busy justifying, which is also a firing offense.

        • By centris7 2025-09-1823:47

          [dead]

    • By jjfoooo4 2025-09-1815:131 reply

      The Sinclair statement is just bizarre. Kimmel is to pay restitution to Kirk's (millionaire) widow because of statements he made about the political reaction to his death?

      The pretext is really falling away.

      • By Rapzid 2025-09-190:37

        Media and the public have been going soft on the Trump admin for extorting law firms, businesses, and institutions because "Ah, it's just money. Just a settlement. No big deal".

        It's not about Kimmel or the money, it's about the next person not stepping out of line so they don't face the consequences.

    • By duxup 2025-09-1813:315 reply

      Trump and Co. are the biggest "snowflakes". Anything that even hints at not being in line with their thoughts, they put the power of the government to work to punish it. It doesn't even matter what anyone says or thinks, once they're set on it being bad, they're on it and it's always played up to be the worst thing ever.

      There's no discussion, no indication what really happened, facts are irrelevant, all lies and threats:

      https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/trump-free-speech-abc-...

      • By _DeadFred_ 2025-09-1818:27

        When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because this is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because this is according to my principles. - Frank Herbert

      • By josefritzishere 2025-09-1818:501 reply

        Increasingly this resembles a mandatory state ideology.

      • By doctorpangloss 2025-09-1816:52

        It’s always projection with those people.

      • By dgrr19 2025-09-1817:032 reply

        [flagged]

        • By curt15 2025-09-1817:14

          Any repercussions for the tv presenters spreading Birther garbage back in the day?

    • By tsoukase 2025-09-1913:191 reply

      Both Jon Stewart and Jimmy Kimmel do funny anti-governmental shows, but the difference is the former is kind of silly, superficial, low-impact, short-sighted while the latter is more influential, serious and capable to generate opposition.

      • By tsoukase 2025-09-207:44

        To continue my comment. I enjoy both, even Jon more. My point was that the seemingly broader public impact of Jimmy lead to his ban. If it escelates to Jon then I do not see any difference than nations like Russia or China.

    • By tharmas 2025-09-1813:101 reply

      Its a Reichstag fire/Horst Wessel moment all rolled into one. Right out of the play book.

      • By kiviuq 2025-09-1815:342 reply

        the 18th century nation-state model has always been open to fascism.

        • By emchammer 2025-09-1816:451 reply

          It depends on where you draw the line for acting in good faith.

          Justice Antonin Scalia's opening statement before a 2011 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing is worth watching. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggz_gd--UO0

          Even more worth reading are the Federalist Papers, cover-to-cover, as he suggested. The depth to which the Framers considered the kind of situations we are in today is amazing.

          • By tastyfreeze 2025-09-1816:581 reply

            Also read the anti-federalist papers. Their criticisms of weaknesses in the Constitution predict exactly how those weaknesses have been abused. Both sides of the argument understood the nature of power and humans.

            • By entropicdrifter 2025-09-1818:201 reply

              And yet, here we still are.

              oops, I guess

              • By tastyfreeze 2025-09-194:47

                I'm not convinced it was an oops. Hamilton was a power hungry twat that tried to expand federal power almost immediately after ratification.

                But, the anti-federalists lost the argument at the time. That doesn't mean the argument was resolved completely. It just means the federalists convinced enough people the Constitution was "good enough" for ratification. We are meant to continue improving it.

                Now that we know for sure that the anti federalists were right about the necessary and proper clause and the interstate commerce clause we should be arguing for amendments. Convince enough people and it happens.

        • By FranzFerdiNaN 2025-09-1820:26

          Same with capitalism.

    • By somenameforme 2025-09-1817:221 reply

      [flagged]

      • By rich_sasha 2025-09-1818:081 reply

        I have almost no context here. I only found out Kirk, RIP, existed, when the news of the shooting hit.

        But I watched the clip (I don't know the comedian) and it really doesn't make fun of the assassination. It makes fun of JD Vance.

        I strongly agree you don't make fun of tragedies, especially polarising ones, but this really doesn't do that.

        • By somenameforme 2025-09-194:11

          You, and I, and millions of others. Yet another example of how this shooter was stuck in some serious online bubbles. If there was even a vaguely contrarian voice, they would have mentioned his entire idea would, and has, turned a guy most people have never even heard of into a vastly more well known martyr.

