Quote:

---

So, yes or no? Should they have been cancelled for a tweet, or their outspoken political views. Stop trying to make this more than what it is. Just answer the question, so we can see if you are a hypocrite or not.

---

Thanks for admitting you're asking the question in bad faith and looking for your gotcha moment.

I already answered your question about Roseanne. As for Tim Allen, assuming what you say is true, I wouldn't have canceled his show, either.

Texas 8&4 said:

---

Or maybe the simplest explanation is the correct explanation. He wasn't funny, he wasn't entertaining, and he alienated half the country. Perhaps he was just bad for business?

---

Maybe. Those shows aren't really making money but it's just as likely that they dropped him so that the FCC gives them an exemption to acquire more than 39% of the market.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Texas 8&4 said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Texas 8&4 said:

---

Comical how liberals are now trying to hide behind the 1st Amendment (even though they don't clearly understand), but when Trump et al, were banned from Twitter and Facebook, it was all good.

---

Not going to miss Kimmel but private companies like Twitter and Facebook can ban anyone for any or no reason. Completely different situations if the government forced this. Last thing we want is to give the green light to President AOC doing something similar when the pendulum inevitably swings back around.

---

The government DID force it

hth

---

Not really the same situation. Anyone in the government can publicly say what they wanted twitter or Facebook to do, but the bans were the companies' call. There isn't a mechanism for punishment the way there is for FCC licensed channels.

In this case, (it seems like) the government overtly threatened pulling their licenses due to what Kimmel said. If that element wasn't a part of this and ABC just fired him for their own reasons, I'd have no issues - just like Colbert getting dropped. But in my opinion it's wrong when the left tries to punish people for speech and it should be wrong when the right does it too.

---

It was a blatant lie. When told to issue an apology, he refused. When you don't do what your boss tells you, you get fired, regardless of why they told you to do something. This thing with the FCC is pure speculation. There are a number of shows (The View as someone mentioned), that are not being cancelled.

---

It isn't really speculation anymore when the head of the FCC said it publicly. Again, 100% in support of ABC firing Kimmel for any or no reason. My point is that the government should be nowhere near it. And yes, that includes if the left has arguably already attempted similar tactics. Conservatives should not sink to that level just because the left does. Just my opinion though.

---

The government was just following the rules.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Texas 8&4 said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Texas 8&4 said:

---

Comical how liberals are now trying to hide behind the 1st Amendment (even though they don't clearly understand), but when Trump et al, were banned from Twitter and Facebook, it was all good.

---

Not going to miss Kimmel but private companies like Twitter and Facebook can ban anyone for any or no reason. Completely different situations if the government forced this. Last thing we want is to give the green light to President AOC doing something similar when the pendulum inevitably swings back around.

---

The government DID force it

hth

---

Not really the same situation. Anyone in the government can publicly say what they wanted twitter or Facebook to do, but the bans were the companies' call. There isn't a mechanism for punishment the way there is for FCC licensed channels.

In this case, (it seems like) the government overtly threatened pulling their licenses due to what Kimmel said. If that element wasn't a part of this and ABC just fired him for their own reasons, I'd have no issues - just like Colbert getting dropped. But in my opinion it's wrong when the left tries to punish people for speech and it should be wrong when the right does it too.

---

It was a blatant lie. When told to issue an apology, he refused. When you don't do what your boss tells you, you get fired, regardless of why they told you to do something. This thing with the FCC is pure speculation. There are a number of shows (The View as someone mentioned), that are not being cancelled.

---

It isn't really speculation anymore when the head of the FCC said it publicly. Again, 100% in support of ABC firing Kimmel for any or no reason. My point is that the government should be nowhere near it. And yes, that includes if the left has arguably already attempted similar tactics. Conservatives should not sink to that level just because the left does. Just my opinion though.

---

I agree with you, but you have to abide by the rules of engagement. As a general rule, conservatives have tried to take the high road, and have nothing but continual ass kicking to show for it. The only was to fight back is by the same rules.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Maybe you should do some more reading.

Our government WAS banning people on social media. They were blatantly violating the First Amendment. And they were doing it while their position was 100% a lie.

Stop defending it.

---

No one has a first amendment right to post on twitter or any other social platform. It's a private company. If twitter makes a decision to ban someone then that's their decision.

