President says broadcasters should lose licenses for criticizing him(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
President says broadcasters should lose licenses for criticizing him
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/09/18/us/trump-news
58 comments
Their speech was never in jeopardy, they just didn’t like its consequences. And now that they have the upper hand they will try to actively impose the same restrictions which they accused others of placing on them.
Victimhood distorts reality and leads to outsized reprisals.
Victimhood distorts reality and leads to outsized reprisals.
> Their speech was never in jeopardy, they just didn’t like its consequences.
Can't you say the same about the Jimmy Kimmel situation? He's not in jail, he's free to speak, his employer just didn't want to back him up on it.
All of the arguments used to excuse cancel culture ("right to speech not to a platform", "it's a company censoring you, not the government", "freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences") are now being leveraged by the right. Why did anyone think it would go any other way? Was the assumption that the left would own the cultural zeitgeist forever? This whole approach to politics was folly.
Can't you say the same about the Jimmy Kimmel situation? He's not in jail, he's free to speak, his employer just didn't want to back him up on it.
All of the arguments used to excuse cancel culture ("right to speech not to a platform", "it's a company censoring you, not the government", "freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences") are now being leveraged by the right. Why did anyone think it would go any other way? Was the assumption that the left would own the cultural zeitgeist forever? This whole approach to politics was folly.
Have you not read the news that abc was pressured by the fcc wrt a pending merger?
Isn’t that the federal govt “abridging the freedom of the press” ?
Isn’t that the federal govt “abridging the freedom of the press” ?
To play devil's advocate, ABC doesn't have a right to execute a corporate merger and this is what was threatened by the FCC. I don't know what the courts would think of this kind of argument and unfortunately we will probably not find out.
Regardless of that, it certainly seems like some kind of corruption.
Regardless of that, it certainly seems like some kind of corruption.
Any limitation on their right to merger should be spelled out in a law passed by congress and not from pressure from an executive appointee.
"this is what was threatened by the FCC"
I think you’re right on Kimmel while being wrong about TFA.
The president does not get to dictate broadcasting licenses on the basis of whether or not they criticize him but ABC is not required to platform Kimmel.
(I think it’s a bad move to deplatform people and bad for democracy but it’s been misconstrued into an issue of constitutional guarantees and it is not one.)
The president does not get to dictate broadcasting licenses on the basis of whether or not they criticize him but ABC is not required to platform Kimmel.
(I think it’s a bad move to deplatform people and bad for democracy but it’s been misconstrued into an issue of constitutional guarantees and it is not one.)
>All of the arguments used to excuse cancel culture ("right to speech not to a platform", "it's a company censoring you, not the government", "freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences") are now being leveraged by the right.
Those arguments are correct though. Free speech doesn't guarantee a platform. Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences. The First Amendment does only apply to the government. None of this was controversial until the right decided shitposting their hot takes on black people and the Holocaust was a fundamental human right.
And they're being leveraged by the same right wing that wanted the government to seize control of social media platforms and force them to allow right-wing content and make moderation illegal. And Jimmy Kimmel's firing was due to pressure by the chair of the FCC, which isn't even the context in which those arguments were made and is an obvious violation of the First Amendment
But zing, I guess..
Those arguments are correct though. Free speech doesn't guarantee a platform. Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences. The First Amendment does only apply to the government. None of this was controversial until the right decided shitposting their hot takes on black people and the Holocaust was a fundamental human right.
And they're being leveraged by the same right wing that wanted the government to seize control of social media platforms and force them to allow right-wing content and make moderation illegal. And Jimmy Kimmel's firing was due to pressure by the chair of the FCC, which isn't even the context in which those arguments were made and is an obvious violation of the First Amendment
But zing, I guess..
> because they were being banned for their hot takes on black people and the Holocaust
This was the sales pitch, but it wasn't reality. People were being banned for much less severe speech than this kind of stuff and the window was slowly creeping towards less and less severe disagreements with the dominant narrative. I think bans for COVID stuff were particularly galling for many people[1].
There's a fair argument that the COVID situation was dire and required drastic action, but this can't be papered over in retrospect by saying that only holocaust deniers and racists were being banned.
[1] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/3/2/twitter-to-permanent...
This was the sales pitch, but it wasn't reality. People were being banned for much less severe speech than this kind of stuff and the window was slowly creeping towards less and less severe disagreements with the dominant narrative. I think bans for COVID stuff were particularly galling for many people[1].
There's a fair argument that the COVID situation was dire and required drastic action, but this can't be papered over in retrospect by saying that only holocaust deniers and racists were being banned.
[1] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/3/2/twitter-to-permanent...
OK, holocaust deniers, racists and anti-vaxxers. The point is, platforms always had a right to ban people, that was always the deal. And it still isn't the same as actual government oppression of free speech, which is clearly what's happening WRT this Charlie Kirk stuff. Even if you take the most cynical, negative interpretation of the COVID misinformation bans and "Twitter Files" to me this still seems categorically worse.
> Was the assumption that the left would own the cultural zeitgeist forever?
