This, alongside the cancelling of Jimmy Kimmel today, raises all kinds of red flags. We're about to find out just how well the First Amendment holds up under an autocrat.
Just to clarify for anyone skimming: ABC faced pressure from FCC chair Brendan Carr after he said their broadcasting license was at risk from Kimmel's statements on Tyler Robinson, the alleged Kirk assassin.
Relatedly, Sinclair Media (which owns several ABC-affiliated broadcasting stations and has long been regarded as skewing very conservative) issued a statement suggesting that Kimmel could only be rehabilitated by apologizing and making substantial donations to Kirk's estate and to Turning Point USA.
I highly suggest watching the clip in question. Pod Save America just covered this and included the FCC's explanation for why they're going after shows like Kimmel. Really chilling stuff[0]
I don’t think FCC pressure was what led to this. Nexstar, which owns stations that are affiliates of ABC, made a choice to remove the show from their stations. Their reasoning has nothing to do with the government or first amendment. Here is what they said:
> “Mr. Kimmel’s comments about the death of Mr. Kirk are offensive and insensitive at a critical time in our national political discourse, and we do not believe they reflect the spectrum of opinions, views, or values of the local communities in which we are located,” said Andrew Alford, President of Nexstar’s broadcasting division. “Continuing to give Mr. Kimmel a broadcast platform in the communities we serve is simply not in the public interest at the current time, and we have made the difficult decision to preempt his show in an effort to let cooler heads prevail as we move toward the resumption of respectful, constructive dialogue.”
This decision and their public statement about it, coupled with social media pressure, led ABC to making a decision afterwards about the show.
I want to thank Nexstar for doing the right thing.
Local broadcasters have an obligation to serve the public interest. While this may be an unprecedented decision, it is important for broadcasters to push back on Disney programming that they determine falls short of community values.
I hope that other broadcasters follow Nexstar’s lead.
Amusingly, one of the replies quotes Carr in 2019 saying 'The FCC does not have a mandate to police speech in the name of the 'public interest.''
The implication here is that Nexstar wants a merger, which requires FCC approval. How does one get FCC approval under the current administration? Do them a favor and apply leverage to out a political opponent.
The merger is a good point. Assuming that the commissioners (not just Carr) were to participate in such a scheme. But this type of indirect regulatory pressure wouldn’t be new. Many tech companies implemented government directed online censorship (for example on COVID related topics) because they were worried about antitrust actions.
Edit: can’t reply to comment below me but that quote is referring to the instances where the company pushed back. It’s not saying they didn’t comply at all - they absolutely did on many instances, and Zuckerberg admitted guilt over it. See later quote:
> “I also think we made some choices that, with the benefit of hindsight and new information, we wouldn’t make today,” he said, without elaborating. “We’re ready to push back if something like this happens again.”
I’m saying the sequence of events was that Nexstar’s voluntary actions, which they shared their justification for, immediately led to broader ABC action, which they pretty much had to before other groups of stations did the same and turned it into an embarrassing moment for Disney.
As for Carr - he is staunchly in support of first amendment rights. Politico wrote about this yesterday since he split from the rest of the GOP on broader censorship (https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/16/fcc-brendan-carr-so...). He also can’t take unilateral action - the commissioners would have to vote. But the FCC has a lot of content rules for the mediums they regulate, which have thus far held up in courts (although I find it questionable). In that sense, what he was suggesting may be legal (unfortunately).
> As for Carr - he is staunchly in support of first amendment rights
Right, because he said this on a conservative podcast:
Hours earlier, FCC Chair Brendan Carr told conservative podcaster Benny Johnson that Kimmel’s comments were “truly sick,” and that there was a “strong case” for action against ABC and Disney.
“This is a very, very serious issue right now for Disney. We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr said. “These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel, or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”
"easy way or the hard way" sounds pretty staunchly against the first amendment to me and more like a fascist thug.
I linked an article that you may want to read. He is against any actions taken around online speech due to the first amendment. He is okay with applying FCC’s regulatory authority because the courts - including SCOTUS - have upheld its constitutionality (prior to this administration).
