A Deeply Fractured US

[Remius]

https://www.axios.com/2025/09/19/ted-cruz-jimmy-kimmel-fcc-brendan-carr

He’s not wrong. All those conservative influencers will likely be targets if the Dems ever take power. Dangerous precedent…

 

[RangerRay]

More on the government imposing wokeness, as opposed to from academia and the private sector.

The Woke Right Comes Of Age

And you thought they were in favor of free speech!

andrewsullivan.substack.com

So Trump’s re-election means the tit-for-tat dynamic is now ratcheted up again, and what’s left of liberal democracy gets another pummeling. In the words of former free-speech warrior, Chris Rufo:

[W]e cannot accept the idea that history started in 2025 or that only the Left can legitimately use state institutions. The only way to get to a good equilibrium is an effective, strategic tit-for-tat.

The only remedy to past cancel culture is present cancel culture, says Ibram X Rufo.

But the tit-for-tat is at Orbán levels now, with state institutions directly canceling private entities. That is a difference in kind, not degree. It’s where cancel culture becomes outright authoritarianism. FCC Chair Brendan Carr’s mob-like threatsagainst broadcast networks this week — we can do this “the easy way or the hard way” — were pure Belgrade. Nexstar needs FCC blessing for a merger, so within hours of Carr’s encouragement, they and their 60 affiliate stations balked at Kimmel’s lie. Disney, faced with losing 40 percent of a late-night audience that had already declined by almost half in 2025, swiftly caved.

And the Trump right isn’t coy or shy about any of this. They love cancel culture, they now declare, and want the state to be fully involved in it. The leverage is federal and immense: funds for universities and schools, contracts with law firms, IRS and DOJ investigations of critics, ICE arrests of immigrant students for criticizing Israel, visa revocations for the ideologically problematic, and now open threats to broadcast licenses if they don’t please Trump.

JD Vance brazenly lectured Europeans about free speech this year, while Rubio was busy setting up an online AI program to monitor non-citizen students to deport them for speech he didn’t like. Now, like a super-woke-lefty from 2020, Vance is urging Americans to report any untoward comments they hear about Kirk to their employers. Get those lefties fired! Vance actually said on Fox this year: “Are we willing to defend people even if we disagree with what they say? If you’re not willing to do that, I don’t think you’re fit to lead Europe or the United States of America.” Why then, one wonders, has Vance not resigned yet?

Yes, Biden overstepped by direct attempts to meddle in social media around Covid. He was rightly called out for it. But the impulse, however foolish and creepy, was an attempt to arrest a pandemic. Not even that faint public-health excuse can be made now. If you were worried about Biden leaning on social media to suppress some views, you should be livid about what Trump is attempting.

And yet Pam Bondi declared: “It’s not free speech when you come out and you say, ‘it’s OK what happened to Charlie.’” Stephen Miller, a man who would have been very much at home in Stalin’s cabinet, said: “The path forward is not to mimic the ACLU of the mid 90’s. It is to take all necessary and rational steps to save Western Civilization.” Libs of TikTok bragged: “Due to our reporting and helping to amplify others, MULTIPLE radical leftists have been FIRED from their jobs after we exposed their vile online comments.” Sweet!

Trump-whisperer and fascist conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer insisted last January: “I’m a free speech absolutist. Sorry that’s so hard for people to understand. I’m against censorship and debanking. Sticking up for free speech isn’t ‘aligning’. It’s called having principles.” This week: “So many people have been fired. I’m so proud of you guys.” It’s laughable.

Support the Dish for less than $1/week

Mercifully, some on the anti-woke right have stayed solid. The Free Press should take a bow. Ditto the WSJ and Kimberley Strassel. Taibbi and Greenwald — not on the right — get it. Ditto Tucker Carlson. But Ben Shapiro and Chris Rufo? Yep, you guessed it. Authoritarian frauds.

Then there’s the Big Guy. In his inauguration speech this year: “I will also sign an executive order to immediately stop all government censorship and bring back free speech to America. Never again will the immense power of the state be weaponized to persecute political opponents.” Trump now: “The [networks] give me only bad publicity, press. I mean, they’re getting a license. I would think maybe their license should be taken away.” And this: “That leaves Jimmy and Seth, two total losers, on Fake News NBC. Their ratings are also horrible. Do it NBC!!!”

Of course this is no big surprise. Trump is a tyrant in every cell of his lardaceous body. There is a reason he bonded with Kim Jong Un and has a soft spot for Putin and Xi. He envies their total control, and, more importantly, the opportunities for cruelty that come with it. He despises any speech critical of him and intuitively, instinctually seeks to punish it. Look how he responded to Jon Karl this week, when Karl asked a simple question about Bondi’s statement about prosecuting “hate speech”:

She’d probably go after people like you! Because you treat me so unfairly! You have a lot of hate in your heart. Maybe they’ll come after ABC. Well, ABC paid me $16 million recently for a form of hate speech, right? Your company paid me $16 million for a form of hate speech, so maybe they’ll have to go after you.

