저자: Kevin · 외국인
요약 보기
영상은 지미 카멜 발언 논란과 FCC 위원장 브렌든 카의 방송 허가 압박을 언론·표현의 자유 관점에서 다룬다. 월스트리트저널 사설, 디즈니의 카멜 해고, 넥스타 인수 거래(60억 달러 규모)와의 연관성을 짚으며 정부 권력의 언론 통제를 비판한다. 카멜의 '카크 암살범이 MAGA' 발언이 거짓말인지에 대해서는 논리적으로 거짓이라고 단정하기 어렵다는 입장을 보인다. 시장·종목에 대한 직접적 투자 언급은 없다.
다듬은 글
Well, I haven't seen controversy like this in a while. The Kimmel clip has people on both sides freaking out, arguing that this is not what Kimmel meant. Other people saying that Kimmel knew what he was doing and he's blatantly lying on national television to destroy Americans right to the truth. And therefore, Kimmel deserves to be panned and sued and thrown into jail.
Some people say other people say Kim sucked anyway. Get him off the air. But what we really have to start with is what does this mean for free speech? And what are people who are actually the some of the biggest cheerleaders of the right saying about this? And from you know a financial markets and political and more dare I say reasoned perspective.
I'm not talking about like the trolls and comments. I'm talking about uh things like the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal who tends to take very, in my opinion, reasoned positions on many different issues. That's just one example. And so we're going to go through a few different sources here, but I think what the editorial board says is very interesting.
They make the argument that the left has consistently been the party of suppressing free speech. that they've done it in the past, that uh they'll do it again in the future. And uh the very left censorship is what helped the right win power. that the censorship of the left in Disney firing an actress in the Mandalorian who expressed politically incorrect views, NBC pushing out Megan Kelly for comments deemed insensitive, or the Biden administration censoring contrarian views on CO.
These censorship campaigns or cancel campaigns were wrong and they helped actually lead to the rise of this MAGA movement of no, we stand for free speech. It actually helped propel the rise of Elon Musk buying X the what Elon Musk calls the platform of truth. But you know whether it's the platform of truth or opinion is to be argued but it is the platform of free speech.
See, when I ran for governor in 2021, my campaign announcement was censored by Facebook. It was taken down by Instagram, therefore Meta, because they were donating to Gavin Newsome in California. That's my assumption. We just know it was taken down. Oh, wow. That's the one thing you censor from Kevin.
You don't censor anything else, I say. But that's what you take down my announcement post that I'm running for. about right. But the censorship that has so long been a characteristic of, you know, leftleaning corporations or just the left in general has been decrieded by people on the right and has led to this revitalization of a demand for free speech.
Free speech is so important. You've got Obama bringing out this, I think, beautiful piece. I've read it before in the past and I'm only going to read this little portion to you here, but it's a Frederick Douglas piece and this these lines right here are so powerful in my opinion. There can be no right of speech were man.
However lifted up, in other words, however broke, however rich, however strong, however weak, there can be no right of speech where any man, however young, however old, however lifted up, however humble, is overroaded by force compelled to suppress his honest sentiments. This is very powerful. You can't have the right to free speech if you're being compelled by some way or another not to share your sentiment or your speech because you're afraid of getting your broadcast license revoked, for example.
Equally clear is the right to hear. To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as the speaker. It is just as criminal as to rob a man of the right to speak and hear as it would be to rob him of money. Fantastic. The free speech is the first amendment to the constitution for a reason.
It is so critically important. And this is why I look at the right leaning editorial board of the Wall Street Journal who says, "Hey, wait a second here. what's happening by core and the threat of the Federal Communication Commission's chair, a administration official to basically force the removal of Kimmel from air.
We'll go through the clips in just a moment. Is the very censorship that the left was proposing and it will just be a matter of time. Uh, let me see here. Yeah, this is insane. It will just be a matter of time before, let me see. I'm going to find the exact quotes here, but it'll just be a matter of time basically before you'll end up with the very same thing happening to Republicans again when Democrats take over power at some point in the future.