Yes, that was clearly the assumption. It's hard to blame them; that had been the case for 50+ years, and the early 2020s suggested that they had the system licked and would be fully in charge until their internal contradictions brought them down.
Yes, that was clearly the assumption. It's hard to blame them; that had been the case for 50+ years, and the early 2020s suggested that they had the system licked and would be fully in charge until their internal contradictions brought them down.
This is extremely out of touch.
Don’t you remember post 9/11 war mongering? Jingoistic country songs?
Was the Supreme Court not almost fully captured in the early 2020s?
Was the majority of news media on television and radio not extremely right leaning?
Don’t you remember post 9/11 war mongering? Jingoistic country songs?
Was the Supreme Court not almost fully captured in the early 2020s?
Was the majority of news media on television and radio not extremely right leaning?
It's the party of bad faith.
Double standard is the standard for those kinds of toxic people and their sycophants
When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because this is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because this is according to my principles. - Frank Herbert
Or as Louis Rossmann calls it, the premise of a-holes.
Free speech is for them not for you or me. Always has been.
every accusation is an admission
In fairness, conservatives never said they supported free speech.
They said they wanted more promotion of conservative viewpoints.
Kind of a subtle, but important distinction there.
Neither liberals, nor conservatives support free speech.
They said they wanted more promotion of conservative viewpoints.
Kind of a subtle, but important distinction there.
Neither liberals, nor conservatives support free speech.
From VP Vance:
"In Washington, there is a new sheriff in town; and under Donald Trump’s leadership, we may disagree with your views, but we will fight to defend your right to offer it in the public square, agree or disagree."
"In Washington, there is a new sheriff in town; and under Donald Trump’s leadership, we may disagree with your views, but we will fight to defend your right to offer it in the public square, agree or disagree."
This isn’t true. They couldn’t stop talking about free speech and how their hate speech should be allowed and if you didn’t like it you’re just a snowflake.
It’s just a tool, a weapon im their arsenal. They are still pushing the free speech narrative in other places, eg. Europe, when people try to stop candidates and pundits from lying. But then obviously once they succeed lying their way into power that tool isn’t necessary anymore, and controlling speech becomes important.
How many minutes before HN takes this one down? Seen at least 5 political posts get shut down today
The most impressive was this one:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45282482
800 comments and nowhere to be seen in the first 15 pages... :-)
800 comments and nowhere to be seen in the first 15 pages... :-)
Back in my day hackers were anti-authoritarian
Don’t let the name of the site mislead you. There’s a reason jwz redirects traffic from HN to a picture of a testicle.
Y combinator isn't hackers. It's venture capitalists trying to advertise to computer nerds to make lots of money.
VCs in the late 1970s (the real age of "hackers") were, in the words of John Doerr, considered "filthy real estate salesmen." This was the opinion at the time of Andy Grove, who was CEO of intel during its rise.
The big companies and VCs are cowering to protect their investments.
VCs in the late 1970s (the real age of "hackers") were, in the words of John Doerr, considered "filthy real estate salesmen." This was the opinion at the time of Andy Grove, who was CEO of intel during its rise.
The big companies and VCs are cowering to protect their investments.
[deleted]
hckrnews.com
Exactly 60 min .... A fair, on-topic critique about policy and its impact on liberty can’t last an hour here...
HN has a general rule against posts about politics that occasionally gets ignored for particularly noteworthy events.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
If you are quoting the guidelines quote this one also: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
I would say, to see the USA moving into Nazism, in realtime, in my lifetime, is a pretty amazing intellectual endeavor to dissect.
I would say, to see the USA moving into Nazism, in realtime, in my lifetime, is a pretty amazing intellectual endeavor to dissect.
Can you explain why you think it's moving specifically to Nazism? There's certainly an argument to be made for authoritarianism or some other version of non-democratic rule, however throwing around Nazism weakens that argument instead of strengthening it given how overused that term/accusation is at this point.
Their media organ Fox News, on air, called for straight up execution of undesirables. And then did the weakest milk toast walk back. Fox felt comfortable enough with the situation that their host said this on air.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phYOrM3SNV8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phYOrM3SNV8
this is what makes me think some pseudo-neo manifest is happening
The Fourth Reich
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Reich
https://bradwillis.substack.com/p/the-fourth-reich
The Fourth Reich
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Reich
https://bradwillis.substack.com/p/the-fourth-reich
They've tried building concentration camps. They're muzzling the press, they're thinking of banning the opposition, they oppose "them", and are going to great lengths to harm them. They're muzzling scientists and doctors, leading to population exodus. I'm sure there's other things I'm missing.
But this is a reasonable approximation to where things stood in, say, 1937. Granted, they've not gone after neighbouring countries (yet?) but they've had their vom Raths, Horst Wessel's, ... And we'll see if the Reichstag burns over the next year. If they screw up the mid-term elections or talk about an enabling act or let trump run a 3rd term, will that be good enough for ya?
And they talk about racial purity and limit women's roles and future. I'm sure there's a lebensraum in there somewhere. If you think using the term "Nazi" Godwin's the discussion, ok, just use Fascist. You have more countries to compare to with that term: Italy, Spain, Portugal, ...
