I’m in Richmond, preparing to do a 3 hour legal ethics CLE seminar for one of my last remaining live presentation clients since the stupid Wuhan virus lockdown ruined my business, along with oh, so much else. (Thanks, CDC! Thanks, teachers! Thanks, Democrats! Thanks, “science.” Thanks, fear-mongering news media! Assholes….) I barely have time to wake up after a long drive in the wee hours last night from Alexandria, so I’m going to have to rely on you, dear readers, to keep things lively while I am otherwise occupied.
One thing to look forward to:EA will launch a new regular column authored by our alien philosopher, Extradimensional Cephalopod! We have had two other attempts at a regular column to inject diverse (ooo, that word!) ideas and opinions here beyond the guest posts and Comments of the Day, both evaporating for various reasons, in the case of the most recent contributor, incipient insanity. “Curmie’s” Trump Derangement proceeds apace: in his latest post, he declares that “There is no such thing as free speech if a state employee can be fired for saying something someone in power finds distasteful.” This is nonsense, as the Curmie I knew would have quickly pointed out. “Distasteful” is a deliberately and deceitfully vague term: any 12-year-old could probably imagine dozens of “distasteful” comments that a government employer could justifiably decide are intolerable from an employee. The courts agree, you know.
In other news, France and other U.S. allies decided to make terrorism great again, rewarding Hamas for its October 7 attack on Israel by “recognizing” the non-existent Palestinian state. President Trump correctly excoriated those nations at the U.N.
Meanwhile, in more important news, Major League Baseball announced that the new robo-strike calling system will indeed be instituted next season. It’s about damn time. In the game I listened to on the way to Richmond (Boston defeated Toronto, 4-1), the announcers admitted that the home plate umpire was missing calls all through the game. “Well, that pitch was well off the plate, but that’s how he’s been calling strikes all night!” Boy am I sick of that.
Finally, a “The Unabomber was right” note. My new Apple smartphone wouldn’t allow me to set an alarm for this morning as insurance against the hotel skipping my wake-up call until I signed up for its “health app,” which took 8 screens, and ended up telling me that I shouldn’t get up when I wanted to.
Well, wish me luck. I have about 150 Virginia lawyers to make ethical this morning, only 14 of them in person. %$#@!& lockdown….
Added: Oh, I forgot: Disney relented and let Jimmy Kimmel back on the air last night. Oh, so what? If ABC wants to have a late night show hosted by a not-too-bright, occasionally funny, progressive scold lose money, that’s their choice. The President should shut up about it; he just gives Kimmel significance and attention that his meager talent doesn’t justify. And threatening ABC for its broadcast content is beyond stupid, as well as unconstitutional. Trump’s thin skin regarding criticism is a serious weakness, but as with the others, he appears incapable of ameliorating it.
Ethics Alarms 
So I saw the article where ABC reinstated Kimmel’s show. I waited for, and then saw, the article where Nexstar and Sinclair said they wouldn’t be carrying the show.
I think that’s fairly reasonable. The government shouldn’t be telling ABC what shows to carry, but at the same time their affiliates have to be responsible shepherds of their own stations and not feel obliged to air shows that will lose them audience and money.
I sort of hope Trump makes a big issue of this and provokes a lawsuit (well, of course, that’s a trivial bar these days). It would be nice to have some supreme guidance on the subject, hopefully as a way of fending off future actions from the other side.
That’s why it’s stupid and ill advised (although being unconstitutional is another reason). How can they not think that a future Biden will do the same thing to Gutfeld or the whole of Fox News? Honor the ‘memory’ of Harry Reid and refrain.
My Trump-deranged sister complained about a couple of professors on her campus who were fired for impolitic statements about Charlie Kirk as a “free speech” issue. She also grumbled about how the other side will find out when “it happens to them”. I tried to point out that the other side (Republicans/Conservatives) already know what that’s like and did she really think it would be okay to start firing conservatives once her preferred candidate is in office? Is that not a violation of free speech, too?
If the left didn’t have double standards, they’d have no standards at all.
I agree with you only for about fifty percent.