          Anyhow, the post that was "giving context" linked the actual video that likely got Kimmel canned second. Here it is timestamped to the section: https://youtu.be/-j3YdxNSzTk?t=122

    • By NedF 2025-09-1813:225 reply

      [flagged]

      • By zeven7 2025-09-1813:421 reply

        Kimmel was clearly pulled because the fuhrer doesn't like him, because Kimmel is critical of him. You won't see conservative commentators scrutinized this closely, or at all, nor is there any precedent for the FCC acting in this way.

        • By philistine 2025-09-1814:43

          And Donald Trump is stuck in an 80s mentality where late night show hosts are the most important comedians around.

      • By infermore 2025-09-1813:55

        he didn't say the shooter is MAGA

        he said the MAGA folks were desperately trying to characterize him as not MAGA

        and I can't imagine how you'd argue that's not how they behaved

      • By dakial1 2025-09-1813:442 reply

        He didn't say nor implied that.

        He implied that MAGA is trying to exploit the killing to create the image of the "terrorist left/antifa/BLM/immigrants/arab" conspiracy to their audience.

        Which they are 100% trying to do, like they did with Trump's shooter, who was a lunatic just like Kirk's murderer (and all the others)

        • By curt15 2025-09-1816:51

          Utah's governor was desperately hoping to pin the blame on an immigrant. "33 hours" of praying is how desperate he was.

        • By notmyjob 2025-09-1814:25

          [flagged]

      • By judahmeek 2025-09-1813:37

        > Kimmel said the shooter is MAGA and the MAGA 'gang' assassinate their own.

        Oh, so the last X political assassins have been white, male, and apparently strong supporters of the second amendment, but they don't hate minorities enough to be MAGA? (A recent study found a link between prejudice against minorities & support for political violence[0] so...)

        > You now have the world you deserve, and smart people will ignore your pleas because you will never be more than a stereotype for the other side to use. Enjoy.

        That's funny. Multiple people have lost their jobs for basically saying the exact same thing to conservatives after Kirk's assassination.

        0: https://www.psypost.org/new-study-finds-strong-links-between...

      • By notmyjob 2025-09-1814:322 reply

        I don’t think you should get downvoted but I don’t agree either. He insinuated the shooter was maga, but in a way that was “perfect” in terms of deniability. I think that sort of rhetorical sleight of hand by our media elites is why we are where we are now with killing each other and societal Discord, so alas it’s better for society if Kimmel is off the airwaves. But the quote itself is rather tame. First, they came for glen beck, and we said nothing…

        • By queenkjuul 2025-09-1816:431 reply

          The FCC came for Glenn Beck? When?

          • By notmyjob 2025-09-1822:291 reply

            The FFC should not have power over broadcasters. I totally agree we should weaken or even get rid of the FCC if needed to preserve absolute freedom of speech. I also think advertisers and big corporations should not dictate what cannot be said, hence my comment. So we agree after all?

            • By queenkjuul 2025-09-1917:23

              I don't care what you think or whether we agree, i want to know whether the FCC legitimately threatened Glenn Beck

        • By notmyjob 2025-09-1815:411 reply

          I think we should find out who wrote the joke, if that matters to those who are downvoting me.

          Everyone is acting like Kimmel wrote the joke he is getting canceled for (ostensibly), but it’s quite likely the joke was written by one of his team. It is possible even that he was “set up” and there’s more to the story than being presented.

          • By queenkjuul 2025-09-1816:431 reply

            It wasn't a joke?

            • By notmyjob 2025-09-1819:591 reply

              Was it written by him or not?

              • By queenkjuul 2025-09-1917:26

                He's not getting cancelled for a joke, so I'm confused by your comment. The controversy doesn't involve a joke.

  • By shirro 2025-09-182:584 reply

    Kimmel discussed the political response to Kirk's death, not the man, which is a class move that respects his family and the law. I can't see the problem.

    How many companies, media people and politicians need to bend the knee before someone stands up and says this has all gone far enough?

    • By FranzFerdiNaN 2025-09-187:431 reply

      The problem is that America is now ruled by a de facto king, who uses the power of the state to submit corporations and people to do his bidding.