Because at some point in the future, Democrats will be in power again. And that's the argument that they're making that you have to be really careful with this because look at this. So take a look here. Maybe now our progressive friends understand why these columns oppose government control of business.
Government should not control business. Regulatory power in the hands of a windful president or willful president can too easily become a weapon against political opponents including the media. That's what happened Wednesday when Brandon Claw said, "We can do this the easy way or the hard way." Just like a Jersey mob boss.
The FCC has the power over broadcast licenses. Nextar Media, which is an owner of a massive distribution of ABC network distribution channels and in current negotiations to let me see if I have it here. Where is it? in current negotiations on an over $6 billion deal. There it is. Next are a suburban Dallas-based broadcaster that owns and operates more than 200 local television stations needs SEC sign off on a $6.2 billion deal quickly washes their hands of Jimmy Kimmel when Jimmy Kimmel says something that people don't like.
That is bad. When Mr. car is probably the catalyst for this happening. So, think about the order of this. Okay, Kimmel says something stupid. We'll go through the clip in just a moment and we'll break down an analysis on it because there's a lot to analyze in it and a lot of people don't think there's anything to analyze in it, but there's actually a lot to it and we'll use logic and facts to go through it and break it down to deconstruct it.
Well, what happens is Kimmel says something stupid. Then you get Brandon Carr at the FCC who basically says, "Hey, we could do this the easy way or the hard way. You know, maybe you shouldn't be distributing Kimmel." And Nexar's like, "Oh my gosh, our $6 billion deal hangs in the balance here. This is just about Kimble." Mind you, Bloomberg reports that Kimble loses money for Disney, which a lot of people on the right are like, "Hell yeah, the good get rid of that clown who loses money for the business.
The guy who sucks, whatever." Right? Those those are all opinions. But the fact is Kimmel said made a stupid statement that led to a threat from the FCC that was heard loud and clear and boom, he was gone. The editorial board says as a private company, Disney has the right to run shows as it wishes.
But anybody who thinks this is a free market at work is ignoring the ways the government can punish companies. This is not a free market. This is Trump's market and that that's dangerous because it is a violation of our first amendment rights to free speech. Disney executives. Now, I know this is where people are going to go, "But he said something false." Hold your horses.
We're going to get to breaking that down. Disney executives had to look out for the best interest of their shareholders on the day Kimmel was fired. That's exactly what I said. I said, "Bob Iger is taking over from Bob Chapek, cleaning up the mess over at Disney." And Bob Iger doesn't have the time to deal with this bullcr.
He will fire him so fast if it means protecting the Disney share price. That's why Bob Iger is back. He's a businessman. And businessmen realize you can't win in politics. This is why Elon Musk had to back off. This is why he's no longer bagging on Trump being in the Epstein files every single day because you're going to lose against the political machine.
Trump has used regulatory leverage against Paramount and CBS in a weak lawsuit. And he squeezed liberal law firms to do liberal or to do pro bono work for him while the Justice Department is investigating prosecutors who brought cases against Trump. Mr. Carr might have ignored Trump in the first term, but he doesn't need orders in the second.
He knows exactly what to do to make Trump happy now. And this is this is very true. I mean, this is what the Trump administration is doing. It's directing the Justice Department against the people who were against him, which is exactly what Trump said he wouldn't do. Yes, the other side did it. Trump said he wouldn't do it.
He's doing it. Let's be real. And he's leveraging his power over these companies to sue them. probably why he's also suing the New York Times with a $15 billion lawsuit because it does chill the media. It chills especially the left-leaning media. NPR, PBS losing funding. That's a chilling of frankly left-leaning media.