The argument that the Trump administration and the FCC should have stayed on the sidelines regarding Jimmy Kimmel and ABC because imagine what a Democrat administration would do to Greg Gutfeld and Fox News is invalid.
The reality is that Democrat administrations have been jawboning the media and other businesses for a long time. Here are some examples mentioned in the Federalist:
https://thefederalist.com/2025/09/23/jimmy-kimmels-defenders-are-gaslighting-americans-on-free-speech/
Let me tell a parable to illustrate my position on the statements made by head of the FCC.
“Two boys named Dave and Ron are fighting after school. Dave has been bulling Ron for a long time. Dave is hitting Ron continuously with a stick. Ron screams at Dave that is is wrong to hit people with a stick. At a given moment Ron was able to get hold of the stick, and now Ron starts beating Dave with a stick. Now Dave screams at Ron that is is wrong to hit people with a stick. Ron replies that that is the incorrect response: Dave should have said that is was wrong from him to beat Ron with a stick. So the beating commences until Dave apologizes and promises to never do it again.”
There is a fundamental moral difference between the actions of Ron and Dave. Dave is the bully, the aggressor. Dave is his victim, and he reciprocates to stop the bullying.
In our political system the Democrats have been the bully for decades. You do not stop a bully by being nice; you stop him by fighting back and hitting him on the nose. The side that operates under the rules of the Marquess of Queensbury always loses from the streetfighters with switchblades. The political culture in this country will not change until the Democrats change their attitude towards Republicans.
“Barack Obama personally called Disney CEO Bob Iger to take action regarding remarks made by Roseanne Barr Roseanne Barr’s show got cancelled. (Jimmy Kimmel made jokes about this).”
Kimmel was not joking when he monologued about Roseanne’s cancellation. He was making serious commentary – echoing the then-prevalent left-wing narrative – that free speech does not give one the right to continue to be paid if one’s employer objects. It’s similar to the argument made during the Kavanaugh hearings that “No one has the right to be a Supreme Court justice”.
He was endorsing that narrative. Editorializing, pontificating, whatever it was, he was not attempting to be funny or entertaining, though I’m sure the bobble-heads in his audience laughed their heads off.
Here is the thing.
The FCC does have this power to deny or revoke licenses based on content, and this power was sustained by the Supreme Court under a First Amendment challenge.
We have long recognized that each medium of expression presents special First Amendment problems. And of all forms of communication, it is broadcasting that has received the most limited First Amendment protection. Thus, although other speakers cannot be licensed except under laws that carefully define and narrow official discretion, a broadcaster may be deprived of his license and his forum if the Commission decides that such an action would serve “the public interest, convenience, and necessity.“
FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 748 (1978( (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added)
AM Golden, i will agree with you that Jimmy Kimmel has been editorializing instead of joking in the cancellation of Roseanne Barr, which would render him a flaming hypocrite.
But you are only commenting on a minor detail in my post. But do you agree with the main thrust of my argument?
I personally do not care about Jimmy Kimmel; I never watch him. I do care a lot about free speech and the First Amendment. Ten years ago I may have made a vigorous defense of Jimmy Kimmel, and have opined on how wrong the FCC was in this case, and how concerned I am about the statements of the President on this matter. My feelings have evolved on this matter after more than ten years of leftist council culture plus many infractions by the government on the free speech rights of citizens. We already saw this during the Obama administration as the IRS headed by Lois Lerner specifically targeted Tea Party affiliated organizations for tax audits. People prosecuted under the FACE act are more than 95 percent pro-lifer, namely for praying near an abortion clinic. The Patriot act has been abused to treat the following people as domestic terrorists: people who speak up at school board meetings against transgenderism.
Are you willing to walk through a bright blue city wearing a MAGA cap? Are you willing to put Trump campaign stickers on you car? Or do you have any concerns that somebody may violently confront you or key your car? Are you concerned that your coworkers who are very vocal against Trump calling him a fascist may find out you voted for Trump?
