September 19, 2025 • 34 mins
Callers and texters are up in arms about FCC chairman Brendan Carr possibly playing a role in a pressure campaign for ABC to remove Jimmy Kimmel from its airwaves. KBB and Ryan explain why ABC-Disney made the decision from a business standpoint - based on low ratings, decreased revenues, and affiliate owners like Sinclair and NexStar threatening to pull the show from their stations.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This is Dan Caplis and welcome to today's online podcast
edition of The Dan Caplis Show. Please be sure to
give us a five star rating if you'd be so kind,
and to subscribe, download and listen to the show every
single day on your favorite podcast platform.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
We're back of the Dan Caplas Show.
Speaker 3 (00:16):
I'm Christy Burton Brown in for the second hour after
the first hour of The Dan Caplis Show.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
Good to have you.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
We've been talking about Jimmy Kimmel's suspension and the real
reasons behind that, uncovered in an article by The Hollywood
Reporter today, talking to sources from Disney and ABC, saying
that the real reason is not government interference, but instead
calls from advertisers and stations and Jimmy Kimmel's own refusal
to back down at all. But when they asked him
(00:44):
how he's going to handle a situation, he was going
to double down on his lie. So I agree with
this texter that says what's embarrassing is an entire side
of the Aisle venerating a liar comedian while cheering on
the assassination of a public speaker moments after he was
gunned down in front of his wife and children, and
I absolutely agree with that. There's so many people treating
(01:05):
Jimmy Kimmel's suspension as even more significant than the shooting
of Charlie Kirk. Like they've gone way overboard talking about
it over and over and over and what a horrible
thing it is, and they said in many cases, these
people said almost nothing when Charlie Kirk was shocked, so
it clearly shows you what they actually value. But one
(01:25):
thing I actually want to play for you because I
find this to be very interesting, But Jimmy Kimmel himself
was not silent when other media hosts got canceled. In fact,
he had a lot of thoughts about it himself. So
let's play this flashback from twenty eighteen when he commented
on Roseanne Barr being fired.
Speaker 4 (01:43):
The biggest story of the day today was Roseanne. Roseanne,
You're not gonna believe this, but she tweeted something outrageous.
I know, yeah, right, the President did it too.
Speaker 5 (01:57):
It's crazy.
Speaker 6 (01:57):
Anyway.
Speaker 4 (01:58):
ABC decided to cancel their highest rated show, Roseanne, following
following a tweet in which Roseanne compared an African American woman,
a former advisor to President Obama, to an ape, which
did not sit well with ABC management or anyone with
a brain really, so they announced that this first season
the show is also its last, which is a huge
blow to business. I mean, we don't have much on
(02:21):
this network. We're hoping the NBA Finals goes eleven games
this year. We're still airing America's Funniest home videos. Okay,
Roseanne was very bigly hit for ABC and we needed it.
Speaker 3 (02:34):
So clearly, he seemed to understand in that clip that, oh,
you make a really really offensive comment and it doesn't
sit right with the public, you just might get fired
by your boss that is a private company somehow. And
he I don't think he's actually made a statement since
his suspension, a least not that I've seen. But all
these people, you know, speaking against his suspension don't seem
(02:55):
to be applying his own standards to himself. Like he
told a very very very offense lie about who shot
Charlie Kirk, blaming Charlie Kirk's own side for doing it,
and wanted to double down on that, And he doesn't
think that's offensive enough to also get fired. Let's go
to twenty twenty three when he mocked Tucker Carlson from
(03:16):
after being fired by Fox News.
Speaker 7 (03:18):
But let's be.
Speaker 4 (03:18):
Honest, the sort should have been called Benbath.
Speaker 5 (03:21):
And that's it. There's no beyond.
Speaker 4 (03:23):
There never was a beyond, right Gerll that's Yer Sky,
who could probably use one of those big blue twenty
percent off coupons to cheer him up right now, and
you probably know him too.
Speaker 8 (03:35):
We have some news from within our Fox family. Fox
News Media and Tucker Carlson have mutually agreed to part
ways Tucker's last shows this past Friday.
Speaker 4 (03:47):
That's right, Fox News has severed bow ties with Tucker
Carlson after all these years. They are parting ways, which
means he was fired. I mean, that's really what parting
ways means.
Speaker 7 (03:58):
He was said to be stun by the movie, reportedly
was in the middle of renegotiating his contract taker couldn't
be reached for comment.
Speaker 4 (04:09):
He's already on a plane to Moscow to meet with
his manager. But what a shock, I mean, what an
absolutely delightful shock. This is so.
Speaker 3 (04:18):
He also thought it was, in his own words, delightful
to see other hosts fired, Cancel taken off the air
for comments that he didn't agree with. And mind you,
the comments he's talking about were things that were either
offensive or he didn't agree with, but not blatant lies.
Those take a whole other level, especially when you're talking
about not a cable news show but the actual public airwaves,
(04:40):
and many times networks shockingly take it serious when you
defame and lie about people, and when.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
They could get the blowback that's experienced from that.
Speaker 3 (04:50):
So for a lot of business reasons, ABC and Disney
let Jimmy Kimmel go, and according to his own quotes,
it seems like he should be okay with this this
based on how he handled it when other hosts were removed.
And if for whatever reason, you don't know what comment
Jimmy Kimmel made, I am going to play it for
you so you can see just what a blatant lie
(05:11):
this was.
Speaker 4 (05:14):
We had some new lows over the weekend with the
Maga Gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered
Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and
everything they can to score political points from it.
Speaker 3 (05:26):
That was the statement he made that, according to sources
inside ABC and Disney, when he was asked how he
was going to handle it, he said he was going
to double down on those comments, like how you double
down on a clear lie that's been proven false by
like every actual source out there. I am very unclear
where the doubling down could even possibly happen, but that's
what he wanted to do because he didn't want to
(05:48):
cave to the MAGA.