      • By sharken 2025-09-1810:575 reply

        Also, there is quite a bit of money on the line, you can't really blame ABC for acting as a corporation:

        https://latenighter.com/news/jimmy-kimmels-removal-comes-ami...

        • By UncleMeat 2025-09-1812:152 reply

          I believe that you can.

          "Well, we needed to acquiesce to fascism for our stock price" is not acceptable. Over and over and over we are told about how corporations are job creators and serve a valuable function in our society. We are told that having power distributed across corporations that are in competition with one another is a protection against tyranny.

          Fat lot of good that did.

          • By queenkjuul 2025-09-1816:451 reply

            Didn't Mussolini describe fascism as the fusion of state and corporate power?

          • By HaZeust 2025-09-1819:22

            I mean, to be fair, it did. There are other media personalities syndicated by other broadcasters that aren't bending the knee to autocratic rule. ABC has shown its not ripe for the fight, and has separated itself as the chaff from the wheat.

            If there were a monopoly on media from ONE broadcaster, and that broadcaster didn't fight back, that's a wrap.

            But to be sure, competition is NOT an innate feature of capitalism (economic power naturally consolidates in laissez-faire markets), but competition is an external check on capitalism's power; which is empowered by government regulation; and creates mixed market economies. Just as well, mixed market economies - and the ability to have multiple companies for goods and services - are an external check on government AND society power, as well as other companies themselves. It allows people to choose who to work for, buy/sell from, and build their own enterprise if they don't agree with present-day offerings.

        • By justin66 2025-09-1812:321 reply

          > you can't really blame ABC for acting as a corporation

          More accurate to say "I" as you'll find quite a large number of people blaming ABC for their actions in the coming days.

          • By _DeadFred_ 2025-09-1815:241 reply

            I give them through today before I cancel my Hulu/Disney+ to explain what 'indefinite' is. Fired or a week cooldown?

            Also, you can cancel and then re-sub right away with one extra click (and keep any discounted rate). Let them see the numbers and a warning.

            • By Anthony-G 2025-09-1822:072 reply

              I had never seen Kimmel until I watched the YouTube clip¹ linked elsewhere in this thread earlier today. After doing so, I cancelled my Disney+ subscription, giving “cancellation of Jimmy Kimmel” as the reason and won’t be in any hurry to re-join (though I heard the new Alien TV show is worth watching).

              I hate cancel culture whether it’s coming from the conservative right (we’ve had that in Ireland for most of the 20th century) or the liberal left (more recently) and I believe that comedy should be able to transgress social norms and push up against boundaries but what I saw of Kimmel was wholly innocuous.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j3YdxNSzTk&t=123s

              • By _DeadFred_ 2025-09-194:181 reply

                No statement from ABC so canceled.

                If you can fit in the Aliens show before your billing date it's worth watching if you are a normal person that can allow yourself to enjoy TV shows.

                • By compootr 2025-09-196:071 reply

                  Not that I or anyone has done it, but there is theoretically there is a way to enjoy these TV shows for free from companies one doesn't want to fund. sailing or something...

                  • By dinfinity 2025-09-1918:01

                    Yeah, if supporting fascism is okay, a little bit of copyright infringement is definitely okay.

              • By justin66 2025-09-191:11

                I'd love to know how many people cancelled in the last 24 hours. Based on my social circle, it might be a lot.

        • By malfist 2025-09-1812:151 reply

          Actually. You can.

          Money isn't an excuse to do whatever you want

          • By sharken 2025-09-1813:081 reply

            The incentive for a corporation leans heavily into making deals worth billions of dollars, which is also happening here.

            A change of status quo in this case, will require massive loss of Disney+ subscriptions, which is not that probable.

            • By ModernMech 2025-09-1814:151 reply

              > The incentive for a corporation leans heavily

              That's why you can blame them, because billions of private dollars should not outweigh maintaining a stable democracy and civil society for all. "Just following market incentives to maximize shareholder value" is 2025's "just following orders".

              • By tharmas 2025-09-1814:42

                Dont forget those private prisons need customers.

        • By gengwyn 2025-09-1815:431 reply

          As Sam Harris so eloquently put it: "What's the point of having 'fuck you' money if you never actually say 'fuck you'?"