I still care about the 1A rights and free speech. But I care more about my own 1A rights and those who share my outlook, than I care about the same rights of those who are willing to trample on my rights. The question is on how to make sure that our rights are properly (re)secured for the future when the Democrats are back in power. The Democrats and the MSM may now run to the microphones about the importance of the First Amendment, and how sacred our free speech rights are, but we all know that their position is “Free speech for me but not for thee”.
My position is that forcing the left drink a taste of their own medicine is a better strategy to ensure free speech for all is a better tactic than the nice guy strategy that solely relies on principles. By now it should be clear that the nice guy strategy is tantamount to cowardice, and only projects weakness.
To to go back to Jimmy Kimmel, it behooves all conservatives to stop the pearl clutching about the FCC and the statements of Donald Trump.
The FCC has precedent on its side.
The Jimmy Kimmel “It isn’t what it is” narrative has been bugging me for a week now so that jumped out at me first.
I don’t disagree with you that the Left has been the bully for a good 15+ years, if not longer. All it had to do during Trump’s first term was to be sane. I don’t disagree that the Right has to stand up for itself. But when does standing up for itself devolve into mere retaliation? Forcing the Left to drink a bit of its own medicine is what is causing my Trump-deranged sister who, in the same breath she used to defend free speech, also promoted the idea of the Left getting revenge when it’s in charge again. Sicilian ethics are not helping our country. In fact, we are seeing Sicilian ethics on display right now and we don’t like it.
We have to allow our government departments to do their job. The FCC exists for a reason, whether we like it or not. While it is a government agency, it should operate for the benefit of all Americans. President Trump is impolitic. There are occasions in which it is warranted, but so much of it is just punching down.
The President of the United States should be better than that. In that respect, I agree with our host. But Trump isn’t and he won’t be, so we have to deal with what we have.
That means his followers or, at least, those who support his administration’s goals should be willing to acknowledge when he oversteps. If we don’t, it only fuels the Left’s narrative that everyone who voted for him is an apologist belonging to the Cult of Trump, unable to think for ourselves. That many Leftists belong to an equally harmful cult is beside the point. Someone somewhere has to be a mature adult.
Why can’t it start with Republicans? Why can’t the party find a good orator, one who has not only the mechanics of public speaking down pat, but also the ability to communicate clearly and without the inanity of someone like Marjorie Taylor Green?
Somewhere along the way, we lowered our standards when it came to the speaking ability of our leaders. I don’t want us to also lower the standards of decorum to the point where we have a bunch of wannabe Preston Brooks out there.
As it is, we already have a bunch of them in the general public. I don’t own a red MAGA hat (nor would I ever buy one), I don’t put bumper stickers on my car and I don’t talk about politics with my coworkers. But, you are right. Even if I did those things, I would be extra careful. That’s what the rhetoric of the Left has done; we need not be the same.
“Someone somewhere has to be a mature adult.”
(groan!) Trump Replaces Biden’s Portrait With Photo Of Autopen Signature
PWS
fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly…
AM,
I just responded to EC, you might want to read that and respond. I do not see Sicilian ethics here; the Mafia operates entirely outside the law, and that is not what we advocate.
As for Trump, he should talk less and show more with actions that are truly effective. So no entering law suits he is going to lose. Instead it might be better to have the FCC follow through with intense scrutiny of ABC, NBC, CBS within the limits of the law, and following precedent including precedent set by the Obama and Biden administrations. If some course of action was legal during Biden it is legal during Trump, that is how the cookie crumbles. The Left may scream censorship, but the Left has to sleep in the bed they have made. In a culture war like this we should be strategical/tactical first, and ethical second.
A good outcome may be that the Left now start valuing free speech again. Hopefully we can have some SCOTUS cases to secure these free speech rights. E.g. we may revive Murthy vs Missouri in order to block “jawboning” by the government of private companies on matters of free speech and free association.
“Why can’t it start with Republicans? Why can’t the party find a good orator, one who has not only the mechanics of public speaking down pat, but also the ability to communicate clearly and without the inanity of someone like Marjorie Taylor Green?”
We did.
They shot him dead.
–Dwayne
I like your point about Dave giving the wrong answer. However, there’s a problem with the lesson we take about Ron’s retaliation.
