Charlie Kirk is dead

Since I have to repeat myself: I was speaking of reactions from officials. Which are clear, and documented. I even provided a picture drawing a parallel between the resolutions condemning Kirk and Hortman’s assassination. And I was aware of the former beforehand because I saw a video of him getting shot in the neck during a public event, which wasn’t the case of Hortman’s assassination.
I spoke of official reaction and you derailed the subject to talk about my personal awareness of the current events. That’s how you’re making it about me, with this post and any other you made trying to apply some kind of pseudo-psychological analysis and then accuse me of dodging your claims when I call you out on the fact.

The facts are materially different in both cases you mention: in each case, these are clear instances of officials using their authority to coerce a private entity into doing something because of a speech they personally disapprove of, whether by suggesting leniency or by threatening prosecution. Carr's case is materially different as far as we know: he made a comment on a conservative podcast stating his opinion that Kimmel made a willful effort to mislead the public and what it could mean for broadcasters, should it be true and should someone file a complaint about Kimmel's commentaries. These comments were hypothetical and not backed by any enforcement or investigation as far as we know. Judicial precedent in common law assumes that the facts are similar for it to apply.
Carr is to testify before the Senate for this entire ordeal. Elizabeth Warren also wants to investigate whether he kept communications before, during or after Kimmel's suspension with Nexstar/Sinclair/ABC to establish whether there was actual coercion similar to the cases you've mentioned. I don't pretend to know his behind-the-scene dealings, but he's innocent until proven guilty. In my opinion, the fact that they're trying to probe whether these communications took place is in itself proof that the current facts known so far aren't enough to establish jawboning.

"I was speaking of reactions from officials"
And yet, when those officials make public statements that contradict your argument, you cry "Oh, but they were speaking as a 'private citizen'!"
Convenient. 😂
Some consistency please.

I would argue that anyone holding the position of an elected public official, at any level or in any office, can't ever really speak merely as a private citizen any longer and should be mindful of what they say to the media not just because the media could use it to portray them in an adverse or embarrassing way but because of the influence they may have on others.
Your own mind and opinion may remain your own and there is a right to free speech but with any position of power there comes a lot of responsibility.

Trump gloating about taking away freedom of speech.
This will come as music to the ears of Kirk supporters as their commitment to the principle has always been markedly insincere.

i really don't know what to tell you. i barely know who jimmy kimmel is aside from some mean tweets and the reoccurring joke he has with matt damon.
if you'd like to read what the legal experts are saying, i found this source below: a letter to the fcc signed by 70 of em. seems the concern hinges on carr's comment – "We can do this the easy way or the hard way... These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel or, you know, there's going to be additional work for the FCC ahead".
i copied some paras below but it's easier if you just read the source as it's all relevant (if you're interested):
'The Supreme Court has been clear: government has no “power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content,” and even false speech is protected by the First Amendment. The Court has “many times held, in many contexts, that it is no job for government to decide what counts as the right balance of private expression— to ‘un-bias’ what it thinks biased, rather than to leave such judgments to speakers and their audiences.” Indeed, when Congress created the FCC in 1934, it explicitly denied “the Commission the power of censorship” or the ability to “interfere with the right of free speech.”
'What makes your threats against ABC licensees “dangerous as hell” is that they work despite their unconstitutionality. The Supreme Court recently noted that, “the greater and more direct the government official’s authority, the less likely a person will feel free to disregard a directive from the official.” Your threats exploit the chasm between the FCC’s apparent authority over broadcasters and what the courts would actually uphold if any licensee had the courage to risk everything by spending years in litigation. You are leveraging flimsy legal claims to coerce changes in speech. This is classic jawboning. Facing loss of their licenses, or regulatory harassment, many will interpret your threats as “an offer [they] can’t refuse.”'
https://knightcolumbia.org/blog/institute-joins-first-amendment-groups-scholars-and-litigators-to-condemn-fcc-chairman-brendan-carrs-attacks-on-media

"I was speaking of reactions from officials"
And yet, when those officials make public statements that contradict your argument, you cry "Oh, but they were speaking as a 'private citizen'!"
Convenient. 😂
Some consistency please.