Trump doesn’t just support shutting down “hate speech” — he wants more of it! He has now sued CBS, the De Moines Register, the WSJ, the NYT, and Penguin Random/House for lèse majesté — something unimaginable for any president before he came along. CBS surrendered and is now busy turning itself into a Trump-Netanyahu network. ABC gave in over Stephanopoulos and CBS surrendered over a Kamala interview — both absurd concessions. The WaPo has killed a diverse op-ed page, in favor of an entirely right-leaning one. The WSJ and the NYT are currently being sued for a total of $25 billion for telling the truth about a public official. And still Trump wants more. Of course he does. Appeasing tyrants merely whets their appetite. And if this is after eight months, imagine what the next three years will bring.

I guess it’s clarifying, at least. Wokeness — with its censorious attempt to control minds by threats — is not dead. It’s just on both sides now — and involves government. Cancel culture has leapt from the social and horizontal to the political and vertical.

Kancelkulturkampf! Or should that be in Hungarian?

Trump Channels His Inner-Putin

Threatens licenses of networks who are "against him"

charliesykes.substack.com

Fair warning: there is more than enough hypocrisy to go around. One of the reasons that free speech seems so fragile and hollow at the moment is because it has been hollowed out in recent years. And, yes, I’m looking at the folks on the left who embraced cancel culture; conflated speech with violence; and justified the censorship of what they called “hate” speech. When principled liberals made a plea for free expression a few years ago, much of the criticism came from “progressives” who justified intellectual intolerance — including book bans. (See: “Our Woke Book Burners” - by Charlie Sykes - The Bulwark.)2

That, in turn, triggered the next round of festering hypocrisy on the right. Trump and MAGA seized upon the issue and postured as free speech champions. It became a major theme of the 2024 campaign — when Trumpists made their commitment to free expression a central part of their appeal to younger voters.

But that was then… (Hat tip Glenn Kessler)

“If we don’t have free speech, then we just don’t have a free country. It’s as simple as that. If this most fundamental right is allowed to perish, then the rest of our rights and liberties will topple just like dominos one by one. They’ll go down.”

—Donald Trump, in a video address announcing his “free speech policy initiative,” Dec. 15, 2022

“It is the policy of the United States to: (a) secure the right of the American people to engage in constitutionally protected speech; (b) ensure that no Federal Government officer, employee, or agent engages in or facilitates any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen.”

—Executive order, “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship,” signed by Trump, Jan. 20, 2025

“I banned government censorship from your voices and brought back free speech in America. We have free speech. We didn't have free speech. We do have it now, actually.”

—speech to the 2025 CPAC convention, February 22

“I have stopped all government censorship and brought back free speech in America. It's back.”

—Trump, speech to Congress, March 4…

Wait there’s more… Here are some old tweets by FCC boss Brendan Carr, who is now leading Trump’s Thought Police:



Exit take: It’s almost as if they were full of shit the whole time.

I guess the FCC commissioner changed his mind. Free speech for me, but not for thee.



The right is now engaged in the worst excesses of the left, but with the power of the US government behind it.

 

[RangerRay]

Also, a federal judge rejects Trump’s lawsuit against the New York Times as “decidedly improper and impermissible”.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/19/media/trump-new-york-times-lawsuit-dismissed-merryday?cid=ios_app

 

[Brad Sallows]

He’s not wrong. All those conservative influencers will likely be targets if the Dems ever take power. Dangerous precedent…

Precedent would mean it's never been done before. Using the FCC specifically might be a precedent. Using other means, no. Distinguishing between "a particular agency" and "someone at the White House" isn't a fine point that most people will think matters. Bear in mind also that the nat-cons have been explicit about their goals to upend the perceived dominance of the left in many institutions. Dismayed critics will have to buckle up for a rough ride.

Adding FCC opprobrium to the mix was a tactical error as well as constitutionally unsound, but it gave the employer a bit of cover to drop an inconvenient employee. Kimmel isn't the last money losing entertainer who will be shown the door.

 

[Remius]

Precedent would mean it's never been done before. Using the FCC specifically might be a precedent. Using other means, no. Distinguishing between "a particular agency" and "someone at the White House" isn't a fine point that most people will think matters. Bear in mind also that the nat-cons have been explicit about their goals to upend the perceived dominance of the left in many institutions. Dismayed critics will have to buckle up for a rough ride.

Adding FCC opprobrium to the mix was a tactical error as well as constitutionally unsound, but it gave the employer a bit of cover to drop an inconvenient employee. Kimmel isn't the last money losing entertainer who will be shown the door.

Using FCC is the precedent.

Cruz, who I generally dislike is not wrong. He sees it.

What an effing mess the US is becoming.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Using FCC is the precedent.

Cruz, who I generally dislike is not wrong. He sees it.

What an effing mess the US is becoming.