In real life, we don’t have two individuals hitting each other with a stick. We have two entities hitting each other’s friends with sticks. The people Dave represents aren’t getting canceled. Their friends are getting canceled, so all they are learning is that when it’s their turn again, they need to cancel back harder.
Part of the solution is that while we are punishing harmful behavior, we need to also model good behavior and show that we will respect and reward it. How does that sound?
EC,
The strategy you are proposing is the strategy that has been followed by the GOP up until Donald Trump. This is the strategy of operating according to the rules of the Marquess of Queensbury against streetfighters with switchblades. Conservatives do not like the results. So now we conservatives try another strategy, following game theory. I hope you are aware of the tit for tat strategy. This is a strategy that enforces cooperation. The default mode is cooperation; however when the opponent defects you respond with defection too, until the opponent starts cooperating again. Computer simulations have illustrated that the tit for tat strategy is a winning strategy; it is much better than an iterated prisoners dilemma, or a “nice guy” strategy were one party always cooperates even if the other party always defects. The GOP have been following the “nice guy” strategy up until 2016.
The assumption here is that all the moves are legal. If we move into illegal territory we will end up in “tit for tat rationalization” territory. Examples of “tit for tat rationalization” behavior by conservatives after Charlie Kirk’s assassination would have been:
Example of legal moves are increased regulatory scrutiny of the FCC against the broadcasting networks (ABC, NBC, CBS), following precedents set by the Obama and Biden administration. The same applies to firing employees who published asinine comments on social media following Charlie Kirk’s assassination. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
The other assumption is that when performing the tat the rules of lex talionis are followed: an eye for an eye but not more than an eye. No needless escalation.
An example in history where these rules for tit for tat were not followed is offered by the Weimar Republic. Fascist street gangs and communist street gangs were duking it out in the streets. The result was escalating violence, making the nation ripe for Adolf Hitler. In Spain the “tit” included killing priest, raping runs, and torching churches. The result was a Civil War and the dictatorship of Francesco Franco. The abused Catholics preferred a fascist dictatorship above the chaos and abuse of a communist regime.
If the other side (Democrats) obstinately refuses to cooperate but will escalate, that is up to them. If the “tit” includes increased lawbreaking and violence, the “tat” will be to match that violence with increased law enforcement all the way up to declaring martial law.
I would like to remark that conservatives have been modeling exemplary behavior after Charlie Kirk’s death. There were no riots, vandalism, and threats. Also public opinion is shifting away from the radical left. This keeps me moderately optimistic that we are not yet in a Weimar Republic or Civil War type situation.
The Left and the Socialist Democrats can’t seem to get out of their way with respect to Kirk. The right response from the should be: “Kirk did not deserve this. His murder was immoral and wrong. That he was killed for voicing controversial ideas is also a grave, immoral wrong and we, as Democrats and the Left, reject it completely. His family is grieving. A wife lost her husband and his children lost their father. May he rest in peace and may his family receive grace and consolation.”
But, they simply cannot and will not do that. Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, Omar, that is idiot Swallwell, Newsom, and the View simply cannot find in their hearts or minds to be human. The moderate democrats are watching this and wondering where their party went so wrong.
As for “tit for tat” I wondered where that phrase started. Wikipedia (and no, I am not donating to the site!) writes that it is started in the mid-16th century, and is a variation of “tip for tap.” “Tit” and “tat” are references to light blows or punches, so it means “blow for blow” or “punch for punch.” Interesting.
jvb
One problem with the game theory analysis is that “Republicans” and “Democrats” are not individual actor. They are loosely affiliated collections of actors, with the wrong individual actors suffering for someone else did. The iterated prisoner’s dilemma simulations only worked with individuals. If you add groups and collective retaliations, it might dissolve into chaos or reward collections that apply tit-for-tat internally but the scorpion strategy externally.
This would fit with a general fact I’ve noticed: even if rules are true for individuals, they may not be true for groups. Consider the voting paradox as another example. It’s possible for a 3 person group to have a preference of A>B, B>, AND C>A even if no individual does. By a 2/3 majority in pairwise preference. The concept of a group preference is itself not a real thing, all you have is averages of individual preferences.