Thank you for sharing this letter. I must say it's refreshing to discuss the facts and their legal ramifications rather than engage in political rhetorics.
The letter is good for pointing out Carr's inconsistencies with his current behavior and what he has said in the past. Overall, if it was meant to express an adverse legal opinion, it's a good letter. But of course, I'm going to nitpick at some things, since it's clear they're not entirely neutral on the matter either seeing how they're presenting the facts, which makes it a political statement first and foremost meshed with legal references rather than a legal analysis.
"We are more than seventy scholars of the First Amendment, constitutional law, telecommunications law, and journalism, First Amendment litigators, and civil society organizations committed to free speech. We write regarding your recent suggestion that ABC-affiliated broadcast licensees violated their “public interest” obligations, engaged in “news distortion,” or perpetrated a hoax when they aired comedian Jimmy Kimmel’s comments about partisan reactions to Charlie Kirk’s murder. “We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” you warned them, adding: “These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel or, you know, there's going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”"
As it happens often, these two sentences were taken out of context. On the podcast, Brendan Carr expressed that it seems Jimmy Kimmel leaned into the narrative espoused by some people that Tyler Robinson was somehow a MAGA Republican, which in his opinion constitutes news distortion. But his commentaries remained hypothetical, as he said, "we MAY ultimately be called to be a judge on that." You can find the whole exchange following this link if you wish to make your own opinion on what he said.
"Kimmel may have been mistaken about some aspects of the public reaction to the rapidly evolving story of Kirk’s murder, but it would be exceedingly difficult to prove that he knew his comments were false."
The Governor of Utah (the guy responsible for law enforcement and investigations in the whole state) made a public statement the day before the controversial episode aired where he said that the killer has been radicalized with leftist ideology, which was also stated by his close family's testimony. Engravings referring to antifascist ideology were found on his belongings. I find it hard to believe that Kimmel missed those considering he likes to comment on the news during his show, which assumes he keeps himself informed. But of course, he's allowed the benefit of the doubt.
"Indeed, your threats have achieved at least some of their intended result: Disney suspended Kimmel “to avoid further inflaming a tense situation” and reinstated him six days later only after “having thoughtful conversations with Jimmy[.]” Upon his return, Kimmel thanked Disney for reinstating him, but noted that this, “unfortunately, and I think unjustly, this puts them at risk” from an FCC “using mob tactics to suppress free speech.” Regarding Kirk, he struck a notably different chord, calling for forgiveness and reconciliation."
If I refer to this WSJ article, they are really distorting what went on on ABC's side. After Nexstar and Sinclair made their press releases stating they won't air Jimmy Kimmel's show anymore, Dana Walden (the co-chairman of Disney Entertainment) spoke to Kimmel to know what he was going to do. After discussing with other senior executives, they concluded that his approach was going to make things worse as he was going to say that his words were being twisted by the MAGA movement, and decided to temporarily suspend him. They also had to consider security concerns as members of the show had received threats and suffered from doxxing. Kimmel's show was then put back on after public backlash.
The timing between Carr's comments and Nexstar and Sinclair's actions is enough to warrant scrutiny of course, but not enough to claim he coerced them. Regarding ABC's decisions, they remained mainly business drive decisions.
"You claim not to have threatened anyone or to have prejudged whether ABC stations have violated the law by airing Kimmelʼs remarks. But Sen. Cruz understood your message perfectly—“‘nice bar you have here, it’d be a shame if something happened to it’”—and so would every company with something to lose. An agency’s “reputation for objectivity” is in question if “a disinterested observer may conclude that it has in some measure adjudged the facts as well as the law of a particular case in advance of hearing it. Public comments evincing prejudgment have disqualified commissioners from judging cases and “[w]herever there may be reasonable suspicion of unfairness,” courts say “it is best to disqualify.””
Whether they think Senator Cruz is right is, first and foremost, their opinion. If a complaint is filed on ABC and the FCC has to investigate, then that just means that Carr won't judge the case if I understand their wording? I'm also quite disappointed that they didn't go further into the clarifications that Brendan Carr's brought up (click here if you're interested in reading more on that).
They also employ very strong wording regarding Carr's actions by repeatedly claiming he threatened the broadcasters, when there's a difference between what he said and saying "fire Kimmel or I'm removing your licenses." They also claim he engaged in jawboning (I mean that's the entire point of their letter), when in past cases, more substantial actions were taken by the defendants compared to what he did.
But we shall see what his hearing at the Senate yields. Wait and see.