No, I am not saying that. What I am saying is that he seems to care about acting along the lines of what is constitutional. And the FCC has regulatory authority over broadcasted TV, including on the content itself to some extent. The authority of the FCC on regulating the actual content has been upheld across numerous court cases as being constitutional. The article I linked shows he is unwilling to implement censorship that is unconstitutional despite there being some calls for it on the political right.
Right, don't listen to Brendan Carr's actions or the words he literally tells you, instead read this completely separate article about how he's totally in favor of Freedom of Speech while stomping on your rights. Do you even see the cognitive dissonance in play here or are you just completely in favor of running interference for someone taking actions against the constitution?
You're talking as if the rubicon hasn't been crossed. These aren't "red flags", they're concrete actions. It isn't the first amendment that needed to hold up, that is just a piece of paper. It's institutions like the Supreme Court that are supposed to stop these kinds of actions and they did not, since it's been stacked with those who uncritically support everything Trump does.
The United States is a fascist dictatorship. It's not turning into one, it has already happened.
"This, alongside the cancelling of Jimmy Kimmel today, raises all kinds of red flags. We're about to find out just how well the First Amendment holds up under an autocrat."
Speech has consequences. In addition to this, Antifa has been proven to be an organized and violent group, gaining popularity after Occupy Wallstreet. It's about time they are classified as a terrorist group.
People seem to be ignoring the almost nightly attacks of ICE and federal buildings by Antifa groups and when D.C was on fire during Trump's first presidenency.
If Trump is an 'autocrat' as you say, the Biden administration was a Dictatorship.
Republicans being debanked, J6 protestors that just showed up and were let in by police, arrested in front of their friends and families and sent to prison for years, the government colluding with major social media companies to censor American citizens on anything that changes the government narrative, and the firing of anyone that didn't take an experimental vaccine, regardless of any pre-existing health issues.
> J6 protestors that just showed up and were let in by police, arrested in front of their friends and families and sent to prison for years
J6'ers ransacked the Capitol building and killed a cop, we all watched it unfold live on TV. I'd love to read more on the debanking thing, I can't find anything that materially supports the claim that lots of people are being debanked for their political views.
> the government colluding with major social media companies to censor American citizens on anything that changes the government narrative
This is exactly what is happening right now with broadcasters and with those speaking out about Kirk. Trump and Kimmel have feuded for years. Why do you see this situation as justified (i.e. "Speech has consequences"), but when it's social media, you see big bad government suppressing speech illegally?
It's like we just tolerate it when it's our party in charge, otherwise we ignore it. I have no idea where that path leads us, but I can't fathom it's good.
You understand that the Twitter Files was an absolute nothingburger, correct? It showed that they needed a special database to keep track of the same requests from Republicans because they were submitting so much. There was no "collusion" as you put it.
The "hunter biden laptop" story is a dead horse that keeps being revived by the right wing fearmonger media which you're clearly very entrenched in.
Biden literally had, and used, back door channels to compel private companies to censor speech online. These companies complied either due to ideological alignment or fear of regulatory attacks from the Biden administration. To the extent that the FCC (which is more than just the one commissioner) were to take some action, it may have been less of an issue than Biden’s explicit violation of constitutional rights, because the Supreme Court has upheld the FCC’s ability to regulate content to some extent.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Biden administration on June 26, 2024, in the case Murthy v. Missouri. The 6-3 decision rejected the argument that the federal government violated the First Amendment by coercing social media companies to remove posts related to COVID-19 and the 2020 election.
I'm not sure you could consider Antifa an "organization" even in its prime ~5 years ago. Is anyone protesting fascism going to fall under this umbrella?
That’s a feature for them. Are you against fascism? Congrats, your rights have been reduced. Pray they don’t reduce them further.
And with the neutering of lower courts to impose nationwide injunctions, they’ll get pretty far before we get a final judicial ruling, likely on the shadow docket.
Yes they still show up in masks and black outfits at events in particular cities (Portland and Seattle in particular), disrupting others’ legal activities, and intimidating people (for example by holding cans of pepper spray in their hand and shaking them), or committing outright violence.
I’m not sure how you haven’t heard of them since “before COVID”. They were far more active post COVID and George Floyd. You can find lots written about their activities online, and lots of videos as well.