88Warrior said:

---

Texas 8&4 said:

---

Contrast this clown to someone like Bill Maher. I don't typically agree with him (on pretty much anything), but he will call the Democrats out. He was fair in his assessment of Trump, after visiting with him. This type, while I don't agree with at least should get a little respect.

---

I think Maher was smart enough to read the changing room (woke fatigue) and knew in order for him to stay relevant he needed to temper his act…Kimmel on the other hand is arrogant, dumb and blinded by hate..

---

I think Maher, as a comedian, actually does have real hatred for the woke nonsense and how it affects him and comedians like him. He has many other opinions I disagree with, but I don't think he changed because of pressure, I think he voices his opinion on it pretty regular and calls them out. Just the other day he was talking about the right will at lease engage in conversation and the radical left will never do that.

Agreed. Maher is who he's always been. He's not tempering anything.

Again, do some reading. The government was banning people from social media. It was absolutely a first amendment violation.

You're ignoring reality.

In this case, the government didn't even act. You're 180 degrees wrong.

Houston Lee said:

---

Horn_in_Aggieland said:

---

🚨 MAJOR BREAKING: Now, Disney ABC is CANCELING Jimmy Kimmel "INDEFINITELY" due to him lying that the Charlie Kirk assassin was MAGA, per WSJ.

This came right after the ABC affiliates canceled Kimmel via Nexstar.

FAFO, LOSER! pic.twitter.com/gGjwtzvdMX

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) September 17, 2025

I think this one deserves its own thread just because he's such a jerk.

---

Its a stunt. Kimmel will be back on the air soon and his viewership will increase.

---

I'll take that bet, no question. ABC attempting to convince affiliates to accept Kimmel again would be a huge lift!

Ryan the Temp said:

---

Quote:

---

So, yes or no? Should they have been cancelled for a tweet, or their outspoken political views. Stop trying to make this more than what it is. Just answer the question, so we can see if you are a hypocrite or not.

---

Thanks for admitting you're asking the question in bad faith and looking for your gotcha moment.

I already answered your question about Roseanne. As for Tim Allen, assuming what you say is true, I wouldn't have canceled his show, either.

---

Not sure where this is coming from. I don't need a "gotcha moment" for some kind of internet validation. I just wanted a simple answer to see if you are hypocrite like many liberals. Hypocrisy needs to be called out at every level on any side. If I inadvertently have a hypocritical view point, I should be called out as well. You answered, so I appreciate that.

Quote:

---

Just answer the question, so we can see if you are a hypocrite or not.

---

No, that's not antagonistic AT ALL.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Maybe you should do some more reading.

Our government WAS banning people on social media. They were blatantly violating the First Amendment. And they were doing it while their position was 100% a lie.

Stop defending it.

---

No one has a first amendment right to post on twitter or any other social platform. It's a private company. If twitter makes a decision to ban someone then that's their decision.

---

LOL that you believe the government didn't force social media to censor conservatives under Biden. And they did it covertly! What color is the sky in your world, man?!

I'm well aware the Biden admin sent posts to Twitter and attempted to get users banned (and that is also wrong) but they have no mechanism to force it.

And again since you seem to be ignoring this point - posting on social media is not a right. No one was arrested for anything they said. A private company restricted their access, which they can do for any or no reason.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

I'm well aware the Biden admin sent posts to Twitter and attempted to get users banned (and that is also wrong) but they have no mechanism to force it.

And again since you seem to be ignoring this point - posting on social media is not a right. No one was arrested for anything they said. A private company restricted their access, which they can do for any or no reason.

---

Don't be naive

nortex97 said:

---

Or Tucker Carlson.

I am convinced Chris Hayes' IQ must be around 67, from what little I have ever heard him say, but this is typical of Democrat duplicity on the topic:

MSNBC’s Chris Hayes on Kimmel getting fired: This renders the First Amendment meaningless.

Chris Hayes on Tucker getting fired: He believed he could say anything no matter how disgusting and get away with it. Over time, that’s not going to work out well for you. pic.twitter.com/KOdROGvseE

— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) September 18, 2025

I really don't comprehend the leftist point though today. Two of the biggest syndicates of channels said they wouldn't carry his show any longer, and the complaint is that the government did this to Disney? What were they supposed to do, pay him his regular salary to stay on in minor markets and maybe half the big American cities? His ratings have been declining for years.