How many times do I have to tell you: there's a difference between commenting on a podcast/personal account and voting an amendment. There has always been a difference between the officeholder and the private citizen in US law.

"I must say it's refreshing to discuss the facts and their legal ramifications rather than engage in political rhetorics."
The irony is so strong here, I've had to open a window.

If the president of the USA goes on a media programme and makes a statement, people will see that statement as coming from the president of the USA. Claiming that it was just "a Mr D Trump from New York" and therefore carries no more weight than my or your opinion, is utter nonsense.
And it doesn't matter how many times you repeat nonsense, it's still nonsense.

Thank you for sharing this letter. I must say it's refreshing to discuss the facts and their legal ramifications rather than engage in political rhetorics.
The letter is good for pointing out Carr's inconsistencies with his current behavior and what he has said in the past. Overall, if it was meant to express an adverse legal opinion, it's a good letter. But of course, I'm going to nitpick at some things, since it's clear they're not entirely neutral on the matter either seeing how they're presenting the facts, which makes it a political statement first and foremost meshed with legal references rather than a legal analysis.
"We are more than seventy scholars of the First Amendment, constitutional law, telecommunications law, and journalism, First Amendment litigators, and civil society organizations committed to free speech. We write regarding your recent suggestion that ABC-affiliated broadcast licensees violated their “public interest” obligations, engaged in “news distortion,” or perpetrated a hoax when they aired comedian Jimmy Kimmel’s comments about partisan reactions to Charlie Kirk’s murder. “We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” you warned them, adding: “These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel or, you know, there's going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”"
As it happens often, these two sentences were taken out of context. On the podcast, Brendan Carr expressed that it seems Jimmy Kimmel leaned into the narrative espoused by some people that Tyler Robinson was somehow a MAGA Republican, which in his opinion constitutes news distortion. But his commentaries remained hypothetical, as he said, "we MAY ultimately be called to be a judge on that." You can find the whole exchange following this link if you wish to make your own opinion on what he said.
"Kimmel may have been mistaken about some aspects of the public reaction to the rapidly evolving story of Kirk’s murder, but it would be exceedingly difficult to prove that he knew his comments were false."
The Governor of Utah (the guy responsible for law enforcement and investigations in the whole state) made a public statement the day before the controversial episode aired where he said that the killer has been radicalized with leftist ideology, which was also stated by his close family's testimony. Engravings referring to antifascist ideology were found on his belongings. I find it hard to believe that Kimmel missed those considering he likes to comment on the news during his show, which assumes he keeps himself informed. But of course, he's allowed the benefit of the doubt.
"Indeed, your threats have achieved at least some of their intended result: Disney suspended Kimmel “to avoid further inflaming a tense situation” and reinstated him six days later only after “having thoughtful conversations with Jimmy[.]” Upon his return, Kimmel thanked Disney for reinstating him, but noted that this, “unfortunately, and I think unjustly, this puts them at risk” from an FCC “using mob tactics to suppress free speech.” Regarding Kirk, he struck a notably different chord, calling for forgiveness and reconciliation."
If I refer to this WSJ article, they are really distorting what went on on ABC's side. After Nexstar and Sinclair made their press releases stating they won't air Jimmy Kimmel's show anymore, Dana Walden (the co-chairman of Disney Entertainment) spoke to Kimmel to know what he was going to do. After discussing with other senior executives, they concluded that his approach was going to make things worse as he was going to say that his words were being twisted by the MAGA movement, and decided to temporarily suspend him. They also had to consider security concerns as members of the show had received threats and suffered from doxxing. Kimmel's show was then put back on after public backlash.
The timing between Carr's comments and Nexstar and Sinclair's actions is enough to warrant scrutiny of course, but not enough to claim he coerced them. Regarding ABC's decisions, they remained mainly business drive decisions.
"You claim not to have threatened anyone or to have prejudged whether ABC stations have violated the law by airing Kimmelʼs remarks. But Sen. Cruz understood your message perfectly—“‘nice bar you have here, it’d be a shame if something happened to it’”—and so would every company with something to lose. An agency’s “reputation for objectivity” is in question if “a disinterested observer may conclude that it has in some measure adjudged the facts as well as the law of a particular case in advance of hearing it. Public comments evincing prejudgment have disqualified commissioners from judging cases and “[w]herever there may be reasonable suspicion of unfairness,” courts say “it is best to disqualify.””
Whether they think Senator Cruz is right is, first and foremost, their opinion. If a complaint is filed on ABC and the FCC has to investigate, then that just means that Carr won't judge the case if I understand their wording? I'm also quite disappointed that they didn't go further into the clarifications that Brendan Carr's brought up (click here if you're interested in reading more on that).
They also employ very strong wording regarding Carr's actions by repeatedly claiming he threatened the broadcasters, when there's a difference between what he said and saying "fire Kimmel or I'm removing your licenses." They also claim he engaged in jawboning (I mean that's the entire point of their letter), when in past cases, more substantial actions were taken by the defendants compared to what he did.
But we shall see what his hearing at the Senate yields. Wait and see.