Most of his content is literally just showing evidence in photos and videos of what is happening. The reason critics of him always deflect to some kind of character attack is because they know the evidence is damning.
> There is an alternate universe out there in which we never have to ponder, let alone read, “Unmasked,” provocateur Andy Ngo’s supremely dishonest new book on the left-wing anti-fascist movement known as antifa.
[. . . ]
> The right is always reminding us that ”facts don’t care about your feelings,” so let us set out some facts. Ngo writes that the “numbers and influence” of right-wing extremists “are grossly exaggerated by biased media,” while antifa poses “just as much, if not more, of a threat to the future of American liberal democracy.” He frequently references [2020’s] anti-racism protests, conveniently eliding the point that 93% were peaceful, according to a study from Princeton. A brief published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, hardly a lefty outfit, found that antifa had a “minor” role in what violence did occur, most of which was driven by local, autonomous actors, and that the organization’s threat was “relatively small.”
> January 6th administered the coup de grâce to Ngo’s already teetering thesis. It should not have taken this long, however. Trump’s own Department of Homeland Security warned last October that “white supremacist extremists” would remain the “most persistent and lethal threat” to the American homeland.
I am aware of the current US administration. But what's the point in denouncing an organisation which barely even exists today (as far as I can tell)? I don't see them denouncing the Communist Party USA, but I would see about as much point in that as in this.
It's a constant part of history wrt autocracy and securing power.
If, for example, I call you out for being a fascist (or even falsely accuse you of such) then I must be anti fascist and therefore a terrorist, an enemy of the state, someone that can be seized from the streets and cast into a black hole somewhere.
The particulars don't matter, be it Red Scare (and under the bed), Yellow Peril, Anti-Fa, et al. the playbook is familiar.
As if they needed more reasons to be authoritarian. They seem to be able to be that just fine without this, but I guess even they need some sort of reasoning, however flimsy, and more options to pick from probably does help them achieve their goals.
I'm not sure if they meet the requirements for being a terrorist group or if I agree with them being considered terrorists, but I just want to point out the name of the organisation isn't a valid argument in favour of them, the actions of the organisation matter a lot more than the name, for example on many occasions they've used violence to prevent people from political speech (is that antifascism or fascism?)
In the United States the terrorist designation process is legally limited to foreign organizations and not allowed for domestic ones because there is a fear that allowing that could be weaponized against Americans or political foes.
I thought that there really wasn't an "Antifa" as such, that anyone could call themselves or their organization "Antifa".
But if there is an "Antifa", and it's made up of US citizens, under what law are they terrorists? Again, I may be misinformed, but I had understood "terrorist" as a legal designation was for non-US-citizens.
It is obviously a terrorist organization and this is long overdue. Antifa members engage in intimidation, violence, and criminality in support of political goals. That meets the definition of “terrorism” explicitly. As for people trying to claim there is no such group - the gaslighting isn’t working anymore. Decentralization doesn’t change what it is. And there are clearly well known, well documented, organized cells like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_City_Antifa
This, alongside the cancelling of Jimmy Kimmel today, raises all kinds of red flags. We're about to find out just how well the First Amendment holds up under an autocrat.
> cancelling of Jimmy Kimmel today
Just to clarify for anyone skimming: ABC faced pressure from FCC chair Brendan Carr after he said their broadcasting license was at risk from Kimmel's statements on Tyler Robinson, the alleged Kirk assassin.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/17/charlie-kirk-jimmy-kimmel-ab...
Relatedly, Sinclair Media (which owns several ABC-affiliated broadcasting stations and has long been regarded as skewing very conservative) issued a statement suggesting that Kimmel could only be rehabilitated by apologizing and making substantial donations to Kirk's estate and to Turning Point USA.
https://x.com/WeAreSinclair/status/1968474667049525634
I highly suggest watching the clip in question. Pod Save America just covered this and included the FCC's explanation for why they're going after shows like Kimmel. Really chilling stuff[0]
0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIFuvI2ruS8
I don’t think FCC pressure was what led to this. Nexstar, which owns stations that are affiliates of ABC, made a choice to remove the show from their stations. Their reasoning has nothing to do with the government or first amendment. Here is what they said:
> “Mr. Kimmel’s comments about the death of Mr. Kirk are offensive and insensitive at a critical time in our national political discourse, and we do not believe they reflect the spectrum of opinions, views, or values of the local communities in which we are located,” said Andrew Alford, President of Nexstar’s broadcasting division. “Continuing to give Mr. Kimmel a broadcast platform in the communities we serve is simply not in the public interest at the current time, and we have made the difficult decision to preempt his show in an effort to let cooler heads prevail as we move toward the resumption of respectful, constructive dialogue.”