He can go do a podcast for his fans, without the budget for the writers/set etc. His speech isn't censored, and I think he may have been angling to go that route anyway. Poor Jimmy has plenty of Disney cash.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr weighs in after ABC pulls Jimmy Kimmel off the airwaves

"Broadcasters are different from any other form of communication, including here on cable right now. Fox News doesn’t have an FCC license, CNN doesn’t, but ABC, CBS, and NBC—those broadcast… pic.twitter.com/RjATnjPzEC

— Sean Hannity 🇺🇸 (@seanhannity) September 18, 2025

To all of those crying about Jimmy Kimmel's show getting pulled off the air indefinitely...

FCC Rule 47 CFR §73.1217 — Broadcast hoaxes.

What the Rule Says:

It prohibits broadcast licensees (TV and radio) from knowingly airing false information about a crime or catastrophe if:… pic.twitter.com/LeHWXcLh2s

— ZNO 🇺🇸 (@therealZNO) September 18, 2025

Don't jeopardize your employer's broadcast licenses, and there's no FO.

---

Thank you for posting at least one of the actual policies that the FCC chair alluded to Kimmel violating and thus creating pressure on the tv station companies.

Based on the first bullet point of the hoax policy, were those texts (which haven't been verified as admissible evidence in a court of law yet) made public before the monologue? These texts directly contradict kimmels statement. However if he didn't have that information then he would not be subjected to the violation of that first point. For points 2 and 3 they talk about public harm. 2. Is WILL cause public harm. 3. Is DOES cause public harm. I don't think his phrase DOES cause "public harm" as defined in subsection c.

For 2. On its own… maybe? But the context of it and the history of talk like this from political talk radio to comedy sketches…. I think if the right said such a thing in those mediums we would be defending their right to say it and oppose government pressuring the company to take action.

I would also like to see the actual law on the other policy mentioned: "news distortion" and see the details on that. Is what he said stand alone or within the context of a joke set-up. Is news distortion allowed in a comedy or entertainment medium? Or to what degree? Can norm McDonald say on snl that OJ is guilty while in a court of law with admissible evidence and a jury and judge. Deemed OJ not guilty (my personal feelings aside. I think oj was guilty). Would the FCC be right into removing or threatening to remove the broadcast licenses for stations that showed Norm saying that?

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Maybe you should do some more reading.

Our government WAS banning people on social media. They were blatantly violating the First Amendment. And they were doing it while their position was 100% a lie.

Stop defending it.

---

No one has a first amendment right to post on twitter or any other social platform. It's a private company. If twitter makes a decision to ban someone then that's their decision.

---

So if Trump sends Musk a message and suggests that he ban certain users from X and then does it again and again you are ok with that since it is just "suggesting" and not "ordering". Because that's basically what the Biden admin did with the leftist friendly tech companies.

Got it.

Texas 8&4 said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

I'm well aware the Biden admin sent posts to Twitter and attempted to get users banned (and that is also wrong) but they have no mechanism to force it.

And again since you seem to be ignoring this point - posting on social media is not a right. No one was arrested for anything they said. A private company restricted their access, which they can do for any or no reason.

---

Don't be naive

---

If twitter told them to F off and didn't ban anyone what would the consequences be? If the government was really controlling their actions why was Elon allowed to do whatever he wanted once he took over?

See the post above yours. I don't know how to explain it to you if you really believe the government doesn't have to means to get done whatever they want, whether "officially" or "un-officially"

You can easily find the 7 minute segment to listen to, on his youtube channel (Jimmy's). It wasn't a joke, or a set up for one.

This isn't a courtroom it's an internet message board, so I don't think the detailed analyses/receipts/timeline evidence are really my responsibility to provide. Ultimately it became a business decision for Disney, imho, not a concern as to licenses.

Jimmy I think didn't want to work any further on his show, and wanted to be 'fired' so he could go off and do other things. That's my two cents. I don't think he is as dumb as he pretends to be, and whether that future endeavor is a podcast a la Carlson/others I don't know, I just think he was done with working there.