Game theory was used in the Pentagon during the Cold War, e.g. the MAD doctrine is a perfect application of game theory, and it might have saved use from nuclear annihilation.
Game theory is also used in corporate board rooms. E.g. advertising campaigns are an application of the Prisoner’s Dilemma. No company likes to spend an awful lot of money on advertising. But they have to because their competitors do it too. That is why all the Big Tobacco companies were very happy to comply with an outright ban on advertising on tobacco products as that saved them collectively a lot of money.
An administration is a valid actor in game theory. The entire law enforcement apparatus is an actor; they play the role of “tat” when the “tit” is crime.
Both government action and individual action is needed to enforce acceptable behavior. The government’s proper role is to punish wrongdoers. Individuals need to enforce socially acceptable behavior via legitimate tactics as exposing and shaming bad behavior, and sometimes shunning or firing bad actors. These actions of individuals work best when done collectively in a coordinated fashion, e.g. campaigns and boycotts.
You can only get a better society when virtue is praised and rewarded, and vice is shamed and punished.
This does not require anarchy and lawlessness.
Dave went after Ron’s friends.
Remember the OK symbol panic?
Remember Emmanuel Cafferty?
https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/sdge-worker-fired-over-alleged-racist-gesture-says-he-was-cracking-knuckles/2347414/
President Trump on Truth Social yesterday:
This, I feel, is the clear statement that we waited and waited for President Biden to issue — and he never did. He never called on Ukraine to win the war, Biden only talked about making Putin pay a price.
I think it took an agonizingly long time, but Putin seems to have finally convinced Trump of his intentions. He has no desire for a just peace, he still covets all of Ukraine, and lately he’s been talking about other countries with ethnic Russians that he wants to add back to his Russian Empire to be. The Baltic states, Moldova, Finland, etc.
I think this is a chance for a real, bipartisan policy on Ukraine. John Thune in the Senate has been sitting on a sanctions bill for months that had 80 cosponsors. I think this is another 80/20 issue for the president — will the Democrats again decide to back the 20? I actually think not.
But let’s see.
It’s not perfect — it only says that Ukraine should win, not why we should support their struggle to do so. But it’s better than an endless two more weeks of expecting Putin to change his spots.
I’m fine with the President’s statements, so long as the “financial support from Europe” is what foots 90+% of the bill from here on out.
I prefer 100% Europe, myself.
I can better live with that percentage, too.
I was also happy to see this. Let’s hope he sticks to this new position, rather than walking it back. I did read an analysis that said the source of this shift is that Trump is now getting better intelligence about the actual situation in Ukraine and in Russia, rather than simply relying on what Putin has been telling him. And Russia is not in good shape.
“Added: Oh, I forgot: Disney relented and let Jimmy Kimmel back on the air last night. Oh, so what? If ABC wants to have a late night show hosted by a not-too-bright, occasionally funny, progressive scold lose money, that’s their choice. The President should shut up about it; he just gives Kimmel significance and attention that his meager talent doesn’t justify. And threatening ABC for its broadcast content is beyond stupid, as well as unconstitutional. Trump’s thin skin regarding criticism is a serious weakness, but as with the others, he appears incapable of ameliorating it.”
I don’t have much to add here beyond the fact that Kimmel’s statement – which some deluded people are characterizing as an apology – was disingenuous. Kimmel was not making a joke when he spread the Democratic Party Talking Points, aided and abetted by the news media, that Charlie Kirk’s killer was an extremist Republican. This is, once again, the Jester’s Excuse. Yet, all week long, we have been treated to talking points that he was fired for making jokes. Nothing about what he said was funny nor was it intended to be funny. He was spreading disinformation in order to help the party to which he is wedded.
Oh, and he also added that he doesn’t think the killer represents anyone. Yeah, I think that’s the narrative they used when the Orlando nightclub killer turned out to be a Muslim. Didn’t they try to blame it on repressed homosexuality that expressed itself in a homophobic act? The narratives always change based on the identity of the killer and, like the dishonest waiter, those narratives always benefit one side.