But this is a reasonable approximation to where things stood in, say, 1937. Granted, they've not gone after neighbouring countries (yet?) but they've had their vom Raths, Horst Wessel's, ... And we'll see if the Reichstag burns over the next year. If they screw up the mid-term elections or talk about an enabling act or let trump run a 3rd term, will that be good enough for ya?
And they talk about racial purity and limit women's roles and future. I'm sure there's a lebensraum in there somewhere. If you think using the term "Nazi" Godwin's the discussion, ok, just use Fascist. You have more countries to compare to with that term: Italy, Spain, Portugal, ...
Given they designated AntiFa a terrorist organization, they sure don't seem to like anti-fascists, though
This is like saying the Nazis were socialists because they had "socialist" in the name of the party. Just because a group brands itself as something doesn't mean they are that thing.
You're claiming that they're not really antifascists?
The charitable interpretation here is that you don't realize what your post looks like in context, and you're being weirdly pedantic, sharing an abstract possibility that we have no reason to believe is relevant in this case.
The uncharitable assertion is that you want people to believe that the label is incorrect... but you're afraid or incapable of making the argument, so you are maliciously sowing doubt.
Neither are a particularly good look.
The uncharitable assertion is that you want people to believe that the label is incorrect... but you're afraid or incapable of making the argument, so you are maliciously sowing doubt.
Neither are a particularly good look.
I wouldn't be completely surprised if there were a night of the long knives against democrats (if several high profile assassinations were to happen, for example), but to reach Nazism you'd need gas chambers
The Final Solution was decided on in 1942. Were they not Nazis before then?
large chambers were desirable for efficiency optimization.
now we have plastic hoods and a tank of Nitrogen.
now we have plastic hoods and a tank of Nitrogen.
Some rando on Fox News mentioned euthanizing homeless. So it’s percolating under the surface. Don’t think they fired or censored him.
I think "rando" actually downplays how bad it is, since it sounds like a guest. The guy (Brian Kilmeade) works for Fox and has been hosting their opinion-shows for ~27 years.
In this clip [0] of "Fox and Friends", the first host (Lawrence Jones) says that homeless people be forced to accept "the programs" from the government, or else be locked up in prison... and then Brian Kilmeade ramps it up with "just kill 'em", using "involuntary lethal injection."
[0] https://www.youtube.com/shorts/9mq3oKI2KhY
In this clip [0] of "Fox and Friends", the first host (Lawrence Jones) says that homeless people be forced to accept "the programs" from the government, or else be locked up in prison... and then Brian Kilmeade ramps it up with "just kill 'em", using "involuntary lethal injection."
[0] https://www.youtube.com/shorts/9mq3oKI2KhY
Lethal injection for undesirables is being 'soft launched' openly on television with zero repercussion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phYOrM3SNV8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phYOrM3SNV8
If we're being absolutely pedantic, I don't know if Nazism is the adequate term here. But putting that aside, the argument is that we're progressing towards it, not that we're in the final stages of that transformation.
Also, why gas chambers specifically? The means don't matter as much as the objectives.
Also, why gas chambers specifically? The means don't matter as much as the objectives.
-Right wing media personalities advocating for euthanizing the homeless and receiving little pushback. Germany also executed ‘undesirables’ during the holocaust along with 6 million Jews.
-The government attempting to control speech by removing broadcast licenses from networks that don’t comply. Joseph Goebbels blacklisted actors that were not fully onboard with the Nazi regime [0]
Those are just the examples I can think of from the past week. All of the anti-science, anti-medicine, and anti-intellectualism over the past 6 months as well.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/1939/02/04/archives/goebbels-ends-ca...
-The government attempting to control speech by removing broadcast licenses from networks that don’t comply. Joseph Goebbels blacklisted actors that were not fully onboard with the Nazi regime [0]
Those are just the examples I can think of from the past week. All of the anti-science, anti-medicine, and anti-intellectualism over the past 6 months as well.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/1939/02/04/archives/goebbels-ends-ca...
Germany justified killing the Jew because they were labeled 'undesirables' along with trans/gay, other minorities, migrant workers (the Roma).
And now a new label for 'trans'.
https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/fbi-readies-new-war-on-tra...
https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/fbi-readies-new-war-on-tra...
How will US politics affect HN startup's potential market? How will it affect their ability to form, hire and retain staff? Will it affect the H1b's that underpin all sorts of programming efforts. Will it lead to VC money sloshing into Europe/UK? ... There's all sorts of HN-relevant things that are impacted damn near daily by US politics.
Not counting all of the impact on health, medicine, science, ... One can keep flagging away, but if you're going to watch the cash flow elsewhere and the jobs remain open, I would think some concern is merited. And if, somehow, people working in this area realize what their work has helped produced...
Not counting all of the impact on health, medicine, science, ... One can keep flagging away, but if you're going to watch the cash flow elsewhere and the jobs remain open, I would think some concern is merited. And if, somehow, people working in this area realize what their work has helped produced...
luserz(1)
Germany 1933
Edit: for those claiming this isn't a free speech issue the President is using the FCC to go after people he doesn't like. He must be a special snowflake.