Uh suing CBS, ABC in lawsuits that have been settled with with um Donald Trump, paying Donald Trump 15 and $16 million. Now the Kimmel firing, the New York Times lawsuit. This is Trump's methodology here. This is project 2012 20 25 at work. And so the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, which is usually a guardian of the right, actually says that you should be careful because the public is not outraged enough at Carr's abuse of power.
None of this justifies what just happened. This was censorship. And the victims of cancel culture for so long, conservatives more than anyone should oppose it because they will be the targets again when the left returns to power. This is because the FCC regulates licensing. In other words, I actually think the top comment here in the comments was pretty good.
Says, "I'm a member of the public in Texas. I am every bit as outraged about Mr. cars FCC abuse of federal power because cancel culture is cancel culture and no matter who engages in it. Powerful statements and so free speech is very important no matter what side you're on. Now I understand there are a lot of people who say but what Kimble said was fals exactly that.
Just to give you some more context, ABC last year paid $15 million to settle a defamation lawsuit brought by Trump against George Stephanopoulos. Paramount agreed to pay $16 million to settle a lawsuit with Trump over the editing of a 60 minutes interview. These aren't cases that went in front of a jury and you know a full trial by our peers.
They're cases where companies said you know what business decision write off this expense and let's get our billion dollar deals done. This is business, but it's being directed by crony capitalism, and that's dangerous to our First Amendment rights. It's dangerous to our Constitution. We're not saying there aren't wrongs that are being committed.
We're not saying Jimmy Kimmel isn't an idiot. That's not what we're saying. We're not saying he didn't make it oopsy dupsy. We're saying the FCC going to threaten regulatory uh uh uh action for not getting rid of Kimmel is a dangerous precedent. The Financial Times even reporting this. Disney's capitulation over Jimmy Kimmel sparks fears for US media under Donald Trump.
This is a very very serious issue right now for Disney. We can do this the easy way or the hard way. Carr said the threat was plain. the FCC could take regulatory action. Probably would. This, by the way, was all followed by people saying that Jimmy Kimmel lied. And this is the crux of the issue. Did Jimmy Kimmel lie?
That's what we're going to break down. Take a look at this. Piers Morgan. Jimmy Kimmel lied about Charlie Cook's assassin being MAGA. Now, something that you have to know about Piers Morgan is he's like the old school version of a jaw basically say shocking, you know, algorithm sensitive things that get people riled up because what happens is when you say when you make statements, this is why algorithms and social media are so dangerous today.
This is why I refuse to be a part of this. Yes, I'm on social media, but I refuse to be a part of the shock of of like the extreme left stuff or extreme right stuff. I am somebody who will always stand for giving you what I believe is factual neutral information. And if I piss everybody off, great, because it means I will always stand for what I believe is substantiated by facts.
And I'm not going to shill to one side ever. Don't care if I piss everybody off. I'm going to stand for what I believe is the truth. And I'm going to give you the facts that back up the truth. And if those facts prove to be wrong, then we have the right to change our mind because when the facts change, we change our mind.
So the question here is here's Morgan, somebody who's really good at manipulating the algorithm by by, you know, echoing outrage, uh, who's also been on the Celebrity Apprentice, mind you, under Donald Trump. Chiml lied about Charlie Kirk's assassin being MAGA. This caused understandable outrage all over America.
Prompted TV station owners to say they wouldn't air him and now he's being suspended by his employees. Why is he being heralded as some kind of free speech martyr? Okay, so first of all, we have to deconstruct this and then the Kimmel clip. Everything that Piers Morgan says that is right here in blue follows the yellow.
So people are outraged. Kimmel's getting cancelled. Why is being martyed for free speech? All of that follows the statement that quote, "Jimmy Kimmel lied about Charlie Cook's assassin, Kirk's assassin being MAGA." Okay. Is this true? Did Jimmy Kimmel lie about Charlie Cook's assassin being MAGA? Now, many of you watching might have watched the clip and said, "Oh, yeah, Jimmy Kimmel totally at least implied that Krook's assassin was an R.