The big picture remains leftist duplicity/dishonesty to me.

Remember when you and your wife called Bob Iger to have me fired? https://t.co/w5BcJ1bsLC

— Roseanne Barr (@therealroseanne) September 18, 2025

And that's to say nothing of the many, many threats via the 'fairness doctrine' or other steps to take/drive Rush off the air going back to the mid-90's at least. I'm confident Jimmy is fine and can make a living/say what he wants (including lies) still, and will continue to pay little attention to his future endeavors.

zag213004 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Or Tucker Carlson.

I am convinced Chris Hayes' IQ must be around 67, from what little I have ever heard him say, but this is typical of Democrat duplicity on the topic:

MSNBC’s Chris Hayes on Kimmel getting fired: This renders the First Amendment meaningless.

Chris Hayes on Tucker getting fired: He believed he could say anything no matter how disgusting and get away with it. Over time, that’s not going to work out well for you. pic.twitter.com/KOdROGvseE

— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) September 18, 2025

I really don't comprehend the leftist point though today. Two of the biggest syndicates of channels said they wouldn't carry his show any longer, and the complaint is that the government did this to Disney? What were they supposed to do, pay him his regular salary to stay on in minor markets and maybe half the big American cities? His ratings have been declining for years.

He can go do a podcast for his fans, without the budget for the writers/set etc. His speech isn't censored, and I think he may have been angling to go that route anyway. Poor Jimmy has plenty of Disney cash.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr weighs in after ABC pulls Jimmy Kimmel off the airwaves

"Broadcasters are different from any other form of communication, including here on cable right now. Fox News doesn’t have an FCC license, CNN doesn’t, but ABC, CBS, and NBC—those broadcast… pic.twitter.com/RjATnjPzEC

— Sean Hannity 🇺🇸 (@seanhannity) September 18, 2025

To all of those crying about Jimmy Kimmel's show getting pulled off the air indefinitely...

FCC Rule 47 CFR §73.1217 — Broadcast hoaxes.

What the Rule Says:

It prohibits broadcast licensees (TV and radio) from knowingly airing false information about a crime or catastrophe if:… pic.twitter.com/LeHWXcLh2s

— ZNO 🇺🇸 (@therealZNO) September 18, 2025

Don't jeopardize your employer's broadcast licenses, and there's no FO.

---

Thank you for posting at least one of the actual policies that the FCC chair alluded to Kimmel violating and thus creating pressure on the tv station companies.

Based on the first bullet point of the hoax policy, were those texts (which haven't been verified as admissible evidence in a court of law yet) made public before the monologue? These texts directly contradict kimmels statement. However if he didn't have that information then he would not be subjected to the violation of that first point. For points 2 and 3 they talk about public harm. 2. Is WILL cause public harm. 3. Is DOES cause public harm. I don't think his phrase DOES cause "public harm" as defined in subsection c.

For 2. On its own… maybe? But the context of it and the history of talk like this from political talk radio to comedy sketches…. I think if the right said such a thing in those mediums we would be defending their right to say it and oppose government pressuring the company to take action.

I would also like to see the actual law on the other policy mentioned: "news distortion" and see the details on that. Is what he said stand alone or within the context of a joke set-up. Is news distortion allowed in a comedy or entertainment medium? Or to what degree? Can norm McDonald say on snl that OJ is guilty while in a court of law with admissible evidence and a jury and judge. Deemed OJ not guilty (my personal feelings aside. I think oj was guilty). Would the FCC be right into removing or threatening to remove the broadcast licenses for stations that showed Norm saying that?

---

The texts I don't believe were public until Tuesday afternoon. BUt the bullet casing engravings and commentary of friends and family were public.

You could say it wasn't 100% confirmed that he was a leftist, but the whole "He was Right wing MAGA follower of whomever" had certainly fallen apart.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

I'm well aware the Biden admin sent posts to Twitter and attempted to get users banned (and that is also wrong) but they have no mechanism to force it.

And again since you seem to be ignoring this point - posting on social media is not a right. No one was arrested for anything they said. A private company restricted their access, which they can do for any or no reason.

---

And in that same light, Kimmel having a job with ABC is not a right...

Kimmel does not have the right to convey a message on his social platform (here, a stage in front of a camera provided by his employer) that is counter to what his bosses want to convey...