And it didn’t start with trump.

 

[MrWhyt]

Also, a federal judge rejects Trump’s lawsuit against the New York Times as “decidedly improper and impermissible”.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/19/media/trump-new-york-times-lawsuit-dismissed-merryday?cid=ios_app

an 85 page suit and they don't get to the first complaint until page 80. I'd say someone should be fired but we know people like that only fail up in the trump administration.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Staff deleted post for rules contravention.

Maybe he'll propose to pack the courts.

 

[dapaterson]

Normal respect for the free press.

https://bsky.app/profile/scottnover.bsky.social%2Fpost%2F3lz7xmjhuh225

 

[Remius]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1969125773794480489

Even Ben Shapiro seems to be worried about this overreach and is worried about what happens when the shoe will be on the other foot.

I have no doubt that the other side will come down hard when they get their next turn…

 

[Brad Sallows]

I have no doubt that the other side will come down hard when they get their next turn…

That wouldn't make sense. They're the reasonable ones. If the reasonable people won't de-escalate, why expect anyone to do so? If no-one can be expected to do so, what's the point of worrying about it? And if they're not reasonable, what's the argument for preferring them?

 

[Quirky]

the other side

Who?

 

[Remius]

Who?

Left and right quirky. Republicans and Democrats.

Whatever right wing influencers you listen to are likely to get targeted using the same methods whenever the democrats take over.

Some on the right have realised this and are calling this for what it is.

 

[Remius]

That wouldn't make sense. They're the reasonable ones. If the reasonable people won't de-escalate, why expect anyone to do so? If no-one can be expected to do so, what's the point of worrying about it? And if they're not reasonable, what's the argument for preferring them?

I’ll let you meditate on your not being worried or defend whatever it is you are defending.

 

[QV]

Remius been asleep these last many years.

 

[Remius]

Remius been asleep these last many years.

Not at all. Just consistent. I don’t like Hypocrites QV.

If you want to discuss be a man and do it directly and not in the third person. I have no problem matching your energy.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I’ll let you meditate on your not being worried or defend whatever it is you are defending.

There's not much to worry about, given low expectations. Obviously Democrats are not going to behave better than they already have; having breached a bunch of norms themselves, they will be happy to join in breaching some more and find some new ones to breach. That's a realistic assessment. If they can't be expected to do better, there's no reason to prefer them, especially by people whose policy preferences don't align.

I'm defending the necessity of acknowledging that the state of affairs in the US is entirely a reaction to what went before it, and that the people who broke the two party system in the US with their excessive warmongering and social engineering and no-prisoners politics and general arrogance and sense of entitlement to govern are unlikely to be good candidates for repairing it. First they have to be fixed, if they can be, and the only evidence that matters is good behaviour when it hurts their interests.

 

[PrairieFella]

And it didn’t start with trump.

No, but the jerrycan he's been tossing sbout the room certsinly doesnt help. I love the Dan Carlin term historical arsonist, it fits the Don perfectly.

 

[Remius]

There's not much to worry about, given low expectations. Obviously Democrats are not going to behave better than they already have; having breached a bunch of norms themselves, they will be happy to join in breaching some more and find some new ones to breach. That's a realistic assessment. If they can't be expected to do better, there's no reason to prefer them, especially by people whose policy preferences don't align.

It’s not even a question of preference. I’m glad I don’t live there and glad I don’t have to choose either. I’ll take our political tit for tats here any day over that.

I'm defending the necessity of acknowledging that the state of affairs in the US is entirely a reaction to what went before it, and that the people who broke the two party system in the US with their excessive warmongering and social engineering and no-prisoners politics and general arrogance and sense of entitlement to govern are unlikely to be good candidates for repairing it. First they have to be fixed, if they can be, and the only evidence that matters is good behaviour when it hurts their interests.

Of course, but it happened on both sides. But the current administration has now crossed a further line that even many of their most ardent disciples recognize is a bridge too far.

We really do live above a meth lab.

 

[lenaitch]

Johnson was a long time ago. The watershed was Obama - comedians almost entirely stopped lampooning the president, whether because of their own political leanings or because they didn't want to take the heat for doing anything to take the shine off. The situation persists because the Republican-Democrat balance is perceived to sit on a knife edge, and the outcome of winning or losing matters more every election cycle. Few who talk abstractly about speaking "truth to power" are willing to risk unsettling their own power.

Remember the quaint olde days of the White House Correspondents' Association ('White House Press Corps') annual gala dinner where the President would attend and they would roast him - for charity. According to Wiki, every president since 1924 has attended, except Trump.

******
To me, the issue isn't whether talk show hosts, commentators, columnists, etc. say mean things, make fun of the President, are or are not funny in any particular person's opinion or even are accurate in what they say. The issue is the Administration threatening the power of the State to silence them. Has any previous administration done this? I'm surprised how anyone who believes in the concept of a liberal democracy can justify this. (General comment - not linked to Brad).