First of all, we have to then ask ourselves, is an implication a lie?" Then we have to ask ourselves, did Jimmy Kimmel imply that or did Jimmy Kimmel imply something else? Okay. So to break this down, what we're going to do is we're going to look at the clip and then we're going to break this down using logical analysis and we'll come together and then we'll decide what do we think about this.
So here's the clip. Let's go ahead and pop it up on screen. I'm going to play it once. We'll come back to it. We'll play it once and then what we'll do is uh we'll break this down in a in in the way that somebody who's taking taken like you know who studied logic and I'm not talking about oh yeah that sounds logical somebody who understands what is a facious argumentation what is an argument a claim with a fact right what is the difference between a claim and evidence right what what what are these things that's that's what logical analysis is that's what we're going to do let's listen to the clip
over the weekend with the maggie gang desperately trying to characterize Hold on. Let the audio was screwed up there. Let me just do this again because it's important. We hit some new lows over the weekend with 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.
In between the fingerpointing, there was uh grieving. On Friday, the White House flew the flags at half staff, which got some criticism, but on a human level, you can see how hard the president is taking this. My condolences on the loss of your friend Charlie Kirk, may I ask, sir, personally, how are you holding up over the last day and a half, sir?
I think very good. And by the way, right there you see all the trucks. They've just started construction of the new ballroom for the White House, which is something they've been trying to get, as you know, for about 150 years. And it's going to be a beauty. Yes, he's at the fourth stage of grief. Construction.
Demolition. Construction. This is not how an adult grieavves the murder of someone he called a friend. This is how a four-year-old mourns a goldfish. We get some. Okay, this is very insensitive. The Charlie Kirk shooting should affect everyone of all political persuasions. This is bad comedy. This there's no question about this.
To make an argument that Donald Trump is not heavily impacted by the Kirk shooting uh is wrong. Even I as an influencer who sees myself as in the middle or people that I know who are on the left are impacted by this because we all as Americans look and go here's somebody who is sharing their first amendment right to free speech adding and and going out of their way to provide perspective in the world.
They don't deserve to be shot. So there's no question that this was insensitive. There's no question that you could call Jimmy Kimmel an for this. There is no question about that. But did he lie? Well, the crux of the lie comes down to the first line, which we're going to play it again right here of they spent the weekend arguing that he is anything other than them.
Just listen to that portion again. with 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 anything other than one of them desperately trying to do that. Okay, so let's let's remove the words that don't matter.
Okay. What what mostly matters like and the amplifications or qualifications like the word desperately or whatever that doesn't necessarily really matter in in the sense that matters in the term of of the way it's heard but it doesn't matter from a logical analysis point of view. So from a logical analysis point of view what we know is that he said spent the weekend.
This is time and what's doing. Okay. So there's an action and a time that really also doesn't matter. The part that really matters is right here. Anything other than one of them. This is basically where people take away this this argument that okay, Jimmy Kimmel is calling the shooter MAGA because if he's not MAGA, then this is a double negative and therefore he's MAGA.
But wait a minute, is that true? Is that what this means? If I tell you that somebody spent the weekend saying an apple is anything other than an apple, does it make it an orange? Let me explain that in a little bit more detail. So, opinion number one, arguing he's not MAGA is the same as calling him MAGA.
The problem is this assumes there are only two options. If you are not black, then you are white. If you are not an apple, then you are an orange. However, this is a logical fallacy. Just because you are not black does not make you white and just because you are not white does not make you black. So, understand the logical fallacy that is known as a false dilemma, which is also known as an eitheror fallacy.
Would you like a bite of this apple? No. So, you hate apples? No. Maybe I'm full. Maybe I have a good taste in my mouth from candy. Maybe I'm fasting. In other words, a false dilemma is the argument that, well, if you are not black, you are white. No, maybe I'm Mexican. Maybe I'm Hispanic. Maybe I'm Asian.