One final note, Kimmel praised Erika Kirk for following the teachings of Jesus, something he claims he does. Come now…does anyone really believe Kimmel follows the teachings of Jesus save for the very vague love philosophy that so many seem to limit Him to?
“I don’t think the murderer who shot Charlie Kirk represents anyone. This was a sick person who believed violence was a solution. And it isn’t — ever,” Kimmel continued.
I agree this narrative that’s suddenly been issued from the Dem talking point generator seems to be more than a little problematic. Are they saying a guy who’s in an intimate relationship with another guy who wants to be a girl is mentally ill? Whoa! And anyway, aren’t the mentally ill an oppressed and marginalized group and therefore part of the Democrat party’s inclusive “big tent?” Surely the guy shouldn’t be incarcerated, and he certainly needs the right to vote. And his roommate needs to have the government pay for any medical treatment either of them desire.
And have you ever seen a more torturously crafted statement than what Kimmel said? How many writers worked how many hours to come up with that?
A sniper – who has apparently since killed himself – has caused multiple injuries and fatalities at an ICE facility in Dallas.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/multiple-people-shot-dallas-ice-123000690.html
Let’s play Guess the Media Narrative!
“Let’s play Guess the Media Narrative!”
You don’t want to wait for the catch-all-end-all Jimmy Kimmel analysis…?
PWS
Here is an article worth discussing.
https://nypost.com/2025/09/20/us-news/california-bans-all-masking-including-by-ice-agents/
Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a series of bills on Saturday banning masking statewide, as part of a concentrated effort to bar Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents from concealing their identities during raids.
The five bills Newsom signed into law Saturday “make California the first state in the nation to prohibit federal law enforcement officers, including ICE, from hiding their identities,” according to a press release from his office.
If a police officer were to actually arrest an ICE agent for wearing a mask while on the job, or if a grand jury indicts an ICE agent for wearing a mask while on the job, Trump should declare martial law and suspend civil authority in California.
Firing on Fort Sumter did not work out too well for South Carolina, as I recall.
It’s purely performative. Newsome is just trying to get noticed, mostly by his own supporters.
Law enforcement knows it is unconstitutional to enforce it, and Newsome won’t insist. His bravado is limited to time in front of the TV cameras and on social media.
My how the worm has turned. When Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio was trying to enforce federal immigration law by doing raids of Home Depot parking lots and other likely spots for illegals, the Obama administration went to Federal Court and whacked him hard with “the Federal government is the sole authority authorized to enforce immigration law.” Now, we have a Democrat governor signing legislation intended to stop the Federal government from enforcing immigration law. Breathtaking.
Yeah, it’s amazing, but so consistent that I’m getting used to it. Hypocrisy, “whataboutism,” and “it isn’t what it is” are favorites of the Left today. Shamelessly so.
Are they used to being called out on it?
Heh. I doubt they care, so yes, I expect so.
Jack wrote:
Added: Oh, I forgot: Disney relented and let Jimmy Kimmel back on the air last night. Oh, so what? If ABC wants to have a late night show hosted by a not-too-bright, occasionally funny, progressive scold lose money, that’s their choice.
Absolutely. I hope the pay him multiple millions and watch their audience evaporate. That would be condign justice. Of course, he went on and gave us the old, “It isn’t what it is.”
From “The Wheels of Justice grind (very) slowly”:
Normally, I would chalk this up to an incompetent clerk, but we are talking about the Second Circuit, which is 60% Democrat, and a Democrat trial judge. Given that I no longer apply Hanlon’s Razor to the Left, I suspect deliberate slow-walking.
What outrages me most is that the entire prosecution was a textbook First Amendment violation and should never have made it to trial, let alone conviction. Worse, there was never, ever sufficient evidence to support conviction, yet here we are.
Trump “Escalator-gate”:
After the London Times reported that UN employees were thinking about sabotaging Trump’s visit, it somehow actually happened. The UN insists it was a coincidence.
Sure. If there’s one thing true about the Left, and most UN employees qualify for that label, it’s that no matter what happens, it is never, ever what it is if it implicates them.
Re: UN Gate.
