September 18, 2025 • 6 mins
American broadcaster ABC pulled Jimmy Kimmel off air over comments he made about Charlie Kirk's death.
A network spokesperson did not comment beyond saying that the show will be pre-empted “indefinitely”.
The Director of PILLAR (Protecting Individual Life, Liberty and Rights) told Matt and Tyler that this sets a dangerous precedent.
'We've lost the power of the media to hold power to account because now power dictates what the media can and can't say.'
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
You're listening to a podcast from News talks'd be follow
this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
I've been talking about cancel culture in the light of
Jimmy Kimmel Bean suspended. Is that cancel culture or just
the nature of declining ratings. On the line right now
is Nathan Sioule. He is with Pillar that is protecting
individual life, liberty and rights. It's associated with the Free
Speech Union, and he joins us now, Nathan, good afternoon,
Good afternoon, gentle.
Speaker 3 (00:36):
Now, Nathan, you obviously support free speech, but what are
the parameters, I mean, what are the parameters of free speech?
What should people be allowed to say and not say?
In your opinion?
Speaker 4 (00:46):
Nathan, Yeah, that's a really good question. Ultimately, there is
a very high threshold, especially here in New Zealand, where
incitement to violence is effectively the limitation now insite of
the violence is a very clear definition, and the law
has to be eminent, possible and prescriptive. But speech should
be defined and determined in terms of what is good, bad, right, wrong,
(01:08):
by the marketplace of ideas and not regulators and affiliates
who can pick our speech and what's on our airways.
Speaker 3 (01:15):
Okay, So I mean this is slightly this is probably
a slightly complex gray area question. But what do you
find define as cancelation And is cancelation in an attack
on free speech?
Speaker 4 (01:31):
Absolutely? I think the response to speech you don't like
isn't to cancel it. It should be to challenge. It
should be to have a broader, more in depth conversation
where it's public and visible and people can participate. When
we force these people back into their corners, I think
it was you saying that just earlier, Tyler, they don't
stop holding these views. In fact, they actually grow more
(01:53):
sort of into these views, and they build a following,
and it can become a lot more toxic than if
we have an outright open conversation, celebrating debate and hosting debate,
because disagreement is actually part of free speech. Cancelation is
only going to do detrimental things too. Open society and
a free society that they're honors speech.
Speaker 3 (02:11):
What about the rights of a corporation when they're losing
money over what one of their employees is saying and
they get rid of that employee or silence them. Where
does that sit in their discussion of free speech?
Speaker 4 (02:25):
Well, that's an entirely different category, right. Obviously, when you
work for someone, you're under their employee and you are
subjects to a degree to their will in their way. However,
being pressured publicly and externally by cancel culture and culture
warriors and then bowing to that does not set it
a good president for anybody in any employment anywhere. So
(02:48):
we need to be really really careful about is this
a speech issue or is this purely their performance issue?
And make sure that that is what is being presented
when it.
Speaker 2 (02:56):
Comes to cancel culture. Is it, fear to say, it
comes from both sides of political ideology, and is there
just that inherent nature of almost a revenge element when
it comes to tribes or groups jumping on particular people
who they don't like what Love said.
Speaker 4 (03:14):
Yeah, I would say, sir. What I've observed over the
last few years of being a free speech advocate and
defender is that people will often be principal lists and
issue based defenders, and it comes from both sides just so, right,
but using the same tactics and the same tools of
those people that you disagree with to try and inflict
the same undemocratic and punishment that is undue in a
(03:36):
civil society, it never works out for anyone because you,
just like I said, you further entrenched the other side.
And when this, when the pendulum swings, which it always does,
it comes back ten times more toxic.
Speaker 3 (03:47):
So there's sort of another aspect of this, especially in
the case we're talking about. What about indirect restrictions on
free speech, Like when powerful people push and call for
you to lose your job, they may not direct the
law against you as such, but still create a climate
due to their power and their influence where your rights
are restricted.