Maybe I identify as a Pacific Islander. You don't want this bite of this apple? You must hate apples. No. Maybe there's another reason I don't want the bite of the apple. A in logical analysis, a false dilemma or an eitheror fallacy is one that says there are only two options. And if there's anything else, it's ignored.
But that's logically false because wait a minute, let's go to this. If you spent the weekend saying you're anything other than MAGA, people are getting pissed because they believe that Kimmel is saying he's MAGA. But wait a minute, there are many options here. He could be MAGA, but he could also be a fascist, an authoritarian.
He could be uh, you know, insane. He could be mentally ill. He could be of no political persuasion. Uh, he could be, you know, all sorts of different things. He could be any kind of party. He could be part of the rainbow party. He could be part of the trans party. You could call whatever you want. But just because Kimmel says that they desperately spent the weekend trying to make sure people knew that he was anything other than MAGA does not call him MAGA.
It just says he is not MAGA. And then Kimmel reiterates the reason he said this in the very next line. The reason is to score political points. That's the next line that he makes. To score political points from and in between the That is not a lie. That's an opinion, right? So this is what Kimmel here said is true.
Almost everybody on the Trump side over the weekend did make a very clear argument that this is an assault on MAGA and this is effed up. And part of the benefit of that, and I hate to say it, but part of the benefit that comes from this, is what you end up doing is you end up using the Kirk assassination as somewhat of a tool to get midterm votes.
Now, that's very insensitive, but look at this. So, opinion number two. So, opinion number one is he's not MAGA equals calling him MAGA. No, that's a logical fallacy. It's a false dilemma. It is factually incorrect to say that calling someone not MAGA means they're MAGA. That is 100% factually incorrect.
And and we could say that with 100% confidence. Opinion number two, Kimmel didn't call him MAGA. He said the right is working overtime to make sure that everybody knows he's not one of them. The shooter is a madman. He's insane. He's mental. You could do that. This serves as a tool. People who don't want people don't want to vote for madmen.
So vote for MAGA instead. What it really does is it weaponizes the opportunity to to rally votes for midterms. It's political fundraising opportunity. It's a marketing opportunity. It's a unifying opportunity. It's an us versus them opportunity. It's kind of like Ben Shapiro marketing his college tour.
Ben Shapiro had this viral clip where he's like, "I will not be shut down. We will not give up on our college tour. we will not cancel our college tour because we will not be silenced. He's like, you know, I've heard rumors that people think we're going to cancel our college tour because of the Charlie Kirk assassination.
We will not be canceling our college tour. So, what that does is it weaponizes outrage to market Ben Shapiro's college tour. Now, that's insensitive to say that, but it's a fact. The reality is Ben Shapiro capitalizing on this outrage markets his own college tour right now. Then people get into sheep theory.
And that's opinion number three. Okay. Opinion number three is sheep theory. Well, how did most people feel? Well, a lot of people on the right felt that Jimmy Kimmel uh called him MAGA, but that's an implication. That's a feeling. That is not something that is convincible beyond a reasonable doubt.
Now, it might hold in the perspective of news because it's like, wait a minute, like are are you make are you making an implication here? But it's still not doubt of guilt. An implication is not equivalent to a lie. And I don't even know that you can imply or or I I'm not even convinced that you could say they spent the weekend saying he's anything other than MAGA implies he's MAGA.
I'm not even convinced you can go that far. It just implies cuz like nobody called him MAGA. Like let's also look at the fact here for a moment. Nobody ever saw him as associated with MAGA. Like that like I don't think anybody looks at the Kirk assassin as like oh he was Maga. Like I don't even think anybody was even like remotely thinking that.
I think what Kimmel here did was very poorly try to create comedy and he failed. Now does it rise to the level of getting censored? No, it shouldn't. You could choose not to watch his show, but should he get cancelled over this? No. And that's where when we go back to this. Jimmy Kimmel lied about the assassin being MAGA.