          • By giardini 2025-09-193:521 reply

            Sort of like Vladimir Putin would say: "What's the point of having nuclear weapons if you never actually nuke someone?"

        • By TehCorwiz 2025-09-1817:00

          Fuck you. Yes I can blame them. They’re selling democracy and civil society down the river for profit. It’s greed, it’s corruption, it’s disgusting!

          They might think it will save them but acquiescing to a bully never works. It just shows you’re weak and can be pushed around.

    • By bufferoverflow 2025-09-185:31

      [dead]

    • By discordance 2025-09-183:38

      > I can't see the problem.

      lese majesty /s

    • By Pxtl 2025-09-184:283 reply

      The problem is that he gave Trump a fig leaf of an excuse to go after him, and that's all they needed.

      • By shirro 2025-09-184:452 reply

        An Australian reporter recently asked Trump how much money he has made since returning to office and if it is ethical for a person in his position. His org got locked out of a press conference in retaliation and we get the mafia boss threats about it not being good for our country to ask those sorts of questions.

        Anyone living in the USA should by now have made a decision where their line in the sand lies. Without a free press or opposition things can move quickly so decide now. If I was a member of a minority likely to be a target I would want to know I had an exit strategy.

        • By perihelions 2025-09-188:58

          If any was curious, it's >$5 billion.

          https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-wlfi-world-liberty-financ... ("New crypto token boosts Trump family's wealth by $5 billion")

        • By bayesianbot 2025-09-185:35

          Trump also said he's gonna tell Australia's prime minister about the reporter, which is kinda nuts (and hilarious?)

          Old track, but just hard to imagine what would have happened if Biden was asked about his corruption and answered like that. But it's hypothetical anyway, since no previous president would ever be rug-pulling crypto scams or selling watches and bibles.

          I just can't believe how weekly, or sometimes daily, I share these wild stories and videos with some friends and they keep behaving like anything about this is normal. There are so many things that would make me go WTF even without the context of the constant grift it all comes with.

      • By jauntywundrkind 2025-09-185:11

        The naked emperor was already a pissy chad over Jimmy; this grudge-holding isn't new at all. Trump, back in July:

        > The word is, and it's a strong word at that, Jimmy Kimmel is NEXT to go in the untalented Late Night Sweepstakes and, shortly thereafter, Fallon will be gone. These are people with absolutely NO TALENT, who were paid Millions of Dollars for, in all cases, destroying what used to be GREAT Television. It's really good to see them go, and I hope I played a major part in it!

        Nexstar owns outright a bunch of broadcast zones in America, with zero conpetition in those broadcast areas. So them folding and everyone else following suit isn't much of a surprise. It's pathetic that media ownership has degraded to such a sorry lame ass state, that there's many markets where almost all broadcast media is via one company. The decayed anti-health of media continues to plague this nation, allow the worst poxes to spread.

      • By raxxorraxor 2025-09-189:323 reply

        [flagged]

        • By ceejayoz 2025-09-1810:361 reply

          The First Amendment protects my rights to say you are being an asshole.

          The First Amendment also forbids the government from punishing you for merely being an asshole.

          • By raxxorraxor 2025-09-1811:091 reply

            Yeah, that argument too. I didn't mention the first amendment though. For example it is also a requirement for basic science within the framework of enlightenment.

            I get the xkcd and it certainly has a valid context. This is not it though. This retort just underlines a perspective that is characterized by severe lack of foresight, simple as that.

            • By ceejayoz 2025-09-1811:171 reply

              Perspective: “you can’t point out that I’m being an asshole to my friends and employers” is very non-free-speech. First Amendment or not.

              Doubly so when the people saying you can’t are the government.

              • By raxxorraxor 2025-09-1811:341 reply

                I don't even get the point you are trying to make. The issue is removing people due to their political opinions. This might have happened to Kimmel now.

                You are still free to associate with anyone freely, but there is an expectation that you behave like an adult and can withstand different opinions. Otherwise no sensible dialogue is possible. Obviously that was not the case for the murderer of Kirk and the general sentiment is that some political factions have had difficulties here as well.

                • By ceejayoz 2025-09-1812:091 reply

                  > The issue is removing people due to their political opinions.

