[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.