Can Jimmy Kimmeel prosecute FCC? Explanation of possible lawsuits.

When ABC announced on September 17 that the network will withdraw new episodes from Jimmy Kimmel Live!The anger that followed was a lower relationship with Fandom from the attack on the first amendment rights. ABC’s decision came after the head of the Federal Communications Committee, Brendan Car Kimmel, criticized earlier that day regarding the hosted late suspension at night for the killing of Charlie Kerk on the extreme right. Car turned out that Kimmel should be suspended during the appearance of podcasts. “We can do this in an easy way or in the difficult way,” said Benny Johnson, the right host. Benny show. When Carr comments began to spread on social media, Nexstar and Sinclair, ABC, ABC, criticized the deadline for “the two largest groups of stations”, criticized Kimmel and He said They were anticipating his offer. ABC then said that Kimmel will hang throughout the United States, For every CNN.

President Donald Trump immediately celebrated Kimmil’s comment on the social truth. “Great News of America: Jimmy Kimmel’s categories were canceled. “Congratulations on ABC for the recent courage to do what to do. Kimmel has a zero talent, and the categories are worse than Colbelt, if possible.” He also suggested that the other hosts late at night, such as Jimmy Fallon and Seth Mayers, should lose their jobs. Trump’s embrace of censorship was more Create when I told the correspondents He wants to take licenses away from networks about negative comments about him.

If everything is convicted, it’s because this news follows the cancellation of Stephen Colbert’s offer, which means that there may be more sanctions coming to the world late at night. Books and comedians are nervous and beoch. Here is what to know about how and what they can do to respond (or Sue).

Let’s start with the basics: the first amendment means that the government cannot tell you what it says – or what it does not say – and attacks on freedom of expression are not legal in the United States.

Comedy census as a protected speech. Roy Gotman, director of the next center at the Nihaus School for Freedom of Expression at the University of Siraches, says that both comedy and ridicule “a legal area has been well stable, not much of the controversy,” says Roy Gotman, Director of the next Center at the Nihaus School for Freedom of Expression at the University of Siraches.

“The threat of pressing two broadcasts because of the offensive comments made by a comic actor is concerned,” says Germain. “Jimmy Kimmel is a comic. I always found him is the least political for hosts late at night.”

Tre Lovell, an entertainment lawyer and trial in Los Angeles, expresses similar views when it comes to satirical simulation in entertainment. While there are some unprotected forms of speech – defamation, lies, and incitement to violence – “Kimmel, South ParkAll they do is legal, legal and protected through the first amendment. “They do not do anything that can be implemented. You cannot come after them because of defamation, because it is a satirical simulation and most of them depends on the truth in any case, only criticism and opinion, so they do nothing wrong.”

On September 15, Kimmel described “its lowest new levels” after the arrest of a man suspected of killing Kirk. He said: “We have reached some of its lowest levels during the weekend, as a desperate Maga gang tried to describe this child who killed Charlie Kirk as anything else other than one of them and did everything in his power to record the political points from him.” “Between the finger’s direction, there was sadness. On Friday, the White House flew flags at half of the employees, which got some criticism. But at the human level, you can see how difficult this president is.” The next part showed Trump responding to the correspondent question about how “steadfastness” after Kirk’s death. Trump answers and is talking about the new dance hall that is built in the White House. “Yes, it is in the fourth stage of sadness: construction.” Kimmel joked. “Demolition, construction. This is not how an adult is saddened by the killing of someone who called a friend. This is how 4 -year -old grieves a golden fish, well?”

Yes, Kimmel can file a lawsuit against its superiors, but its success depends on the violations it claims. “The only viable claim is to violate the contract,” says Nima Al -Rahmi, the founder of the trial lawyer in the West Coast and the former Federal Prosecutor. Al -Rahmi explains that there is no protection from freedom of talking with private employers. There is also California or a federal law that would prevent him from commenting. “The employers can discipline their employees in order to speak, although the government cannot.” “If the comment violates a Kimmel agreement with Disney, he may have a claim. The recruitment agreement is not general, but it will help if it contains a broadcasting guarantee or a station without providing a reason.”

Yes! “The threat of Brendan Carr violates the founding parts of the first amendment, and it is extremely disturbing that many people who complained about canceling a culture are fine with this,” says Ron Kobe, a criminal defense lawyer with a focus on civil rights. “When the government is involved in an attempt to suppress the content of speech, whether it was done through threats or any other procedure, this is a violation of the first amendment, and we have seen a tsunami since Trump took power,” he says.

In response to the comment request, the White House insisted that this was not the first amendment issue and doubled by Kimmel’s criticism.

“This has nothing to do with the freedom of expression-losing low classifications Jimmy Kimmil in making any bad jokes he wants, but the private company is not obligated to lose money that produces an unlucky offer. Kimmil’s classifications have decreased to a total of 63 % since his offer at home has moved.” Jimmy Kimmel’s terrible producer is not the problem of freedom of expression; It is a talent problem. He is welcome to start physical as all other losers in low classifications! “

no. In the last quarterIt was displayed at the top of the main trial of ABC for adults between the ages of 18 and 49. It was ranked 2 strong when it came to a total viewer, behind (from paradoxes) Colbert. Although Kimmel’s classifications have decreased compared to the time when it has moved to 11:35 pm many years ago, each broadcast TV and one TV show thanks to the shift to broadcast.

no. Many experts say that these attacks on critics unprecedented – but they have become more common. “I think this is all part of a new natural, a new direction to silence individuals in the media,” says Camron Dowlatshahi, an entertainment and media lawyer. “Previously in the Federal Communications Committee (FCC), you will see their participation when there were nudity words or curse on the air-you did not see it apparently not controversial, maybe she was tending in one way or another.” Doualatahi said that the process of the Federal Communications Committee’s chair (FCC) with Kimmel’s comments, as well as government pressure on Trump’s critics and management, has enormous power on the final result of the outlets. “What is depositing all this is the huge incorporations that happen, right?” He says. “Otherwise, the FCC chair can threaten all these things, then if the network wants to fight it really, they can challenge it for the reasons for the first amendment. But what they see is that he does not deserve that battle, and they prefer to pass this merger, which is very sad.”

Kobe, who had been practicing law for decades, said that democratic and republican administrations do not like criticism, “sometimes they will perform threats that cross the line to attack the first amendment speech.” For example, the George Hero Bush administration, for example, said that the Gulf War demonstrators should be cautious about what they say. “There has been no kind of full power of the government to strangle and suppress speech that does not like management,” says Kobe. “From the use of research grants to federal funds to licensing lawsuits, we have not seen anything like this before, even in the days of Nixon, who could have said that the most authoritarian president.”