Having a TV show is not a right...and he was not arrested for anything that he said...

A private company (ABC, in this case) is restricting his access which they can do for any or no reason...

You agree, yes?

Ryan the Temp said:

---

I don't watch Kimmel, I don't think he's particularly funny, and what he said was astonishingly distasteful, but do we really want the government forcing the media to cancel or censor anything they don't approve of? That's a dark path to go down - Sure, a lot of you folks agree with today's Republican administration on this, but what happens when a Democratic administration comes into power and threatens to revoke FCC licenses for Fox News and other conservative media? As we like to say, Highway 6 runs both ways.

Whatever happened to the mantra of personal responsibility? I don't like Fox News, so ... I don't watch it. I also don't like MSNBC, so ... I don't watch it. I don't like Kimmel's show, so ... I don't watch it.

---

Trump didn't pull Kimmel. Disney/ABC did after major affiliates started dropping his show.

Texas 8&4 said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Texas 8&4 said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Texas 8&4 said:

---

Comical how liberals are now trying to hide behind the 1st Amendment (even though they don't clearly understand), but when Trump et al, were banned from Twitter and Facebook, it was all good.

---

Not going to miss Kimmel but private companies like Twitter and Facebook can ban anyone for any or no reason. Completely different situations if the government forced this. Last thing we want is to give the green light to President AOC doing something similar when the pendulum inevitably swings back around.

---

The government DID force it

hth

---

Not really the same situation. Anyone in the government can publicly say what they wanted twitter or Facebook to do, but the bans were the companies' call. There isn't a mechanism for punishment the way there is for FCC licensed channels.

In this case, (it seems like) the government overtly threatened pulling their licenses due to what Kimmel said. If that element wasn't a part of this and ABC just fired him for their own reasons, I'd have no issues - just like Colbert getting dropped. But in my opinion it's wrong when the left tries to punish people for speech and it should be wrong when the right does it too.

---

It was a blatant lie. When told to issue an apology, he refused. When you don't do what your boss tells you, you get fired, regardless of why they told you to do something. This thing with the FCC is pure speculation. There are a number of shows (The View as someone mentioned), that are not being cancelled.

---

It isn't really speculation anymore when the head of the FCC said it publicly. Again, 100% in support of ABC firing Kimmel for any or no reason. My point is that the government should be nowhere near it. And yes, that includes if the left has arguably already attempted similar tactics. Conservatives should not sink to that level just because the left does. Just my opinion though.

---

I agree with you, but you have to abide by the rules of engagement. As a general rule, conservatives have tried to take the high road, and have nothing but continual ass kicking to show for it. The only was to fight back is by the same rules.

---

Yep. For years we played the affable good guy and all it got us was an ass kicking. Sometimes you have to get in the ditch, on the same level as your enemy and get a little **** on you. The wailing and gnashing of teeth from the left is music to my ears.

Texas 8&4 said:

---

See the post above yours. I don't know how to explain it to you if you really believe the government doesn't have to means to get done whatever they want, whether "officially" or "un-officially"

---

And my point is that both are wrong, whether "un-officially" in that case, or "officially" in this one by (apparently) threatening their license. Government should stay out of it no matter what side is doing the threatening.

Ryan the Temp said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Ryan the Temp said:

---

I don't watch Kimmel, I don't think he's particularly funny, and what he said was astonishingly distasteful, but do we really want the government forcing the media to cancel or censor anything they don't approve of? That's a dark path to go down - Sure, a lot of you folks agree with today's Republican administration on this, but what happens when a Democratic administration comes into power and threatens to revoke FCC licenses for Fox News and other conservative media? As we like to say, Highway 6 runs both ways.

Whatever happened to the mantra of personal responsibility? I don't like Fox News, so ... I don't watch it. I also don't like MSNBC, so ... I don't watch it. I don't like Kimmel's show, so ... I don't watch it.

---

No and that didn't happen. Can libs ever be honest?

---

BREAKING: The FCC Chairman is threatening immediate action against Jimmy Kimmel, ABC, and Disney for deliberately misleading the public by claiming Charlie Kirk’s assassin was a MAGA Conservative.

