[c420]

To those that are interpreting his comments in a certain way, the implication that Robinson is maga is highly offensive and textbook "misinformation".

Edit: there's clearly several ways to interpret what he said. I'm not making any kind of argument here, just answering op's question.

[thrance]

So when a talk show host vaguely on the left implies something that might not be true it is ground enough to disregard the fucking first amendment and use the power of the state to censor him. But when the entire GOP, including the president, all fabricate obvious lies about the shooter being successively trans, then antifa and then a radical leftist, it's fine. The double standards are fucking crazy.

[gruez]

You don't exactly need to be MAGA to think that Kimmel's remarks were incorrect. From the economist:

>After the assassination Jimmy Kimmel, a comedian on abc, suggested erroneously that Kirk had been killed by a maga fan. Brendan Carr, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates broadcasters, threatened consequences: “We can do this the easy way or the hard way.” Within hours abc took Mr Kimmel off the air indefinitely. Mr Carr then said all broadcasters should ease up on the “progressive foie gras”.

https://archive.is/ze4pD

You can check the other articles in the same issue and see they're not exactly cheerleaders for the Trump administration.

That said, the FTC shouldn't be in the business of strongarming critics, even if they're wrong.

[siliconc0w]

The subject of the sentence was "the MAGA gang" - and it's true that they (and the president himself) were the ones desperately declaring right after the assassination before we had any information that shooter was a radical leftist. So for me it's a fair statement and really only disinformation if you purposely distort the sentence.

The second part of what he said is also a true statement, that they're using this tragic event to score political points and go after their political opponents.

[slowmovintarget]

Well, the kid did turn out to have ties to a radical leftist organization. He spent an awful lot of time on Antifa discord servers and, according to his acquaintances and friends, had frequent arguments with his conservative parents over politics. You think they were arguing about who voted Republican harder?

[crtasm]

The president and co making such claims based on little or no evidence doesn't become OK just because some is turned up later.

[slowmovintarget]

Early, and correct, claims were made based on the inscriptions found on the bullets and shell casings, IIRC.

[crtasm]

People certainly jumped to conslusions about them and extrapolated from there.

[gruez]

You're ignoring the part of the quote where he implied the killer was MAGA or MAGA affiliated. For reference the full quote is:

>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 didn't explicitly make the accusation that the killer was MAGA, but the use of the wording "desperately trying to imply ... as anything other than one of them" definitely gives that impression. I mean, why else would they be "desperately" trying to? If an attempt was made on Bernie or AOC I wouldn't characterize leftists prematurely blaming it on the right as "desperately". It's just the most logical inference. The "killer was right wing" narrative was also being pushed in some left leaning circles, so it's not exactly outlandish either.

[siliconc0w]

I disagree - my read is that he is saying the MAGA gang was trying to exploit the tragedy and desperately point fingers, which I think is accurate.

[nobody9999]

>You're ignoring the part of the quote where he implied the killer was MAGA or MAGA affiliated. For reference the full quote is:

He did not. But even if he did, so what?

Does either interpretation make his comment somehow illegal and deserving of government threats to retaliate against folks unless Kimmel was punished?

That's not a rhetorical question.

IMNSHO, you're focusing on the wrong thing here. What difference does it make what legal speech was used? The problem is that the government is trying to silence the critics of those currently in power. And at least in the US, the government isn't allowed to do that -- whether they're critics of the current administration or not.

If you don't decry that, it could be you and yours next. You've been warned.

[kashunstva]

Now fact-check Fox News.

Let’s just say that the alleged shooter’s political philosophies are likely complex and are yet to be fully understood.

[gruez]

>Now fact-check Fox News.

Did you miss the second part of my comment? Even if Kimmel was in the wrong he shouldn't be taken off the air. I'm just pointing out why Trump might be upset. It's a reason, not necessarily a good reason.

>Let’s just say that the alleged shooter’s political philosophies are likely complex and are yet to be fully understood

By most accounts it's safe to say he's left leaning. You don't have to be a card carrying DSA member or have your ideology fully align with the Democrats platform to earn that label.