This decision and their public statement about it, coupled with social media pressure, led ABC to making a decision afterwards about the show.
This comment posted earlier by Commissioner Carr seems relevant here: https://x.com/BrendanCarrFCC/status/1968449919221416427
I want to thank Nexstar for doing the right thing.
Local broadcasters have an obligation to serve the public interest. While this may be an unprecedented decision, it is important for broadcasters to push back on Disney programming that they determine falls short of community values.
I hope that other broadcasters follow Nexstar’s lead.
Amusingly, one of the replies quotes Carr in 2019 saying 'The FCC does not have a mandate to police speech in the name of the 'public interest.''
https://x.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1968485214511878199
The implication here is that Nexstar wants a merger, which requires FCC approval. How does one get FCC approval under the current administration? Do them a favor and apply leverage to out a political opponent.
The merger is a good point. Assuming that the commissioners (not just Carr) were to participate in such a scheme. But this type of indirect regulatory pressure wouldn’t be new. Many tech companies implemented government directed online censorship (for example on COVID related topics) because they were worried about antitrust actions.
Yeah, and that was wrong too. Are you saying that because the government has overreached in the past makes this situation acceptable?
And Republicans protested loudly about this and made freedom of speech a major point as a reason to vote for them.
> Many tech companies implemented government directed online censorship
Can you provide evidence for this? Right wing truisms are not sufficient.
It is very easy to find lots of evidence with a few searches if you’re curious. Here is one:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/zuckerberg-says-the-wh...
Edit: can’t reply to comment below me but that quote is referring to the instances where the company pushed back. It’s not saying they didn’t comply at all - they absolutely did on many instances, and Zuckerberg admitted guilt over it. See later quote:
> “I also think we made some choices that, with the benefit of hindsight and new information, we wouldn’t make today,” he said, without elaborating. “We’re ready to push back if something like this happens again.”
So Brendan Carr threatening their license and them cancelling the show is a coincidence? Is that what you're arguing?
I’m saying the sequence of events was that Nexstar’s voluntary actions, which they shared their justification for, immediately led to broader ABC action, which they pretty much had to before other groups of stations did the same and turned it into an embarrassing moment for Disney.
As for Carr - he is staunchly in support of first amendment rights. Politico wrote about this yesterday since he split from the rest of the GOP on broader censorship (https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/16/fcc-brendan-carr-so...). He also can’t take unilateral action - the commissioners would have to vote. But the FCC has a lot of content rules for the mediums they regulate, which have thus far held up in courts (although I find it questionable). In that sense, what he was suggesting may be legal (unfortunately).
> As for Carr - he is staunchly in support of first amendment rights
Right, because he said this on a conservative podcast:
"easy way or the hard way" sounds pretty staunchly against the first amendment to me and more like a fascist thug.I linked an article that you may want to read. He is against any actions taken around online speech due to the first amendment. He is okay with applying FCC’s regulatory authority because the courts - including SCOTUS - have upheld its constitutionality (prior to this administration).
It should be noted this FCC guy expressly stated in the past that the FCC should not do this sort of thing.
Upheld the rights with limits related to indecency
FCC v. Pacifica Foundation
I'm confused - are you saying he didn't make the remarks quoted above?
No, I am not saying that. What I am saying is that he seems to care about acting along the lines of what is constitutional. And the FCC has regulatory authority over broadcasted TV, including on the content itself to some extent. The authority of the FCC on regulating the actual content has been upheld across numerous court cases as being constitutional. The article I linked shows he is unwilling to implement censorship that is unconstitutional despite there being some calls for it on the political right.