                  No. The issue is who is doing that action. Illegal speech is not the same as rude speech. My boss can’t declare my opinions illegal. They can fire me.

                  > You are still free to associate with anyone freely, but there is an expectation that you behave like an adult and can withstand different opinions.

                  Nah. I can throw a tantrum, publicly decry you as an asshole and go no-contact with you. That’s legal, and part of my freedom of expression and association.

                  The government can’t confiscate my license over the tantrum.

                  • By raxxorraxor 2025-09-1814:411 reply

                    > No. The issue is who is doing that action.

                    I wholeheartedly disagree. If you are excluded in research for your opinion, we could just as well install the church again. The vanity is the same.

                    This time it is Trump directly. Sure, that is also a problem. Previously it was the handlers of government, so it didn't need to intervene directly. NGOs or just companies getting government grants, didn't matter.

                    > I can throw a tantrum, publicly decry you as an asshole and go no-contact with you. That’s legal, and part of my freedom of expression and association.

                    Of course and I welcome you to do so.

                    We are not talking about instances where people were rude to their bosses. We are talking about instances where people had the wrong political opinion and some faculties are in dire need of reform because of the structures they formed by excluding everyone not in line. That is a problem, obviously. A problem best described as a violation of freedom of expression. You can look up the definition on wikipedia. In the first sentence there is something about repercussions. Easy concept, you would think...

                    > Wiki: Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction

                    What do think retaliation would mean, hm?

                    • By ceejayoz 2025-09-1814:581 reply

                      If you make your church the government, it is... the government.

                      Again, "I think your speech sucks" and "I have the authority to jail you for your speech because I think it sucks" are vastly different things.

                      > We are not talking about instances where people were rude to their bosses.

                      We're talking about Jimmy Kimmell's employer being threatened by the government to punish him for his speech. Which wasn't even particularly rude.

                      • By raxxorraxor 2025-09-1815:462 reply

                        He was fired by Disney. In the same way others were fired from their position due to political pressures. I don't see a difference.

                        • By ceejayoz 2025-09-1816:07

                          > He was fired by Disney.

                          After very clear threats of official action from the FCC chair up to and including revocation of their broadcasting licenses. For protected speech. That is a very, very clear First Amendment violation.

                          https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/brendan-carr-abc-fcc-jimmy-...

                          "FCC chairman Brendan Carr has threatened to take action against ABC after Jimmy Kimmel said in a monologue that 'the MAGA gang' was attempting to portray Charlie Kirk‘s assassin as 'anything other than one of them.' 'We can do this the easy way or the hard way,' Carr said. 'These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.'... 'You could certainly see a path forward for suspension over this,' Carr said."

                          > I don't see a difference.

                          Well, we don't have a cure for blindness.

                        • By queenkjuul 2025-09-1816:54

                          The FCC threatened to revoke ABC's license, that's the difference

        • By impossiblefork 2025-09-1816:501 reply

          The hypocrisy of his predecessors doesn't mean that this is not dangerous though.

          • By raxxorraxor 2025-09-259:41

            True. It is relevant to complaints against censorship in this case though. They are not at all believable, they are motivated by partisanship.

        • By queenkjuul 2025-09-1816:50

          But it does mean freedom from government imposed consequences. You still haven't learned the lesson

  • By suzdude 2025-09-186:398 reply

    Mel Brooks had the right of it. Fascism and Authoritarianism is defeated by satire and mockery. The ideology is too outrageous to survive any such scrutiny.

    Why else would the administration be so afraid of a few jokes?

    • By spl757 2025-09-1811:412 reply

      This is exactly what Gavin Newsom is doing. It holds a mirror up and forces the right to address the ridiculousness of how trump communicates.

      • By ceejayoz 2025-09-1812:162 reply

        But they generally either do not get it or pretend not to get it. The tactic only works on people who have shame. Politicians used to resign for consensual sex.

        • By thrance 2025-09-1816:51

          Carter's peanut farm feels like it comes from a fantasy novel.

        • By computerthings 2025-09-198:23

          [dead]

      • By yongjik 2025-09-1820:59

        TBF I don't think Trump supporters get the ridiculousness. If they could get it so easily from another politician repeating it, they wouldn't be supporting Trump in the first place.