[robertjpayne]

You could also just say he was a unaffiliated lunatic who was sick of Kirk's rhetoric and hate speech and took it into his own hands.

[tanduv]

ummm First amendment? Its not the first time misinformation has been broadcasted on air, why does the FCC need to get involved in this one. Would they have gotten involved if the implication was that he was a liberal?

[pitaj]

They asked what was controversial about what he said, not whether the FCC's actions were constitutional.

[nobody9999]

>They asked what was controversial about what he said, not whether the FCC's actions were constitutional.

The former is (for some at least) interesting. The latter is actually consequential. I'm concerned about the latter.

The former, whether I agree or not, is about legal, protected political speech.

[zoom6628]

I don't see the FCC cancelling news shows on which Trump lies. Double standards driven by politics and why the govt orgs need career staff and not political players. Rule of Law anyone?

[rogerrogerr]

Not so much offensive, as utterly puzzling given the information we had on him by Monday night.

Not a fan of Trump or Jimmy, and I don’t think this is a proportional or good response. I’m pretty stunned that there was actually momentum enough to take him off the air. I also don’t understand why he left that little dig in his monologue.

[Terr_]

Which information? The completely unverified stuff based on "a reconstruction" or "aggressive interview posture" from the same FBI led by the guy currently contradicting himself and telling lies in front of Congress?

This Administration was basically founded on making strident claims on TV which turned out to be lies they couldn't back up in a court of law.

[vkou]

> I’m pretty stunned that there was actually momentum enough to take him off the air.

Have you not been paying attention to where rhetoric in this country has gone in the past 8 months? The first amendment is dead, the great leader is publically calling for his critics to lose their broadcast licenses, and the new SOP is for the government to squeeze the shit out of anyone who doesn't toe the line. (Which is an ever-shrinking group of people.)

Be it with SLAPP suits, or by holding merger approvals, or by just threatening witch-hunts.

This is what 48% of the electorate wanted, and, well, it's what they've delivered.

---

Meanwhile, in Fox land, Brian Kilmeade was publically calling for mass-murder of the mentally ill the other day. For some strange reason, neither Trump nor the FCC, nor all the people outraged about political violence are making a peep about that.

[kashunstva]

> I’m pretty stunned that there was actually momentum enough to take him off the air.

Very little was needed. The U.S. president had already ominously threatened Kimmel and other late night hosts the day after Colbert was canceled, weeks before the shooting.

I thought Kimmel was hilarious; but as they say, there’s no accounting for taste.

The most ridiculous thing about this is that the world doesn’t cleave neatly into “radical left lunatics” and the righteous real Americans. I still can’t tell what the murderer was. Whatever that was, he acted on his own impulses - ones that are not broadly celebrated, irrespective of claims to the contrary.

[defrost]

Of all the takes on his motivations I've seen the most on point comes from an Australian of Robinson's generation ..

Death by shitpost: Why modern media is so ill-equiped to diagnose Tyler Robinson

https://www.crikey.com.au/2025/09/19/tyler-robinson-alleged-...

https://archive.md/Lil0U#selection-941.0-941.80

Watching the US media struggling to cleave this into either left OR right as if the world is binary is, as you noted, ridiculous.

[bitlax]

There's just absolutely no doubt that Tyler Robinson is a deranged leftist. He was not apolitical. None of the evidence contradicts the fact that he is a leftist. Much of the evidence contradicts the protrayal of him as a right-winger.

[yibg]

Doesn't seem that outlandish given the president of the united states said it was a extreme left lunatic before this.

[RickJWagner]

Kimmels show was expensive, Kimmel has baggage ( a history of racist comedy, including blackface ). This was a convenient opportunity to chop dead wood.

[willmarch]

After pressure from the federal government which is a clear violation of the Constitution of the United States.

[bitlax]

I mean, definitely offensive. Intended to offend.

[bitlax]

It's his shtick!

[aisengard]

As opposed to the implication that Robinson is somehow a leftwing activist, confidently claimed by every GOP politician from coast to coast?

Also, even if it were, as you say, "misinformation", that is now somehow taboo on television? A sacred line none must dare cross?