Right, don't listen to Brendan Carr's actions or the words he literally tells you, instead read this completely separate article about how he's totally in favor of Freedom of Speech while stomping on your rights. Do you even see the cognitive dissonance in play here or are you just completely in favor of running interference for someone taking actions against the constitution?
You're talking as if the rubicon hasn't been crossed. These aren't "red flags", they're concrete actions. It isn't the first amendment that needed to hold up, that is just a piece of paper. It's institutions like the Supreme Court that are supposed to stop these kinds of actions and they did not, since it's been stacked with those who uncritically support everything Trump does.
The United States is a fascist dictatorship. It's not turning into one, it has already happened.
"This, alongside the cancelling of Jimmy Kimmel today, raises all kinds of red flags. We're about to find out just how well the First Amendment holds up under an autocrat."
Speech has consequences. In addition to this, Antifa has been proven to be an organized and violent group, gaining popularity after Occupy Wallstreet. It's about time they are classified as a terrorist group.
People seem to be ignoring the almost nightly attacks of ICE and federal buildings by Antifa groups and when D.C was on fire during Trump's first presidenency.
If Trump is an 'autocrat' as you say, the Biden administration was a Dictatorship.
Republicans being debanked, J6 protestors that just showed up and were let in by police, arrested in front of their friends and families and sent to prison for years, the government colluding with major social media companies to censor American citizens on anything that changes the government narrative, and the firing of anyone that didn't take an experimental vaccine, regardless of any pre-existing health issues.
> J6 protestors that just showed up and were let in by police, arrested in front of their friends and families and sent to prison for years
J6'ers ransacked the Capitol building and killed a cop, we all watched it unfold live on TV. I'd love to read more on the debanking thing, I can't find anything that materially supports the claim that lots of people are being debanked for their political views.
> the government colluding with major social media companies to censor American citizens on anything that changes the government narrative
This is exactly what is happening right now with broadcasters and with those speaking out about Kirk. Trump and Kimmel have feuded for years. Why do you see this situation as justified (i.e. "Speech has consequences"), but when it's social media, you see big bad government suppressing speech illegally?
It's like we just tolerate it when it's our party in charge, otherwise we ignore it. I have no idea where that path leads us, but I can't fathom it's good.
You understand that the Twitter Files was an absolute nothingburger, correct? It showed that they needed a special database to keep track of the same requests from Republicans because they were submitting so much. There was no "collusion" as you put it.
The "hunter biden laptop" story is a dead horse that keeps being revived by the right wing fearmonger media which you're clearly very entrenched in.
Literally every example you cited is either a) without evidence or b) a private institution.
Nothing you just said bears resemblance to the FCC-directed censorship we just saw today. Cite some sources if you think otherwise.
Biden literally had, and used, back door channels to compel private companies to censor speech online. These companies complied either due to ideological alignment or fear of regulatory attacks from the Biden administration. To the extent that the FCC (which is more than just the one commissioner) were to take some action, it may have been less of an issue than Biden’s explicit violation of constitutional rights, because the Supreme Court has upheld the FCC’s ability to regulate content to some extent.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Biden administration on June 26, 2024, in the case Murthy v. Missouri. The 6-3 decision rejected the argument that the federal government violated the First Amendment by coercing social media companies to remove posts related to COVID-19 and the 2020 election.
I'm not sure you could consider Antifa an "organization" even in its prime ~5 years ago. Is anyone protesting fascism going to fall under this umbrella?
That’s a feature for them. Are you against fascism? Congrats, your rights have been reduced. Pray they don’t reduce them further.
And with the neutering of lower courts to impose nationwide injunctions, they’ll get pretty far before we get a final judicial ruling, likely on the shadow docket.
> Is anyone protesting fascism going to fall under this umbrella?
That is correct.
Is Antifa even relevant anymore? I haven't heard any news about them since before COVID. What sparked this now?
Yes they still show up in masks and black outfits at events in particular cities (Portland and Seattle in particular), disrupting others’ legal activities, and intimidating people (for example by holding cans of pepper spray in their hand and shaking them), or committing outright violence.
I’m not sure how you haven’t heard of them since “before COVID”. They were far more active post COVID and George Floyd. You can find lots written about their activities online, and lots of videos as well.