        What Gavin Newsom is doing is, I think, a bit more subtle. He's signaling to Democratic supporters "Here's a guy willing to mock and ridicule Trump," because the established Democrats were too afraid to even do that - which explains why in this age of Trump, Democrats' poll numbers are still in the gutter.

    • By NoGravitas 2025-09-1813:471 reply

      In the case of Fascism 1.0, it took satire, mockery, and thousands of Soviet tanks.

      • By suzdude 2025-09-1814:131 reply

        Soviet tanks, American bombs, British guns, French lives....

        • By kimbernator 2025-09-1816:582 reply

          Surprised the French get the "lives" in this, given that the soviet union lost about 40 people for every french person while having a population only about 4.5x larger.

          • By morkalork 2025-09-1817:311 reply

            The quote is a little messed up because many of those 'soviet tanks' were Lend-Lease tanks produced by allies. Iirc it goes "WW2 was won with British intelligence, American steel, and Russian blood"

            • By seadan83 2025-09-193:111 reply

              Indeed, USSR casualties (including civilians) were off the charts. USSR, then China, then Germany and then Indonesia. [0] 'Russian blood' part is something of an understatement.

              The lend lease part is not correct. Lend lease went mostly to UK (Google AI says about 60% of lend lease went to UK & the rest of lend lease was split between USSR & China. Take that with a grain of salt)

              Not to be taken with a grant of salt, according to wikipedia: "Most tank units were Soviet-built models but about 7,000 Lend-Lease tanks (plus more than 5,000 British tanks) were used by the Red Army, eight percent of war-time production. " [1]

              Also per wikipedia, USSR produced about 30k light tanks, 65k medium tanks (eg: t-34), and 13k heavy tanks. [2]

              [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#/media...

              From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

              [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

              [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_combat_vehicle_producti...

              • By hollerith 2025-09-193:241 reply

                >The lend lease part is not correct. Lend lease went mostly to UK (Google AI says about 60% of lend lease went to UK

                UK sent stuff to USSR, too, including probably some of the stuff they got from the US, and they delivered it to Murmansk (rather than requiring the Soviets to come get it) during which their convoys and sailors took losses from the German navy.

                I heard that the USSR received $1 trillion worth of stuff in 2025 dollars from it WWII allies. The US sent advisors, too, e.g., in how to build factories.

                Of course, a few years later the US was sending stuff to Germany as part of the Marshall Plan, one of the purposes of which was to build up Germany so it could resist future Soviet aggression.

                • By seadan83 2025-09-2718:05

                  > UK sent stuff to USSR

                  Yes, but that wasn't part of the "lend lease" program.

                  The quantity of materials sent from the UK to the USSR was significant. Just it was not part of the lend lease program. (Arguably this is something better, just direct aid without strings attached).

                  The quantities of what the UK gave to the USSR was a sacrifice of blood and treasure: "food and raw materials, roughly £30 billion in today’s money. This included 5,000 tanks and 7,000 aircraft, while public charitable donations provided approximately £5.3 million (roughly £490 million in today’s money) in medical stores...."

                  "Some of these supplies were purchased in the United States (US) by the UK for delivery directly to the USSR. Most British supplies were carried by sea to Northern Russia, docking at Archangel or Murmansk, by a series of Arctic convoys, which were subject to sustained German attacks from three dimensions from powerful German forces based in Northern Norway" [1]

                  > I heard that the USSR received $1 trillion worth of stuff in 2025 dollars from it WWII allies

                  Sounds plausible (I would hesitate to repeat it without seeing the data behind the numbers). I'm curious how the number breaks down as a relative amount.

                  [1] https://www.geostrategy.org.uk/britains-world/telling-the-tr...

          • By suzdude 2025-09-1820:52

            Prior poster used soviet tanks, so just continued with their language.

    • By insane_dreamer 2025-09-1820:20

      > Fascism and Authoritarianism is defeated by satire and mockery.

      Napoleon shut down all the newspapers that criticized him. He was only undone by Waterloo (actually mostly by his own folly of trying to invade Russia ...)

      I don't think there's any record of Authoritarianism being defeated by satire, if for no other reason than the authoritarians shut the satire down.