Chairman Brendan Carr calls Kimmel’s malicious lies are “truly sick” and says they… pic.twitter.com/mGhtGMPReI

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) September 17, 2025

---

So what?

flyrancher said:

---

aggiedata said:

---

Just when you think it can't get better, they are going to fire themselves

Every major talent that works for ABC and Disney should refuse to show up for work until Jimmy Kimmel is reinstated.

Marvel movies need to shutdown. Ditto the sitcoms.

Collective boycott.

Corporations love money more than anything, & this will really harm them and force them…

— Wajahat Ali (@WajahatAli) September 17, 2025

---

This is a great idea. It would just shut down ABC. Not a bad outcome!

---

no more dumb marvel movies, abc sitcoms, or disney crap? sign me up

They violated the first amendment. Period. If you can't admit that, you're not a reasonable person. The Twitter files explain it all.

More and more convinced here that Kimmel was being tuned out due to his vitriol by sane and normal Americans and ABC knows it. Therefore he was cancelled by the network when their fake ratings data would no longer hold up.

This solution appeases the sponsors who were not seeing a return and gives the lefties an opportunity to cry "Totalitarianism." ABC can cover up the fact no one likes Kimmel and push the narrative that free speech is under assault.

And if you love America, you no longer have to suffer that fool on late night TV.

FireAg said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

I'm well aware the Biden admin sent posts to Twitter and attempted to get users banned (and that is also wrong) but they have no mechanism to force it.

And again since you seem to be ignoring this point - posting on social media is not a right. No one was arrested for anything they said. A private company restricted their access, which they can do for any or no reason.

---

And in that same light, Kimmel having a job with ABC is not a right...

Kimmel does not have the right to convey a message on his social platform (here, a stage in front of a camera provided by his employer) that is counter to what his bosses want to convey...

Having a TV show is not a right...and he was not arrested for anything that he said...

A private company (ABC, in this case) is restricting his access which they can do for any or no reason...

You agree, yes?

---

Absolutely. No issue with what happened to Colbert for example, which is similar to what you are outlining. The government's apparent involvement here via the FCC is where I think we need to be careful. Others don't agree which is fine.

Ryan the Temp said:

---

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Interesting... Listening to Megyn Kelly's morning update right now. NexStar, who owns over 200 local ABC stations was answer planning to preempt the show last night before ABC/Disney pulled the plug.

Citing (and I'm not quoting verbatim) the show did not align with the standards and public interest and community values.

---

Free market solutions at work.

---

Just like with Kimmel

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

I'm well aware the Biden admin sent posts to Twitter and attempted to get users banned (and that is also wrong) but they have no mechanism to force it.

And again since you seem to be ignoring this point - posting on social media is not a right. No one was arrested for anything they said. A private company restricted their access, which they can do for any or no reason.

---

And ABC can fire Kimmel for any and no reason. What's your point? Yes, the FCC was sniffing around but they took no action that I'm aware of other than maybe to remind ABC that there are rules to using public airwaves.

Being conservative also means following the rules and not suffering rule breakers. Saying conservatives "shouldn't go there" is just a lame attempt at some purity test you think you are passing.

The government forced nothing in the Kimmel case. They talked about it.

Down is up. Up is down. Are you listening to yourself?

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Texas 8&4 said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

I'm well aware the Biden admin sent posts to Twitter and attempted to get users banned (and that is also wrong) but they have no mechanism to force it.

And again since you seem to be ignoring this point - posting on social media is not a right. No one was arrested for anything they said. A private company restricted their access, which they can do for any or no reason.

---

Don't be naive

---

If twitter told them to F off and didn't ban anyone what would the consequences be? If the government was really controlling their actions why was Elon allowed to do whatever he wanted once he took over?

---

If ABC told Trump to F off, what would the specific consequences be? Please provide evidence of the claim you are about to make.

Also, do you agree that ABC is different than social media when it comes to FCC regulation since they have FCC licenses to broadcast?

You clearly have no idea what the first amendment is. Have a good day.

I just want to note one thing...you keep referencing government intervention via the FCC. Even if true, is that remotely as bad as the continued weaponization of the judicial system against conservatives? Point being that this is a war, and you have to use the tools you have to win the war. Right or wrong, and not saying I agree, but that is the way it is.