[enlightens]

The summary at the top of the page says

> ABC said it was pulling the “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” show off the air “indefinitely” after controversial comments by its host about the slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

but the article says the following, which is entirely different:

> “The MAGA Gang 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,” he added.

[pogue]

The 2nd part is the quote from Jimmy Kimmel that he said on air that caused the "controversy", that resulted in the FCC commissioner, Brendan Carr to go on a podcast and threaten ABC/Disney with retaliatory action if they refused to take Kimmel off the air.

CNN doesn't show a clip, but explains what was said & the events that caused this.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/17/business/video/abc-jimmy-kimm...

Never believe those who claim to be in favor of free speech, but then use threats of legal intervention against those who practice it.

[cebert]

This isn’t a free-speech issue. Kimmel was free to say what he said, and I personally don’t find his comments egregiously offensive. However, clearly some people did. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences. In this case, his employer responded to partner backlash over his remarks.

[LeafItAlone]

> However, clearly some people did. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences. In this case, his employer responded to partner backlash over his remarks.

Government officials also threatened to pull the government provided broadcasting licenses that the corporation has. That’s free speech related.

[cebert]

Ok. I missed that detail.

[pogue]

>During a Wednesday podcast appearance, FCC head Brendan Carr threatened to revoke the broadcasting licenses of any stations that continued to air Kimmel’s content.

>“It’s time for them to step and say this garbage…isn’t something that we think serves the needs of our local communities,” he said.

>Carr’s threat should have been toothless. The FCC is prohibited by law from employing “the power of censorship” or interfering “with the right of free speech.” There is a very narrow and rarely used exception for “news distortion,” in which a broadcast news outlet knowingly airs false reports. What Kimmel did — an offhand comment based on weak evidence — is extremely different from creating a news report with the intent to deceive.

>Hours after Carr’s Wednesday threat, Nexstar — the largest owner of local stations in America — suddenly decided that Kimmel’s comments from two nights ago were unacceptable. Nexstar, it should be noted, is currently attempting to purchase one of its major rivals for $6.2 billion — a merger that would require express FCC approval.

Source: https://www.vox.com/politics/461887/jimmy-kimmel-suspension-...

[qcnguy]

If claiming Tyler Robinson is right wing isn't "news distortion", then what is?

[LeafItAlone]

That’s understandable. In this 24 hour news cycle of manufactured outrage, who has the time to fully understand an issue before making a proclamation of what is and isn’t true. Facts are old news.

[IAmBroom]

Reading is fundamental.

[tgma]

The same licenses restrict badwords. You can't even say fuck on the same airwaves. That spectrum is public property licensed with restrictions. That's not a First Amendment issue at all, it is a contractual issue.

[seadan83]

You're seemingly equating "obscenity" with "political criticism". I'll note that "political criticism" is offensive when you don't agree with it. The first amendment is exactly for that kind of offensive language.

[tgma]

Well, First Amendment protects your rights to obscene speech too, so you just affirmed here the license terms are controlling, not First Amendment. I am not litigating this exact incident (which in all likelihood had most to do with business decisions as WSJ reports,) nor suggesting that I think what was said was overly offensive, just pointing out that the airwaves in question are much more restricted than general speech in the United States and debates over what is allowed would not automatically escalate to a constitutional concern.

[darkoob12]

This is how the Islamic regime in Iran thinks. They argue that "you are free to say whatever you want and we are free to put you in jail and in some cases hang you".

[JohnTHaller]

> his employer responded to partner backlash over his remarks

No. His employer responded to threats from the Republican federal government to prevent them from broadcasting by pulling their FCC license or prevent their merger.

[happytoexplain]

I think everybody is (reasonably) confused by the use of the words "anything other than". It's usually used in phrases that express the speaker's opinion to the opposite ("as if this is anything other than performative" means "this is performative"). Based on the clip, it sounds like Kimmel unfortunately used it literally: "trying to portray [him] as anything other than...", as in, "they're jumping the gun on his portrayal and blame placement", and not, "I know which team he's on." I could be wrong, but that's what it sounds like in context (and would make more sense too).

[BrandoElFollito]

This by the way is an example of construction that confuses is non English natives.

Another one is "he was all but dead" which can be understood as "he was really in a bad shape, almost dead", or "he was absolutely not dead, as opposed to what they say"

There are a few more like these (especially in short titles, where I have to analyze word by word the sentence to make sure I got it right)

[happytoexplain]

Yeah, English is very confusing (or at least I get the impression that it is more confusing than other languages - it's the only one I speak).

Even in your example, I think you misunderstand. "He was all but dead" is never used to mean "he was absolutely not dead, as opposed to what they say". That would be "he was anything but dead".

However, there is a caveat, since even native speakers increasingly over the years speak English "wrongly". Of course, when they do it enough, it's no longer wrong. So maybe you did hear a native speaker use the phrase "he was all but dead" with the latter meaning, but I would put that usage in the "wrong" camp as of 2025.

[BrandoElFollito]

> Even in your example, I think you misunderstand. "He was all but dead" is never used to mean "he was absolutely not dead, as opposed to what they say". That would be "he was anything but dead".

ah, sorry I was not clear - what I meant with the "or" is that there are 2 ways to understand this sentence, one of them being incorrect :)

[happytoexplain]

Ah - yes, I misunderstood your description of misunderstanding.