It was odd that the escalator stopped working just as the First Lady and Trump stepped on to it. It was working just fine before and after that. Then, during his speech, the teleprompter stopped working and no one could figure out how to restart it. Technology simply boggles the mind.
The media made a big deal out of Macron having to walk to the UN because Trump’s motorcade had blocked the route, though. That’s no way to treat a foreign leader, is it?
jvb
Makes you wonder.
Once again, the story of the dishonest waiter explains something.
Jack said, “Curmie’s” Trump Derangement proceeds apace: in his latest post, he declares that “There is no such thing as free speech if a state employee can be fired for saying something someone in power finds distasteful.” This is nonsense, as the Curmie I knew would have quickly pointed out. “Distasteful” is a deliberately and deceitfully vague term: any 12-year-old could probably imagine dozens of “distasteful” comments that a government employer could justifiably decide are intolerable from an employee. The courts agree, you know.
Jack also said, “If ABC wants to have a late night show hosted by a not-too-bright, occasionally funny, progressive scold lose money, that’s their choice. The President should shut up about it; he just gives Kimmel significance and attention that his meager talent doesn’t justify. And threatening ABC for its broadcast content is beyond stupid, as well as unconstitutional. “
These two statements combined with a typical theme from Jack is that the office of the Presidency carries enormous power and while it should command respect it requires the holders of that office to be models of virtue causes me to ask the question is “virtue” as ambiguous and vague as the word “distasteful”.
In order to have virtue one must define what is good and moral. Progressives believe they have a definition of virtue and conservatives have their definition of virtue. In some cases they converge and other places the definitions are highly divergent. If a President offers an opinion based one what he or she believes is virtuous how do we determine whether said opinions reflect virtue to be modeled?
It seems to me that the Kimmel question involves two distinct behaviors. Kimmel is given an opportunity to speak what writers give him to say over the FCC regulated public airways and non regulated cable channels. One side claims to be offended and the other side says he has free speech. According to our host, and many others including me, the President must model virtue to be a great leader and should refrain from offering opinions that undermine what society considers proper behavior.
Given the claim that the government cannot stop him from saying certain things how can it stop those seven “offensive” words to which George Carlin referenced many years ago? Today, such words are uttered indiscriminately by politicians and the body politic. Are those words no longer offensive or does the FCC have an obligation and power to model civil discourse over the air? The second part deals with Presidential opinions that some believe are evidence of authoritarianism because such opinion adversely affect them or their perspectives. Who decides what virtues the president is allowed to model?
Hypothetical example: If ABC decided to air on its over the air affiliates a program that included scenes that involved actual sexual activity between same or different sex partners and that some of those very same seven words were part of the scripted dialogue and such programming drew a large audience, would it be unacceptable and unconstitutional for the President to publicly say to the independent FCC that such programs were abhorrent and should not be on broadcast media. If the President cannot make such a statement – read unconstitutional – what gives the FCC the lawful right to limit anything on broadcast media?
I am curious about what your thoughts are about the following issue as reported by the NY Post. Did Sinclair act in cowardice, thereby rewarding terrorists for their threats? Or did Sinclair act responsibly, in its fiduciary duty to the safety of its employees?
Sinclair Broadcast Group abruptly canceled plans to air a Charlie Kirk tribute last week after the company’s local ABC affiliates received multiple violent threats — forcing the firm to move the program to YouTube just minutes before it was scheduled to begin, The Post has learned.
The Baltimore-based local TV giant, which owns more than 40 ABC affiliates, yanked the Kirk tribute late Friday after it was alerted to “local threats directed at specific local ABC stations resulting from [the] ABC suspension” of late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, a source close to the situation told The Post.
https://nypost.com/2025/09/22/media/charlie-kirk-tribute-scrapped-by-sinclair-after-local-tv-giant-got-threats-against-its-abc-stations-source/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=nypost
If true, Sinclair acted irresponsibily.
Ethics Zugzwang maybe…
I think the long term costs of capitulating will be more dangerous in the long run and for future employees, but going ahead with it endangered employees right now and could cost them millions in legal fees.
