258
Kimmel should’ve called his bluff and done it anyway.
Don’t kowtow to these cowards.
Sit there for 20 minutes repeating "Trump wouldn't allow this to be broadcast, here's what to search for on YouTube."
Nazi America.
Literal evidence of chilling free speech. He is self censoring in response to threats of legal consequences by the government. It's the easiest, slam dunk court win on infringing on constitutional rights, but this executive branch and these judges are so extremist that it's still not a guaranteed win. This election really could be the last chance to reclaim some semblance of freedom.
I watch it primarily on YouTube anyways so that works for me.
But still, what a fucking insecure rapist loser trump is.
There seem to be some similarities to the Colbert incident. Talarico? They want to censor Talarico's views?
He's about to turn Texas purple, I can imagine the pearl clutching
I love how the freedom of speech crowd are the first to deny others th same.
Paradox of Tolerance. Fascists leverage an open society to build political support, then close off the society as soon as they're in power.
They don't believe words have meaning, they're only to be used as cudgels and shields.
nothing scares these christofascist clowns like an actual Christian using Christ's teachings to tell everyone there's nothing Christian about Trump and his ilk, and I am 100% here for it. That's the only way we're ever going to deprogram a large portion of these MAGA morons, whenever this bullshit ends.
No wonder they fear and hate Talarico.
I don't think turning a person from one fascist leader to another is "deprogramming". It certainly won't keep them from just doing it again in a few years.
They want freedom for their speech, not anyone else’s.
They never mean anything they say, and all their "principles" are just bullshit. They never cared about your freedom of speech. I bet a sizeable amount of BUT MAH FREEZED PEACH asshats would be ecstatic if Jimmy Kimmel were to be given a death sentence for offending the republicons.
It will probably get more views on YouTube anyway
Literally what happened with the same politician being interviewed by Colbert during his primary. FCC told them they couldn't air the interview, they posted it on YouTube, Streisand Effect happens and it's one of the most viewed Colbert videos ever. It won him that election. I think Jasmine Crockett was a better candidate and she may have stood a chance had she gotten that level of exposure.
Didn't Jasmine Crockett take AIPAC money?
It won him that election.
Idk about that. Talarico had a stronger ground game and a prodigious fundraising haul. He won with a healthy 6-pt margin over Crockett.
Incidentally, CBS gave plenty of coverage and multiple interviews to Crockett during her primary run. And Crockett was even interviewed - multiple times, including on CBS - specifically over the Colbert show controversy. The idea that she just wasn't getting enough press to win in Texas seems sparse.
I think the biggest baggage Crockett had to carry was Colin Alred's. He flubbed it in 2022. So Texas voters decided to try and run another Beto-style West Texas cracker, instead of a second Dallas social media suburbanite.
How far are we from youtube censoring stuff like this that the admin asks them to?
We really need to further grow some alternates, youtube is too large to trust, even if google didn't own them.
Probably one 3AM rant away, maybe two at most.
One EO changing the name from YouTube to AmericaTube.
So, they're taping the interview along with the rest of the show's content, but not broadcasting it? Are they going to show dead air in its place? Or maybe a QR code to the interview, along with a countdown timer? I don't think even Jimmy has the balls for that, but it would be awesome.
It would be kinda awesome to have an image of Jimmy with duct tape over his mouth with a menacing Trump and Carr behind him and then the message to check YouTube for the actual show/interview where they can't be censored by Trump (unless he cries to Google, which he might.)
YouTube/Google doesn't have a broadcast license, so can't be harassed in quite the same manner by the FCC. Although Google has a history of premature compliance....
I assume they'll run the Colbert playbook: YouTube release with on air promotion. QR code, yes. Dead air, no.
I'm pretty sure they always shoot extra and edit down for time.
Lol, look how afraid Dump is
Cowards.
The Streisand effect again. I’ve never liked Kimmel. He’s not funny, but here I am reading about him again.
Is there a reason you don't like him?
He’s not funny. I also never got into John Stewart. I like John Oliver though.
Fair enough, I feel that's different than not liking someone.
In casual conversation, when referring to an artist, an actor, comedian, etc., when someone says “I don’t like X“, it typically refers to their performance/art, not to them personally.
For example, I never really liked Monet. I certainly never knew the guy, so I can’t comment on him personally, so what I really mean is that I never really liked his art.
Yes, it’s vague and deserves clarification, but there it is. English is a messy language.
Also, I never really thought about it until now, but in pure text form without tone of voice or body language, it's hard to differentiate whether "I don't like him" means "eh, he's not for me" or "I actively dislike him".
I normally agree and mostly still do, but I do feel with as polarized as the population has become, it's not as clear as it used to be.
Your Monet example I spot on for it. If I heard someone just say they didn't like them, I honestly wouldn't know if they meant the act or the person because of what they do. I personally don't enjoy the product because it's so over the top, but I have no problems with the people or those that do like it.
Now what you’re commenting on is the inherent laziness of people nowadays, and how they don’t really bother to express themselves very clearly anymore. it’s a very real problem that leads to a lot of miscommunications, especially online when vocal tone is absent from interpersonal interactions.
I blame our failing education system for that, alongside the forced brevity of online communications.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2026
258 points (99.2% liked)
politics
31069 readers
2134 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS