Jimmy Kimmel has a strong First Amendment claim against Trump's FCC

[bunny planet]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Omaha Steve (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Source: Daily Kos

If Trump’s skin gets any thinner the US will have its first translucent president.

Trump, who relishes belittling people with unpresidential insults, like calling democrats ‘scum’ and ‘the enemy within,’ can’t take it when his slurs boomerang back at him.

Instead of accepting that jokes, jabs and insults come with the territory—satirizing presidents is an American tradition— Trump reacts like an enraged teenager when anyone insults him.

Whenever the media fail to fawn, or worse, accurately report Trump’s unprecedented corruption or ineptitude, Trump’s first instinct is to use federal resources to seek retribution against them. He’s like a school yard bully who punches and punches and punches down. When his victim finally hits back, he runs away terrified.

Read more: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/9/18/2344158/-Jimmy-Kimmel-has-a-strong-First-Amendment-claim-against-Trump-s-FCC

---

Oh the irony. The show Andor, a Star Wars prequel about a brave rebellion against a totalitarian, authoritarian empire just won an Emmy earlier this week for the timely narrative that resonated in a profound way with current events. The show is streamed exclusively on Disney + which I subscribed to just to watch Andor. Now, Disney has in the real world caved to a would be authoritarian regime (the dump administration) and canceled a comdian's show, and violated the 1st amendment in doing so, all to avoid the punishment and threats from that thin skinned, pathological, encroaching dictator wannabe who sits in the White House. I will finish watching the second season, then happily cancel Disney +. Maybe everyone should, maybe the cost of losing subscribers will be a greater cost than the cost the network was trying to avoid in the first place. I also heard they will be broadcasting a tribute to Kirk on the network during that time slot. Even more of a reason to cancel my subscription.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. I'd *pay* to be on his legal team.

[hlthe2b]

4. Tell me what you see in this dispute and your knowledge of entertainment contracts that

would make that possible, given ABC folded and had no intention of taking on the FCC in court to begin with. If they don't, how would Kimmel have any case beyond what he might wish to pursue against his employer, ABC (and which his contract undoubtedly provides no rights beyond a payout if ended early)? See my post below, as I had a long discussion this morning with my dog-walking lawyer bud who is a retired expert and DU professor on contract law**. I, too, had hoped I was wrong and that Kimmel would have a direct case, but he was pretty adamant as I summarized below.

**Kimmel has every right to say what he wants, but ABC (sadly) does not have to broadcast him doing so. They are on the hook for his contract payout, but given that they have no intention of suing the FCC, that appears to be the limit of action that Kimmel can take. Obviously, the answer lies in the public's response--both to ABC, the FCC, to Congress, and the administration. The latter public outrage could make some difference. The courts? Not so likely unless another litigant comes along (e.g., Congress).

Count me really angry and depressed over this...

[no_hypocrisy]

5. I'm in a car now. Later, I hope.

Tortious interference with a contract.

[hlthe2b]

10. Maybe... but Neil and I discussed that a bit and he thought it wouldn't work without ABC

joining Kimmel in the effort.

[Wednesdays]

11. I pointed out on another thread that the same thing could happen to DU

DU's server company has no legal obligation to continue hosting our web page.

[GreenWave]

42. It was explained elsewhere that the ABC parasitic Sinclair Group declared war on ABC.

They will not broadcast his show even if ABC brings him back.

This is censorship and an abuse by Sinclair, usurpers of OTA local stations.

[hlthe2b]

2. Well, had they not folded, ABC would have had a strong case, but Kimmel? I don't think so...

His suit (if any) would be with ABC, but no major entertainment contract that I've heard about in recent years has afforded the talent any rights except for the monetary terms of their contract, should the network choose to end the show before the end of the contract. So, given that is what happened, ABC is on the hook for the $16million or so that I've heard was the remainder of this year's contract. But, Kimmel (unfortunately) has no evident claim to sue ABC for ending his show, whether on day 1 or day 365 of the current contract and for any reason.

[SunSeeker]

17. Kimmel's claim, as the OP states, is against the FCC. And THAT is a strong case.

Carr had threatened to yank ABC affiliates licenses away. According to Rolling Stone, the execs did not think anything Kimmel said was "over the line," but they feared Trump, and their affiliates did not want to risk their licenses to air Kimmel. https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/abc-execs-were-pissing-themselves-fearing-trump-blowback-yanked-kimmel-despite-thinking-he-didnt-cross-line-report/

Kimmel can draw a straight causation line between FCC head Carr's threats and his suspension. That is a classic 1st Amendment violation by the government.

[hlthe2b]

18. I addressed this earlier and why my Legal Professor friend in Contracts Law (and I) feel that

Tortuous interference will probably not work sans other players weighing in. I don't disagree that this is a classical 1st amendment argument, but with ABC in the middle and unwilling to join Kimmel, but rather having thrown in the towel, it is complicated and less clear-cut.

[SunSeeker]

23. It is a clear cut 1st Amendment violation by the government.

Kimmel has a great case against Carr, with or without ABC joining. I hope Kimmel has better lawyers than your contracts professor friend.

[hlthe2b]

25. My friend is as respected in contracts and constitutional law as is Tribe, but be nasty to me as you wish

Debate needn't be like that--at least on our side.

And despite your continued rephrasing of my comments, my colleague never said he couldn't sue on those grounds. He said it was complicated and not clear-cut in outcome as it might be with other settings.

[SunSeeker]

26. I respect Tribe. Tribe hasn't said Kimmel has a weak case.

I don't know your friend, and you won't name him.

[hlthe2b]

29. I would never name someone whose doxxing could put them at risk. Would you do that to your

friends and colleagues? I have repeatedly stated that there will undoubtedly be a major split in the legal community on this, as nothing like this has occurred previously, much less made its way through the courts. Yet, you continue to ignore that. It just happened so, I have no idea what Tribe will say. He is a constitutional scholar whom I strongly respect, although contracts law is not his specific area of expertise either. Still, the constitutional issues are paramount.

If you wish to conduct a civil and non-personally combative debate, maybe later on. Still, have a nice day.

[SunSeeker]

37. I agree with you, the constitutional issues are paramount here, not contacts law.

And your friend is not a 1st Amendment trial lawyer. I hope Jimmy Kimmel has a good 1st Amendment trial lawyer.

I am not ignoring anything. Please cite me a respected 1st Amendment trial lawyer who says Kimmel has a weak case.

[hlthe2b]

39. I never said my colleague was NEVER a trial lawyer, constitutional or otherwise.

But your combative attitude and continued rephrasing and ignoring of what I have actually written is not civil discourse or debate, so I am done. This just happened yesterday afternoon/evening so few if any, lawyers would have had the opportunity to post ANYTHING about this so your comment is just silly.

Bye.

[SunSeeker]

40. Well, was he?

The constitutional lawyer cited in the OP says it's a strong case.

Calling my opinion "silly" is what is being "personally combative."

[hlthe2b]

41. Yes for years before academia. Done interrogating me now?

I have tried to be cordial with you and engage in professional debate. You, on the other hand...

[ShazzieB]

34. IANAL.

For that reason, I know I'm not qualified to assess whether Kimmel has a viable basis for a lawsuit, and I see no reason to assume hlthe2b's contracts professor friend doesn't know what he's talking about.

The law is a very complex subject, and legal issues are rarely as simple as they may appear to people like me who are not lawyers. I'm therefore inclined to bow to the professor's expertise and surprised that you evidently are not.

In any case, Kimmel undoubtedly has lawyers who are well qualified to advise him on whether it would be worthwhile for him to pursue any kind of litigation, so our opinions on this really don't amount to a hill of beans.

[SunSeeker]

36. The 1st Am violation here is obvious.

I did not say hlthe2b's contracts professor friend doesn't know what he's talking about. He is a professor, not a trial lawyer. I am sure he knows contracts law, but he is not a 1st Am trial lawyer. That is why he is trying to shoehorn this into a contracts case, something he is familiar with. To a hammer, everything is a nail. But this is a classic 1st Am case.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

3. SCOTUS: First Amendment doesn't apply to mean comments about patriots like Charlie Kirk!

[hlthe2b]

7. Right. So, Kimmel has every right to say what he wants, but ABC (sadly) does not have to

broadcast him doing so. They are on the hook for his contract payout, but giventhat they have no intention of suing FCC, that appears to be the limit of action that Kimmel can do. Obviously, the answer lies in the public's response--both to ABC, the FCC, to Congress, and the administration. The latter could make some difference. The courts? Not so likely unless another litigant comes along (e.g., Congress).

[SunSeeker]

14. Wrong. It matters why ABC won't air him. ABC execs canned him because they feared Trump retribution.

Carr had threatened to yank ABC affiliates licenses away. According to Rolling Stone, the execs did not think anything Kimmel said was "over the line," but they feared Trump, and their affiliates did not want to risk their licenses to air Kimmel. https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/abc-execs-were-pissing-themselves-fearing-trump-blowback-yanked-kimmel-despite-thinking-he-didnt-cross-line-report/

Kimmel can draw a straight causation line between FCC head Carr's threats and his suspension. That is a classic 1st Amendment violation by the government.

[hlthe2b]

15. I discuss tortuous interference with a contract upstream in my original posts as well

as the thoughts of my DU law school professor friend, who specializes in contract law. While I suspect there will be a divide of opinions among legal experts as to the chance of any such suit succeeding or not, it is not cut and dry (albeit, what is, nowadays on the legal front?... )

[progressoid]

19. Only if it goes to court and only if all of the people involved truthfully testify.

I'll not hold my breath.

[hlthe2b]

20. Exactly.. Had ABC joined with Kimmel it would be clear cut. Now, not so much.

If ABC was not willing to stand up yesterday, why would some think they would do so months from now with Kimmel in court?

[SunSeeker]

21. No, it is even MORE clear cut. ABC not standing up proves they fear Carr's threats.

And it helps prove Carr's threats are why Kimmel was suspended.

[hlthe2b]

24. As I said, I debated this intensely with a 30 year contracts law legal professor this morning

And while I do believe the legal community will be split (as am I) on this--despite all agreeing on the horrendous constitutional violative offense this action clearly demonstrates, it is not as clear cut as you maintain.

You can keep arguing this (and I made similar points this morning), but entertainment law adds some complications, and there are several issues that my highly respected colleague brought up that will enter into the equation in court--if it ever gets there. That said, I'd love for Kimmel (with some "friend of the court" backing from others, including Congress and others at risk) to take this on, and certainly I'd love to see them prevail.

[SunSeeker]

22. Do not obey in advance. nt

[progressoid]

30. History tells us it won't happen.

Ask Phil Donahue or Keith Olbermann or Dan Rather or Colbert or...

I understand how the idea of a lawsuit is appealing. But don't expect corporate media to suddenly grow a spine and do the right thing.

Regardless, Jimmy may return after his "hiatus"
Maybe ABC/Disney/ESPN/Hulu/etc will let him return after this cools down.

[kimbutgar]

9. You mean....

CucK

[erronis]

6. You might want to cite the author of this quote, rather than Daily Kos --- Sabrina Haake

Her substack post: https://sabrinahaake.substack.com/p/brett-kavanaughs-swiss-cheese-excuse

As I reported earlier at https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220653734

Whenever possible it's a good idea to dig a bit into the aggregator's article and find the true author and give them credit.

[twodogsbarking]

8. He should sue for a trillion dollars. Outdo eltrumpo

[niyad]

12. Keith Olbermann pointed out that contracts for these shows are written

in such a way that, so long as the owners are PAYING the contractee, they don't actually have to PLAY said show. Notice that Jimmy's show was "suspended", he was not fired. As long as they pay his contracted salary, he apparently has no viable grounds for suit.

[SunSeeker]

16. Not airing him still costs Kimmel in marketability, plus they won't pay forever.

Eventually, his contract will expire, probably within a year, and they won't renew it, for fear of Trump retaliating.

[ancianita]

28. I wonder if his contract allows him to be on other comedians' shows. I've seen him on Fallon, so it might.

They've even switched shows under different networks.

[spooky3]

31. But there is a First Amendment issue that may transcend contract language.

The FTC pressured ABC to silence Kimmel. If ABC had decided on its own without any govt influence to change its programming consistent with contract language, maybe Kimmel wouldn’t have a case. But here there is evidence that the govt is trying to silence people, that seems likely to violate the Constitution.

The employees also may have a case. I don’t know what their contracts say, but they are definitely adversely affected by this govt pressure.

I’m not a lawyer.

[moonshinegnomie]

13. he can sue the FCC and carr personally

the government cant pressure a company in an effort to restrict speech. the scotus has said that many times. in this case carr used his authority as fcc chari to pressure ABC to censor kimmel. so he has a case against carr even if he has none against abc

he should take. apage from the morn and suee carr for 15 billion

in addiiton the writers and directors should strike disney and abc

[FakeNoose]

27. Well Kimmel's contract is with ABC and Disney

He doesn't work for Chump, and Chump hasn't "fired" him. For that matter Chump didn't fire Stephen Colbert either.

[twodogsbarking]

32. We have all been harmed by this injustice. A class action suit on behalf of every American seems plausable.

[IbogaProject]

33. Standing will be the weaselly way the conservatives avoid litigating this

They will claim only ABC can sue, which they won't. Jimmy Kimmel was pulled off the aif by his bosses not by the T admin.

[The Grand Illuminist]

35. Only Disney Corp is to blame.

I highly doubt any litigation will work.

[Wiz Imp]

38. Disney/ABC are not airing a Kirk tribute.

That Kirk tribute is being produced by Sinclair and will only air on the ABC stations which Sinclair owns.

[Omaha Steve]

43. AFTER a review by forum hosts LOCKING

This is obviously both an analysis and an opinion piece.

Statement of Purpose
Post the latest news from reputable mainstream news websites and blogs. Important news of national interest only. No analysis or opinion pieces. No duplicates. News stories must have been published within the last 12 hours. Use the published title of the story as the title of the discussion thread.