      Looks like it's time for an American _Solidarność_

    • By Garlef 2025-09-187:581 reply

      There was loads of pre-WW2 mockery of Hitler. It did not matter a lot in the end.

      So: As much as I admire Mel Brooks, this is just wishful thinking.

      • By uncircle 2025-09-188:312 reply

        Yeah, how did satire fare when Hitler was in power?

        Let's perhaps say that if satire doesn't directly prevent authoritarianism, it works as a very effective canary in the mine.

        • By sharken 2025-09-1811:071 reply

          Tove Jansson, the creator of the Moomins got away with it in 1944.

          https://www.openculture.com/2020/11/before-creating-the-moom...

        • By perihelions 2025-09-189:181 reply

          The last criticism of Nazism was a very milquetoast 1934 speech by a Nazi, Franz von Papen, who though supporting Adolf Hitler detracted in some (seemingly) lesser ways—decrying the fanaticism of Hitler's personality cult. He was severely punished for it.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marburg_speech ("...said to be the last speech made publicly, and on a high level, in Germany against National Socialism...")

          An ironic tombstone for freedom of speech:

          "They will bear them and follow the Führer with unwavering loyalty, if they are allowed to have their part in the planning and in the work, if every word of criticism is not taken for ill will, and if despairing patriots are not branded as enemies of the state."

          • By tim333 2025-09-1811:27

            The last high level public criticism within Germany. Nazis of course still got criticism and satire elsewhere. Hitler Has Only Got One Ball and the like leading up to their defeat and Hitler shooting himself in a bunker.

    • By atoav 2025-09-187:464 reply

      I have read that the Joe Rogan school of comedy, that has grown popular in the past decade, did so on the grounds on fighting liberal "cancel culture". Back then they were rebelling against what was painted as a predominant culture, now that they have overachieved, one wonders if they would also fight cancle culture when it is coming from thr political right. I am not very optimistic about that.

      But maybe we get new generations of comedians that will.

      • By karmakurtisaani 2025-09-188:12

        Their mediocre humor relies on punching down and bashing "cancel culture". That's their only trick and what their audience wants to hear. Without it their "comedy" has no edge, and picking on trans people is a lot less funny when the president is already doing it on national news.

      • By kimbernator 2025-09-1817:00

        It's my totally uneducated perception that you need to start out as explicitly unaffiliated in order to execute on a shift like that (e.g. South Park). If you start fighting in one direction, I imagine it's near impossible to start punching backwards (once your audience is established) without alienating a substantial portion of your base.

      • By thrance 2025-09-1818:19

        They were fighting "cancel culture" and complaining about not being able to say anything anymore on Netflix specials and sponsored podcasts. These guys are all fucking grifters with fried brains and no values beyond that of their bank accounts.

      • By LeafItAlone 2025-09-1811:133 reply

        >Joe Rogan school of comedy

        Joe Rogan, the Fear Factor host turned Right Wing podcaster? Is he know for comedy? I thought his brief failed stint of stand up comedy is why he switched to podcasting.

        • By seadan83 2025-09-193:18

          Per "https://www.joerogan.com/" - Joe Rogan is "A standup comedian for over 30 years, Rogan’s seventh hour long comedy special Joe Rogan: Burn the Boats premiered live on Netflix on August 3, 2024. Rogan’s previous comedy specials include..."

          Joe Rogan owns a comedy club in Austin as well. [1]

          Joe Rogan is a pretty busy guy.. I would imagine his professional network amongst comedians was pretty large before he blew up as a podcaster. This is not only to say that Joe Rogan has multiple comedies, but is also very likely to be very influential amongst as well.

          [1] https://www.comedyinyoureye.com/post/inside-the-comedy-club-...

        • By atoav 2025-09-1817:42

          Joe Rogan was a stand up comedian in the 80s/90s, appeared on the MTV comedy show Half-Hour Comedy Hour and was performing at The Comedy Store in Hollywood. Not that I find him funny, but that in my book at least would make him someone with a professional comedy background if he spent nearly 3 decades there..