Andy Ngo has done a great job documenting this. I’m sure someone is going to respond to my comment with character attacks on Andy Ngo but his journalism is solid. He wrote a book about Antifa (https://www.centerstreet.com/titles/andy-ngo/unmasked/978154...) and also has a lot of content on his website (https://www.ngocomment.com/)
Anyone who believes Andy Ngo is a solid journalist has lost all credibility:
https://www.reddit.com/r/BreadTube/comments/10cxkk2/getting_...
Most of his content is literally just showing evidence in photos and videos of what is happening. The reason critics of him always deflect to some kind of character attack is because they know the evidence is damning.
The LA Times’ review of _Unmasked_ (2021):
> There is an alternate universe out there in which we never have to ponder, let alone read, “Unmasked,” provocateur Andy Ngo’s supremely dishonest new book on the left-wing anti-fascist movement known as antifa.
[. . . ]
> The right is always reminding us that ”facts don’t care about your feelings,” so let us set out some facts. Ngo writes that the “numbers and influence” of right-wing extremists “are grossly exaggerated by biased media,” while antifa poses “just as much, if not more, of a threat to the future of American liberal democracy.” He frequently references [2020’s] anti-racism protests, conveniently eliding the point that 93% were peaceful, according to a study from Princeton. A brief published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, hardly a lefty outfit, found that antifa had a “minor” role in what violence did occur, most of which was driven by local, autonomous actors, and that the organization’s threat was “relatively small.”
> January 6th administered the coup de grâce to Ngo’s already teetering thesis. It should not have taken this long, however. Trump’s own Department of Homeland Security warned last October that “white supremacist extremists” would remain the “most persistent and lethal threat” to the American homeland.
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/books/story/2021-...
That's because Antifa never really existed but was a convenient boogeyman to keep people afraid and in line.
What is the opposite of Antifa? Have you heard that word a lot lately? What does Trump support?
turning point
I am aware of the current US administration. But what's the point in denouncing an organisation which barely even exists today (as far as I can tell)? I don't see them denouncing the Communist Party USA, but I would see about as much point in that as in this.
give the people something to hate, to fear, and lay the blame on that which must be removed.
It's a constant part of history wrt autocracy and securing power.
If, for example, I call you out for being a fascist (or even falsely accuse you of such) then I must be anti fascist and therefore a terrorist, an enemy of the state, someone that can be seized from the streets and cast into a black hole somewhere.
The particulars don't matter, be it Red Scare (and under the bed), Yellow Peril, Anti-Fa, et al. the playbook is familiar.
As if they needed more reasons to be authoritarian. They seem to be able to be that just fine without this, but I guess even they need some sort of reasoning, however flimsy, and more options to pick from probably does help them achieve their goals.
I'm not sure if they meet the requirements for being a terrorist group or if I agree with them being considered terrorists, but I just want to point out the name of the organisation isn't a valid argument in favour of them, the actions of the organisation matter a lot more than the name, for example on many occasions they've used violence to prevent people from political speech (is that antifascism or fascism?)
It's not an organization, it's a grass roots movement.
However, I agree with you in a sense, in that movements with names are inherently vulnerable to cooptation and suppression.
Antifa is a meme, not an organization, you say.
And now you see: that is the point.
It’s an organization. Decentralization doesn’t change that.
What makes it an organization?
In the United States the terrorist designation process is legally limited to foreign organizations and not allowed for domestic ones because there is a fear that allowing that could be weaponized against Americans or political foes.
I thought that there really wasn't an "Antifa" as such, that anyone could call themselves or their organization "Antifa".
But if there is an "Antifa", and it's made up of US citizens, under what law are they terrorists? Again, I may be misinformed, but I had understood "terrorist" as a legal designation was for non-US-citizens.
It is obviously a terrorist organization and this is long overdue. Antifa members engage in intimidation, violence, and criminality in support of political goals. That meets the definition of “terrorism” explicitly. As for people trying to claim there is no such group - the gaslighting isn’t working anymore. Decentralization doesn’t change what it is. And there are clearly well known, well documented, organized cells like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_City_Antifa
The problems with antifa are not new https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/643168/amid-portland...