It seems there could have been some involvement from Israel given how the leaked texts show that Kirk was slowly becoming more and more against what Israel are doing

Ahh, I was waiting for this next tick on my bingo-card, I wasn't sure how long it would take before someone pronounced it was a professional move by Mossad.

I'm saying there could have been not, was!

I'm saying there could have been not, was!

it's a rare occurrence that someone actually reads my sources, so i genuinely appreciate you taking the time to do so.
i don't believe inserting that sentence with the word 'may' changes much. remember that word choice is only one of the factors in the jawboning test and that this is a civil suit. the standard here is plausibility.
to refresh our memory, again, the ultimate question is whether it is 'plausible the alleged conduct that, viewed in context, could be reasonably understood to convey a threat of adverse government action in order to punish or suppress speech' (nra v vullo, bantam books v sullivan); it does not need to be proven beyond reasonable doubt like it would in a criminal trial.
with that in mind, do you agree with the author here that the government should bear the onus of making sure that its communications are clearly non-coercive?
https://knightcolumbia.org/blog/in-jawboning-cases-theres-no-getting-away-from-contextual-analysis
re 'Kimmel may have been mistaken about some aspects of the public reaction...'
as the letter points out 'there must be extrinsic evidence (i.e., beyond the broadcast itself) demonstrating that the broadcaster deliberately distorted or staged the news' (amongst other legal doctrine that i shall leave out for the sake of brevity).
was kimmel aware of robinson's alleged leftist ideology? probably; but that isn't the subject of the joke. the subject is trump and the maga supporters utilising it for political points and trump's insincere reaction to the death of charlie kirk. this is an opinion expressed by a comedian; not a journalist stating things as though they are facts. how it was so taken to heart and blown out of proportion is beyond me.
i don't have a laptop so not easy for me to go back and forth fact-checking between news stories; plus i don't trust the news, so hope my reply is sufficient for now. to be honest tho i am much more interested in the subject of jawboning itself rather than the politics, which may be outside the scope of this thread.

i don't believe inserting that sentence with the word 'may' changes much. remember that word choice is only one of the factors in the jawboning test and that this is a civil suit. the standard here is plausibility.

to refresh our memory, again, the ultimate question is whether it is 'plausible the alleged conduct that, viewed in context, could be reasonably understood to convey a threat of adverse government action in order to punish or suppress speech' (nra v vullo, bantam books v sullivan); it does not need to be proven beyond reasonable doubt like it would in a criminal trial.

with that in mind, do you agree with the author here that the government should bear the onus of making sure that its communications are clearly non-coercive?

as the letter points out 'there must be extrinsic evidence (i.e., beyond the broadcast itself) demonstrating that the broadcaster deliberately distorted or staged the news' (amongst other legal doctrine that i shall leave out for the sake of brevity).

was kimmel aware of robinson's alleged leftist ideology? probably; but that isn't the subject of the joke. the subject is trump and the maga supporters utilising it for political points and trump's insincere reaction to the death of charlie kirk. this is an opinion expressed by a comedian; not a journalist stating things as though they are facts. how it was so taken to heart and blown out of proportion is beyond me.