There’s a Rudyard Kipling poem that seems relevant though. https://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poem/poems_danegeld.htm
It was a bitter pill for Neville Chamberlain in 1938 and 1939. But he did learn from it.
Please delete the duplicate post at the bottom, since I meant for it to be a reply.
It’s one thing to put your own neck on the line for your principles, it’s another to put someone else’s neck on the line. If the head of Sinclair decided to go ahead with the broadcast, they’d be putting the employees of 40 stations at risk, while they themselves would almost certainly be safe in some city office. If I was running some local community access cable channel (do those still exist?) and I was warned to cancel a certain broadcast or else, I’d have the staff vote. If enough staff were willing to risk it, I’d run it, and allow anyone who wanted to go home. If enough voted against that the station wouldn’t run without them, I’d cancel the broadcast
Judging from your response this issue looks like a true ethics dilemma with only bad choices.
But if we allow terrorism and threats to dictate what can be presented at television, then we as society yield to the ultimate heckler’s veto, and we lose free speech. This tactic will not stop with Sinclair. Universities will face threats, and will stop TP USA events, and lectures by conservative speakers. This means that one side of the political spectrum will have no voice in the public space as it has been shut down by threats and terrorism. Is this the society we want to live in?
No, it is not.
If it takes a declaration of martial law to guarantee our safety and protect free speech, so be it.
Too bad Major General William Devereaux from The Siege is fictional.
At risk from what?
From being shot, it seems. I could understand going ahead with it if they could’ve gotten adequate protection (like officers at every station until after the broadcast) then I could see giving the go-ahead. If they had enough advance notice I could see contacting each station and asking if they were willing to go ahead. But I wouldn’t insist they broadcast the tribute without adequate protection and understanding the possible risks. Yes, free speech is worth fighting for, but TV station employees shouldn’t be set up as sitting ducks by their employer. It’s not a job where you sign up to get shot at.
Correct. The culture of the Left has been evolving to the point where, if you are connected to an undesirable person or organization, you are considered a valid target.
This began around the time of the Chick-fil-A backlash when it’s CEO gave his opinion during an interview and, all of a sudden, mayors were announcing that the chain’s stores weren’t welcome in their cities and people were abusing employees (for example, the viral video of the unfortunately named Adam Smith berating the girl at the drive-thru while he filmed her after he became offended that people were still patronizing the restaurant).
The idea began forming that people shouldn’t work for Evil (translation=businesses with people at the top that have unfashionable beliefs) and, if they did, they had the figurative blood on their hands, too.
The Democrats escalated this during the first Trump administration when members of the party itself advocated harassing Trump appointees in public. Violence was the result.
Now, we are seeing that violence against political figures being turned against those belonging to outside organizations. The CEO of a nationwide health insurance company is murdered. People not only justify it because the man “had blood on his hands”, but romanticized (and still do) his killer. The advocate leader of a conservative movement is assassinated during a speech and the killing is rationalized by the Left, too.
It’s not a stretch that someone might take a weapon to the parking lot of an ABC affiliate and start shooting employees as they arrive for work.
It’s guilt by association. The same philosophy practiced by totalitarian regimes everywhere.
It’s one thing to put your own neck on the line for your principles, it’s another to put someone else’s neck on the line. If the head of Sinclair decided to go ahead with the broadcast, they’d be putting the employees of 40 stations at risk, while they themselves would almost certainly be safe in some city office. If I was running some local community access cable channel (do those still exist?) and I was warned to cancel a certain broadcast or else, I’d have the staff vote. If enough staff were willing to risk it, I’d run it, and allow anyone who wanted to go home. If enough voted against that the station wouldn’t run without them, I’d cancel the broadcast.
I can imagine the movie now. George Clooney gives an inspiring speech about freedom of speech and changing the world. He asks how many want to stay, they all raise their hands and cheers abound. The broadcast airs as they all smile, triumphant music plays and a title card at the end tells the audience how that one stupid broadcast is relevant to viewers today.
Cue Oscar nomination.
Here is a candidate for the Unethical App Of The Year Award, now implicated in the shooting at an ICE van that killed one and wounded two.