          But I was refering to was the specific idea of what has been labeled the "Rogansphere" by his critics. This refers to a loose media/comedy ecosystem orbiting Joe Rogan, his podcast, Austin (comedy) clubs, and a web of frequent guests and adjacent podcasters/comedians who cross-promote each other on YouTube and podcasts. This network rose to prominence in a push to normalize "anti-woke" and right-leaning narratives under a free-speech banner. This was a pretty popular niche to serve as the term "cancel culture" gained more traction. At the time even many otherwise (american-)left-leaning people would express frustration with liberal attempts to police language etc.

          This popular niche was especially present in comedy with a discourse about what and who you could joke about and since Joe Rogan played a big role into giving that topic traction I cynically called it "Joe Rogan school of comedy". I am no alone in thinking that way, comedian Marc Maron puts it better than I could in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_N4W05eyto&t=307s

        • By tim333 2025-09-1811:423 reply

          I've watched Rogan a bit and don't recall him telling jokes. He generally seems quite a neutral interviewer though his guests lean right wing.

          • By fknorangesite 2025-09-190:20

            > He generally seems quite a neutral interviewer

            Maybe (maybe) ten years ago you could get away with this opinion. I'm not sure how you could say this in 2025 in good faith.

          • By phatskat 2025-09-197:27

            The “neutral” is part of his act. He platforms people with dangerous ideas under the guise of “just hearing what they have to say”, but he doesn’t really push back _ever_. I’ve heard people say downright factually incorrect or defamatory things on his show and his response is, largely, “oh really” or “that’s interesting”, etc.

          • By tstrimple 2025-09-1816:521 reply

            Yeah, no. Not neutral at all.

            https://www.newsweek.com/joe-rogan-mocked-botching-joe-biden...

            One of many examples. Joe is outraged because he thinks Joe Biden talked about airports during the revolutionary war. He goes on to state that someone who makes such comments shouldn't have a job. When it's revealed that it's a Trump statement he pivots to "oh he just made a mistake when speaking". It's so blatantly obvious and happens constantly.

            • By tim333 2025-09-1818:022 reply

              Well, fairly neutral is in the eye of the beholder. Saying Biden seemed a bit gaga was being said by most democrats at the time, and Rogan seemed to acknowledge his error when it turned out Trump talked about airports rather than Biden. "so he fucked up" was the wording.

              I mean he's not like Tucker say.

              • By ceejayoz 2025-09-1818:421 reply

                But he considered it disqualifying out of Biden's mouth…

                > December 22, 2023: "Pull him," Rogan said. "If you had any other job, and you were talking like that, they would go, 'Hey, you're done.'"

                but mysteriously not when it turns out to be Trump:

                > November 5, 2024: Popular podcast host Joe Rogan officially endorsed Donald Trump on the eve of the election, a move Trump’s team swiftly touted as a major win in the final hours of their campaign. (https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/04/politics/joe-rogan-trump-endo...)

                • By phatskat 2025-09-197:31

                  Makes sense - Rogan is friends with Alex Jones, who is pretty much as far up Trump’s rump as Jones himself once said Trump was “up ISIS’s dirty **hole” - we almost had a world where jones was so mad at trump that he was going to bail, but I’m pretty sure Roger Stone and their other trump-linked associate (name escapes me, “psyops” guy) reigned him in - maybe with some push from the kremlin too.

                  I guess my point is: these people are all interconnected and it’s almost like when you hear about how actors all know each other and hang out, or congresspeople play golf together, but for fascism.

              • By tstrimple 2025-09-2022:48

                If "fairly neutral" includes drastically different categories for viability depending on the political party then the term means absolutely nothing at all. If the statement is disqualifying for Biden, but just a gaff by Trump, it's absolutely 100% not "fairly neutral" or "fairly" anything. It's a very clear and demonstrated bias.

    • By AndrewOMartin 2025-09-189:36

      > Peter Cook, [...] talked about the satirical Berlin cabarets of the ’30s, which did so much to stop the rise of Hitler and prevent the Second World War.

      Tom Lehrer - https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7275489-i-don-t-think-this-...

    • By mkfs 2025-09-1817:49

      [flagged]

    • By ProllyInfamous 2025-09-1814:55

      You have much more eloquently conveyed what I was (admittedly: not well) expressing earlier [0].

      [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45282482#45283234

      Thank you for helping me think about / express this better.

HackerNews