It’s sunny, it’s pretty warm for late September–or is it still mid-September?–and as you can tell by my choice of what I’ll call bespoke punctuation, today all rules are on their own.
But before we get to the getting, thank you so much, Gail, for the coffee, I would like to think that we could sit and enjoy it and chat about the small things while forgetting the rest of the world, sip by sip. I am very grateful for the break.
And now on to Thursday.
I’ve never particularly been a fan of Jimmy Kimmel, since his fame was grounded in salacious misogyny with The Man Show and honestly I’ve never gotten over it. I don’t watch him. I don’t pay attention to him.
But hello, Streisand Effect, I’m paying attention now.
The government used its entire might to silence one comedian over a line no one would have even noticed otherwise?
That feels really weird to me.
And I want to see how this proceeds, if there are cases that stem from it, because it appears that ABC suspended Kimmel indefinitely due to direct pressure from the FCC which is, for anyone playing at home, the government.
What he said, from that same article:
“The Maga Gang desperately trying to characterise [sic; from the BBC] this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it”
Now you get why I think this is weird.
This is a group that claimed that such things as “alternative facts” can exist. Their go-to “news” network actually pursued a lawsuit to say they didn’t have any obligation to tell the truth.
So let’s say Kimmel’s statement is false. We don’t know that, of course, the shooting just happened and the case is ongoing, though there does seem to be a rush to create an air of certainty, as Dr. Stacey Patton points out in this fascinating read.
But let’s say it’s false, or an “alternative fact.” Why the scurry to silence him?
And I do think the possible legal issues are fascinating. While government employees are generally immune from personal liability for official action, what the head of the FCC did seems, to me, like a clear violation of the First Amendment. He, acting for the government in his official capacity, directly demanded retribution for speech it doesn’t like.
The speech doesn’t seem to fall into any of the First Amendment exceptions either, meaning it should be protected speech.
If government employees do things to “violate a clearly established right,” such as the right to free expression, they don’t have qualified immunity, it doesn’t apply.
I don’t know where a suit would go, or how it would land at SCOTUS, given my earlier post on Injustice John Roberts, but I can tell you this.
It’s a Man Show I’d actually watch.
Anyway, that’s it for me on this Thursday. Have a great day.
A Bit to Read 
Leave a comment