Speaker 4 (04:07):
Well, you're right, and that's that's probably what we need
to step back and look at. This isn't just about
Jimmy Kimmel suppression. This is about who gets to decide
what is and isn't allowed. Is it the marketplace of
ideas or is it people in power, people in positions
who have the ability to pressure, whether it be through
financial manipulation or just through exercising the influence this it's
a really dangerous precedent and a chilling effect for any
host or journalist in any industry in the media, and
(04:30):
if we have a media that is beholden to investors
and to political sort of ideology. We don't have a
free media. We've lost the power of the media to
hold power to account because now power dictates what that
media can and can't say through force.
Speaker 3 (04:44):
Yeah and so as This is probably a truism, but
is the real test of how much you believe in
free speech, how much you support it when it is
a free speech that yeah, so, how am I saying this?
The real test through state free speech is basically, when
it's against you, you support it, and when it's for you,
(05:04):
you support it. If you see what I'm saying, you know.
Speaker 4 (05:07):
Exactly, you know you Sorry, I would say free speech
only matters when it protects speech you don't like. Yeah, yeah,
It's not about what you're willing to endorse. It's about
what you're willing to allow other people to do within
the legitimacy of their own freedom. If we all just cancel, canceled, cancel,
what actually ends up happening is there's no opportunity to
progress things like information, understanding knowledge. We need a society
(05:32):
that can handle disagreement and debate. You don't have to
agree with what someone says, but you have to be
willing to challenge them openly and at least express your ideas.
You can't just call them a horrible person, spit on
them and walk away. Make your case, let the marketplace
of ideas decide who is right, and at the end
of the day you can agree to disagree, or you
might have learned something, or you might have convinced someone
to join your side.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
Really interesting discussion, Nathan, Thank you so much for joining us.
Really great to chat and we'll get you on another time.
Speaker 1 (05:57):
Cool.
Speaker 4 (05:58):
Thanks so much.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
Guys.
Speaker 1 (05:59):
For more from News Talks at b listen live on
air or online, and keep our shows with you wherever
you go with our podcasts on Irradio.
You're listening to a podcast from News talks'd be follow
this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
I've been talking about cancel culture in the light of
Jimmy Kimmel Bean suspended. Is that cancel culture or just
the nature of declining ratings. On the line right now
is Nathan Sioule. He is with Pillar that is protecting
individual life, liberty and rights. It's associated with the Free
Speech Union, and he joins us now, Nathan, good afternoon,
Good afternoon, gentle.
Speaker 3 (00:36):
Now, Nathan, you obviously support free speech, but what are
the parameters, I mean, what are the parameters of free speech?
What should people be allowed to say and not say?
In your opinion?
Speaker 4 (00:46):
Nathan, Yeah, that's a really good question. Ultimately, there is
a very high threshold, especially here in New Zealand, where
incitement to violence is effectively the limitation now insite of
the violence is a very clear definition, and the law
has to be eminent, possible and prescriptive. But speech should
be defined and determined in terms of what is good, bad, right, wrong,
(01:08):
by the marketplace of ideas and not regulators and affiliates
who can pick our speech and what's on our airways.
Speaker 3 (01:15):
Okay, So I mean this is slightly this is probably
a slightly complex gray area question. But what do you
find define as cancelation And is cancelation in an attack
on free speech?
Speaker 4 (01:31):
Absolutely? I think the response to speech you don't like
isn't to cancel it. It should be to challenge. It
should be to have a broader, more in depth conversation
where it's public and visible and people can participate. When
we force these people back into their corners, I think
it was you saying that just earlier, Tyler, they don't
stop holding these views. In fact, they actually grow more
(01:53):
sort of into these views, and they build a following,
and it can become a lot more toxic than if
we have an outright open conversation, celebrating debate and hosting debate,
because disagreement is actually part of free speech. Cancelation is
only going to do detrimental things too. Open society and
a free society that they're honors speech.
Speaker 3 (02:11):
What about the rights of a corporation when they're losing
money over what one of their employees is saying and
they get rid of that employee or silence them. Where
does that sit in their discussion of free speech?
