United States | News & Politics

4093 readers

225 users here now

Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.

If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.

Rules

Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.

No pics of text

Memes are now allowed, as long as they're US centric, general political memes please see !politicalmemes@lemmy.ca

Post news related to the United States.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

exposingfash@midwest.social

cm0002@infosec.pub

cm0002@lemy.lol

121

Legal experts say pulling Jimmy Kimmel from air may amount to illegal 'jawboning' (www.npr.org)

submitted 9 months ago by Sunshine@piefed.ca to c/usa@midwest.social

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 41 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It's shocking to Douek, because she is a close-watcher of what's known as "jawboning," when regulators or government officials pressure private actors, like a social media company or broadcast network, to stifle speech. The libertarian Cato Institute calls the practice "censorship by proxy."

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 21 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Legally, this seems similar to the situation with Biden talking to social media companies to "stifle" vaccine misinformation. Federal courts intervened in that and limited what that admin could do.

Although it's pretty clear that Biden was on the wrong side of Calvinball Rule #2 in the Roberts court.

[–] ToastedRavioli@midwest.social 20 points 9 months ago

There is a difference between the two situations in that the government has a compelling interest in limiting speech that could harm people through the spread of misinformation. Like the classic “yelling fire in a crowded theatre” metric of what is not considered free speech.

In the case of Kimmel talking about Kirk, there is no compelling interest at play, as there is no possible direct harm to other people in saying literally anything about the guy, true or false.

[–] Mr_WorldlyWiseman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 9 months ago

I dont think the covid thing actually met the full description of a threat. They had strategy discussions and said "we want to prevent this issue", but they didn't go as far as Carr did by laying out punishments for non-compliance. It was just idea sharing among experienced peers.

Or maybe I'm remembering the details wrong.