While actual incitement to violence isn't protected speech, that wasn't even close to incitement to violence, which requires meeting three prongs clearly defined by SCOTUS.
I encourage you to review actual statements which SCOTUS has previously ruled are NOT incitement to violence. It's so incredibly narrow and particular, I was left wondering if anything can meet the definition. Jimmy Kimmel is so far from it your assertion is ludicrous.
True, but irrelevant given that ABC is not in any way part of government. It was justified that the general public deemed those comments unacceptable, specifically because they were an attack on the very principles that made them legally permissible; and ABC was capable of, and morally justified in, punishing them (and also legally permitted to punish them).
> It was justified that the general public deemed those comments unacceptable
Is this the same general public whose backlash over the suspension got it reversed a few days later by the network, and by Nextstar and Sinclair a few days after that?
Of course "the general public" is not a homogeneous group by definition.
Those who objected to the speech were morally in the right, because the speech clearly crossed a line. It baselessly accused others of trying to cover up a truth which would have been damaging to them, except that it turned out to be the exact falsehood that Occam's Razor would have predicted. And it did so with the force of broadcast media behind it.
The prohibition against inciting violence has nothing to do with whether or not the speaker is a government entity.
Indeed, I think you should look at the speech that SCOTUS ruled is protected in the landmark Brandenburg v Ohio[0] case to see how extremely narrow the "imminent lawless action" standard is. It's ridiculously hateful and inflammatory, and filled with several non-specific threats of violence against minority groups. This was labelled protected speech. Brandenburg was a private citizen here, and he prevailed over the state of Ohio.
You miss the point completely. 1A is irrelevant because ABC is not a government entity. In the phrase "Congress shall make no law", "Congress" is not decoration, and "law" is interpreted literally.
The statements were frankly defamatory, and only not actionable because they didn't define a clear target nor cause demonstrable "actual damages".
Not true here in Florida. The governor banned and burned books that taught slavery was bad, revoked tenure and fired all teachers who were reported teaching that slavery was bad. The new state-approved textbooks teach that slavery taught blacks useful skills and that there was violence on both sides.
So you can't just go to a local book store and buy a copy or order it on Amazon? Oh wait you can? Crazy damn I really thought a banned book would mean I couldn't buy it at literally any book store.
> Not true here in Florida. The governor banned and burned books
The books are not banned.
The public schools don't allow them, which is the case for many things.
Whether you agree with it or not, calling this "banning books" is dumb. There are a lot of things that are not allowed in schools, but we don't go around saying "Florida banned alcohol" or "Florida banned smoking" or "Florida banned pornography" because they're not allowed in schools.
> The books are not banned...The public schools don't allow them
What's a word that means "forbidden from being included" or "disallowed"? "Banned"! Check your local dictionary, or just type it into your favorite search box.
> Calling this "banning books" is dumb. There are a lot of things that are not allowed in schools, but we don't go around saying "Florida banned alcohol" or "Florida banned smoking"
No, it's not dumb. Children don't go to school for the purpose of getting drunk or smoking. They do go to school to learn things, including things that might be politically controversial or divisive.
You know what is dumb? Gatekeeping truthful information from being accessible to kids because the curiosity it sparks might inconvenience some people.
Praising a murderer for committing a murder is not incitement and is protected speech. Under Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), speech loses protection only if it is directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to produce it. A comment on a murder after the fact can’t meet this standard unless the comment is “go do another murder right now!”
Kimmel also did not praise the murderer. He implied (incorrectly as it turns out) that the killer was right-wing.
Your misstatements of the well-known facts and law in this case cast doubt on the effort you put into researching the other issues mentioned.
He did more than imply the falsehood. He implied that people had no good reason to disbelieve the falsehood, and that the right wing was seeking to deceive on this basis for political gain. In doing so, he (perhaps inadvertently) ran cover for the ideology that was actually responsible.
Right-wingers have lost their jobs in the US many times for far less, even when their comments were on social media accounts unrelated to the job. When these responses are described as unjust or disproportionate, American left-wingers have consistently and repeatedly (across a span of many years) told me the same line about how 1A only applies to government and not corporations. Which is correct, but also entirely missing the point about bias.
They were only "an embarrassment to their company" because of the aggressive doxxing and harassing actions of people who refused to tolerate entirely reasonable statements that they happened to disagree with.
For that matter, one time someone who wasn't even noted as right wing got "cancelled" for wearing clothing with a print that some feminists found objectionable. Clothing that was gifted to him by a woman.