This is factually wrong. It is factually wrong. And we could see it when we break it down with logical analysis. from a logical uh statistician style point of view, it is factually wrong that Jimmy Kimmel lied about Clark's assassin being mag because we cannot prove that. Now, with all of that out of the way, it's worth knowing that what's the most scary
as you've indicated there are is this. This is what everybody should be afraid of. This is the most scary, disgusting interview. First of all, Benny eats this up hook, line, and synchron doesn't challenge this at all, and provides this avenue, which is fine. People have the right to listen to it. For for an administration official to blatantly threaten our American businesses, this is disgusting.
Let's listen to some of it. you know, avenues here for the FCC. So, there are are some ways in which I need to be a little bit uh careful because we could be called ultimately to be a judge on some of these claims. You hear that? We could be called to be a judge on some of these claims. That is a direct threat.
You know, we might have to decide if your license is going to stay active after this. The direct threat that come up, but I don't think this is an isolated incident. I mean, you go back to Representative Swallwell and he had a tweet out last week where he was saying that, you know, emphasizing that Charlie Kirk's killer was a straight white male from a Republican family that voted for Donald Trump.
In some quarters, there's a very concerted effort to try to lie to the American people about the nature, as you indicated, of one of the most significant uh newsworthy There it is. This right here is where Carr sets up the argument that this was a newsworthy event, implying that Jimmy Kimmel is news, which frankly, if you're getting your news from Jimmy Kimmel, that's that's probably a, you know, a big mistake to begin with.
But Car says there was a lie, but we just proved that there was not a lie. public interest acts that we've seen in a long time and what appears to be an action appears to be an action by Jimmy Kimmel to play into that narrative that this was somehow a MAGA or Republican motivated person. If that's what happened here with his conduct, that is that is really really sick.
And I've been very clear from the moment that I have become chairman of the FCC. I want to reinvigorate the public interest. And what people don't understand is that the broadcasters, and you've gotten this right, are entirely different than people that use other forms of communication. They have a license granted by us at the FCC.
See that? He's basically saying here, hey, the First Amendment doesn't apply to broadcasters. They have a license and if we think you're lying, you know, we could revoke that license. This was a clear as day shutdown of American institutions, of American business, of American speech, and it's absolutely disgusting.
This is the very form of government corruption people were worried about when voting for Trump. A lot of people voted for Trump but did not want to see project 2025. There are a lot of people who believed that Trump would be good for the economy and maybe he will end up proving to be. The stock market's doing great.
It's at all time highs, right? There are a lot of things like Trump's done fantastic on the border. But there are a lot of people who love what Trump is doing whether it's with Iran or wherever it is. They love what he's doing. even they'll even say, you know what, what balls on him to meet Putin in person, right?
There are a lot of people who support that. But then they look at this censorship of American free speech and they say, "This is a bad precedent. If you don't like Kimmel and you think he's a dumbass, don't watch him. But don't take away the right to watch him by threatening to take action." Later in this video, Carr ends up saying, you know, we could do this the easy way uh or the hard way.
Uh I'm not going to play this whole thing because you get the propaganda. I will play that portion though, right here. I mean, look, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, uh on Kimmel, or you know, there's going to be additional work for the FCC
or there's additional work for the FCC ahead. How clear as day was that? Listen to how clear as day was that? Frankly, these companies can find ways to change conduct. Find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, uh, on Kimmel or, you know, there's going to be additional work for the FCC. Did you hear that?
These companies need to take action on Kimmel or, you know, I guess there's going to be more work for this government institution. You cannot have a more clear as day violation of free speech and corrupt government action than this scumbag right here. That is not a slight against, you know, Trump. I'm not shilling for Democrats.
I don't give a crap what anybody thinks. I'm sharing my perspective. This is messed up. It's wrong and it's a bad president .
Comments 0