Speaker 4 (02:25):
Well, that's an entirely different category, right. Obviously, when you
work for someone, you're under their employee and you are
subjects to a degree to their will in their way. However,
being pressured publicly and externally by cancel culture and culture
warriors and then bowing to that does not set it
a good president for anybody in any employment anywhere. So
(02:48):
we need to be really really careful about is this
a speech issue or is this purely their performance issue?
And make sure that that is what is being presented
when it.
Speaker 2 (02:56):
Comes to cancel culture. Is it, fear to say, it
comes from both sides of political ideology, and is there
just that inherent nature of almost a revenge element when
it comes to tribes or groups jumping on particular people
who they don't like what Love said.
Speaker 4 (03:14):
Yeah, I would say, sir. What I've observed over the
last few years of being a free speech advocate and
defender is that people will often be principal lists and
issue based defenders, and it comes from both sides just so, right,
but using the same tactics and the same tools of
those people that you disagree with to try and inflict
the same undemocratic and punishment that is undue in a
(03:36):
civil society, it never works out for anyone because you,
just like I said, you further entrenched the other side.
And when this, when the pendulum swings, which it always does,
it comes back ten times more toxic.
Speaker 3 (03:47):
So there's sort of another aspect of this, especially in
the case we're talking about. What about indirect restrictions on
free speech, Like when powerful people push and call for
you to lose your job, they may not direct the
law against you as such, but still create a climate
due to their power and their influence where your rights
are restricted.
Speaker 4 (04:07):
Well, you're right, and that's that's probably what we need
to step back and look at. This isn't just about
Jimmy Kimmel suppression. This is about who gets to decide
what is and isn't allowed. Is it the marketplace of
ideas or is it people in power, people in positions
who have the ability to pressure, whether it be through
financial manipulation or just through exercising the influence this it's
a really dangerous precedent and a chilling effect for any
host or journalist in any industry in the media, and
(04:30):
if we have a media that is beholden to investors
and to political sort of ideology. We don't have a
free media. We've lost the power of the media to
hold power to account because now power dictates what that
media can and can't say through force.
Speaker 3 (04:44):
Yeah and so as This is probably a truism, but
is the real test of how much you believe in
free speech, how much you support it when it is
a free speech that yeah, so, how am I saying this?
The real test through state free speech is basically, when
it's against you, you support it, and when it's for you,
(05:04):
you support it. If you see what I'm saying, you know.
Speaker 4 (05:07):
Exactly, you know you Sorry, I would say free speech
only matters when it protects speech you don't like. Yeah, yeah,
It's not about what you're willing to endorse. It's about
what you're willing to allow other people to do within
the legitimacy of their own freedom. If we all just cancel, canceled, cancel,
what actually ends up happening is there's no opportunity to
progress things like information, understanding knowledge. We need a society
(05:32):
that can handle disagreement and debate. You don't have to
agree with what someone says, but you have to be
willing to challenge them openly and at least express your ideas.
You can't just call them a horrible person, spit on
them and walk away. Make your case, let the marketplace
of ideas decide who is right, and at the end
of the day you can agree to disagree, or you
might have learned something, or you might have convinced someone
to join your side.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
Really interesting discussion, Nathan, Thank you so much for joining us.
Really great to chat and we'll get you on another time.
Speaker 1 (05:57):
Cool.
Speaker 4 (05:58):
Thanks so much.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
Guys.
Speaker 1 (05:59):
For more from News Talks at b listen live on
air or online, and keep our shows with you wherever
you go with our podcasts on Irradio.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
What Are We Even Doing? with Kyle MacLachlan
Join award-winning actor and social media madman Kyle MacLachlan on “What Are We Even Doing,” where he sits down with Millennial and Gen Z actors, musicians, artists, and content creators to share stories about the entertainment industry past, present, and future. Kyle and his guests will talk shop, compare notes on life, and generally be weird together. In a good way. Their conversations will resonate with listeners of any age whose interests lie in television & film, music, art, or pop culture.