[abustamam]

I am a native English speaker and I don't actually know what he was trying to say, but it just seemed like he was talking about the MAGAs trying to quickly pin blame on not-MAGA. This is why I'm not a monologue writer.

[zeven7]

This is a good insight. I don't think Kimmel should be pulled for either meaning, but it does help explain why some people might be talking past each other.

[happytoexplain]

To be fair, even if I'm right, I don't think I'm going to convince anybody who wants to interpret it the other way. The difference is large semantically, but subtle linguistically.

[D-Machine]

Thing is, even if the "trying to portray [him] as anything other than..." reading was intended and the correct reading, the statement is still closer to the opposite of the truth.

Granted, it is not reasonable to expect everyone to have been terminally online for this issue, but even before this statement was made, it was clear if you visited places with right-wing bias (e.g. 4chan) that almost no one was concerned this guy might be MAGA. And if you looked at more grey tribe places (e.g. ACX open-thread comments / discussion), it was also already clear the preponderance of evidence and reason in fact definitely point to it being far more likely the guy was left than right (or at minimum some idiosyncratic, but definitely not "groyper" or "MAGA" rightist). Heck, this was even clear if you read through enough Reddit comments sorting by "controversial".

Also, it was abundantly clear the sentiments were: Blue tribe social media desperately looking for evidence against obvious left/progressive connections, Red tribe media gleefully pointing out left/progressive connections, and gray tribe places generally having the usual mix + typical frustration at the over-certainty of everyone else.

I.e., the reality is that the "desperation" was almost entirely on the left (understandably) trying to disown the shooter. What there was on the MAGA right was maniacal glee about all the potential (and prima facie more reasonable) left-wing connections. I doubt noting these overall patterns instead would have saved Kimmel, but choosing to frame the whole thing as "desperate MAGA" was just an insinuation that really ran directly opposite to the facts and reason.

[basch]

>almost no one was concerned this guy might be MAGA.

But that's not what he's saying. He was saying "they were quick to paint him as blue tribe before knowing his tribe." It is just constructed like a sentence that ambiguously also means "desperately constructing that he was not red tribe."

>Red tribe media gleefully pointing out left/progressive connections

Which is synonymous with what JK said. That the reaction was "he was a them, not us, therefore justifying our prejudices."

[D-Machine]

He literally said "with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them". Interpretation hinges on the "desperately" here, but your reading of this as him saying "they were quick to paint him as blue tribe before knowing his tribe" is far too distant from the literal words. The right were not "desperate" to distance him from MAGA or red tribe, because that was never a strong position given reason and the evidence, which pointed, if anywhere, towards blue tribe. The "desperation", if anywhere, was on the left linking him to MAGA, because it was very clear, even then, to anyone who read beyond Reddit "best" comments, that the links to the left were far stronger and more reasonable. Kimmel's phrasing not just implied, but directly stated that the desperation was in the opposite place to where it was in actuality, and so strongly implied a preponderance of evidence in a direction opposite to the general direction dictated by reason and evidence already known at that time. So no, there is not the synonymity you claim.

As others have pointed out, this kind of insinuation is very hard to see as anything other than deliberate, given basic media literacy and how modern media operates (https://www.themotte.org/post/3263/culture-war-roundup-for-t...). To save you a click:

> The "desperation" implies a sort of losing battle that they're grasping at straws to prove something that's factually wrong, rather than simply stating truths that are obvious, evident and obviously evident. "Desperate" is a subjective judgment call, of course, so Kimmel absolutely deserves zero government censorship for this, by my lights; all it does is show that his judgment is so bad that it reflects poorly on the judgment of people who hired him as a host for a show like that. That MAGA was trying to characterize the murderer as anything other than MAGA is arguably a bland, neutral fact about reality, but that MAGA was desperately trying to do so is a judgment call that shows extremely poor ability to observe reality or to discern reality.

[gruez]

> “The MAGA Gang 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.

Off topic, but has there been convincing evidence that the suspect is right wing/MAGA, as Kimmel implied? I've seen some posts on reddit to this effect, but they're far from convincing.

[baobun]

There is no such implication there.

[gruez]

There is, despite the fact that a strict reading would turn up no such implication. However taking into account the phrasing and the general zeitgeist on reddit (and similar left-leaning circles), it's pretty obvious what he was trying to do. Imagine you read a passage that said:

>The sugar industry desperately trying to characterize the obesity crisis as being caused by anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it

what would your conclusion be? That sugar isn't a contributing factor to obesity?

[Natsu]

I guess he didn't see the info that the police released?

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/16/us/text-message-tyler-robinso...

[gsf_emergency_2]

Family is staunchly republican, tho the perp himself went indy in the last few elections. Being gay doesn't say anything, Thiel's gay bf killed himself for what seems like political issues too (& might have been Indy like perp-- or, say sama)

https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2025/9/15/charlie-kirk-ki...

[Natsu]

You can find interviews online with his neighbors, etc. who all say hated his family for being conservative.