Speaker 2 (05:49):
Right, Well, good luck to him.
Speaker 3 (05:51):
Business decisions would indicate that he should part pads with
his with his hosts, and that's what he has done.
So But course, because of the situation and because of
Charlie Kirk's life himself, there's been just so much about
the First Amendment being discussed, and this is something I
wanted to get to on the show today, is how
we think we understand the First Amendment, but how we
(06:13):
should actually understand the First Amendment in context of where
your rights begin and when you actually get to use
your free speech. And I'm going to play you a
clip from Pambondi that I actually disagree with when we
come back up to the next break, because I want
some time to actually talk about it. And then we're
going to talk about a claim from Kyle Clark, which
everyone knows he's the host of Next on nine News.
(06:36):
He is trying to relate a very dissimilar situation to
the Masterpiece case and the three Ozho three cases out
of Colorado and the line of Supreme Court precedence saying
that business, that people in business have a right to
freedom of expression. So I want to distinguish the situation
that Pam Bondi is talking about from what Kyle Clark
thinks is so similar to Masterpiece in three Ozho three.
(06:56):
He's an accurate and correct, but I actually think Pam
Bondi is to two and so we'll talk about that.
But what I want to do while we're still in
this segment is read you this really well explained information
about the First Amendment from Michael Ferris. For everyone who
doesn't know Michael Ferris, he has done so many things
in his life, but for a long time he was
(07:17):
the president of ADF Alliance Defending Freedom. He's argued multiple
cases at the US Supreme Court, very very successful constitutional attorney.
Speaker 2 (07:26):
And here's what he writes. This is well worth listening to.
Speaker 3 (07:28):
He says, freedom of speech and freedom of business owners. Oh,
how I wish everyone in America knew at least a
little constitutional law. But alas, here's a mini lesson much
needed right now. The freedom of speech protected by the
First Amendment prevents the government from improperly limiting your speech.
It has absolutely no application to private employers or businesses.
Speaker 2 (07:49):
On the other hand, business owners.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
Have freedom to hire and fire for almost any reason
they want. The exceptions are they cannot hire and fire
based on race, religion, sex, etc. And all this unless,
of course, a religious employer, then you can.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
Do it based on religion.
Speaker 3 (08:03):
The exact list of protected categories varies by state. Thus,
if a business owner fires an employee for condoning violence,
that is one hundred percent within his right. That is
his freedom, and the fired employee has not suffered a
free speech right violation because the employer is not the government.
Government employees have some free speech rights outside of their employment,
(08:24):
but the privilege of such employment carries with it some limits.
In general, speech that materially disrupts the government's functions is
grounds for firing. Advocating violence is likely to be sustained
as a valid ground for such firing. The government cannot
criminally punish people for celebrating violence, but if they advocate
future violence in a manner that poses an actual threat,
(08:46):
then that may be prosecuted. Free speech protects the right
to deliver controversial remarks on a public college campus. It
is a government institution that people commenting about such events
are not protected by the Constitution. If their private boss
doesn't like what they said and shows them the door,
that's his freedom to run his business as he wills.
I think that is very well explained and something that
(09:07):
a lot of people across America who are talking right
now would do well to understand both the limits of
the First Amendment do they protect us against government and
the freedoms that business owners have to make their own decisions.
You're on the Dan Kapla Show. I'm Christy Burton Brown.
When we come back, we'll talk about Pam Bondie, Kyle Clark,
and a lot more. You can call in three zero
three seven one three eight two five five or text
(09:28):
your thoughts to five seven seven three nine.
Speaker 5 (09:31):
And now back to the Dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (09:34):
Here, I'm the Dan Capli Show.
Speaker 3 (09:35):
I'm Christy Burton Brown. Thanks for joining us. We've been
talking a whole lot about free speech and what it
really means in the freedom of businesses to make their
own decisions. If you have thoughts or comments, and I
definitely have somebody need to get to you can text
them into five seven seven three nine start it with
Dan or call three zero three seven one three eight
two five five. I'm going to go to Monica from
(09:56):
Denver on the phone lines. Welcome to the Dan Kapla Show.
Speaker 6 (10:00):
Oh thanks for having me. So, I just had something
that I think people should be aware of and be
a little more cautious. I totally understand the business aspect,
that totally makes sense. But some of the things I'm hearing,
and you have to admit, if Trump gets upset about something,
he is the government. He's putting pressure on some of
these companies.
Speaker 2 (10:18):
And what's your example of that.
Speaker 6 (10:21):
Did he not have the director of the SEC the
pressure on the.
Speaker 2 (10:27):
TV station who said he did that?
Speaker 6 (10:28):
You're telling me that, so, so you actually think that
Trump had nothing to say, no emotional reaction to that
at all.
Speaker 3 (10:38):
Here's my point. That's an assumption on your part. You're
assuming Trump told the SEC chairman to do it. You're
assuming he didn't just speak for himself, Like.
Speaker 2 (10:45):
Did you have no proof?
Speaker 6 (10:48):
Well, honestly, do you honestly think that Trump is not
I mean, that's what I don't like the idea that
that because that is the government, well that shouldn't be government.
Speaker 3 (11:00):
But people just theorizing about what may have happened, could
have happened, it might have happened, isn't valid.
Speaker 2 (11:05):
Honestly, Honestly, you need facts.
Speaker 6 (11:08):
Didn't say anything about that.
Speaker 2 (11:10):
It's not about what you.
Speaker 3 (11:12):
Think, what I think, you're what anyone else thinks. It's
about what actually happened. And this is in many ways
why we're going down the wrong road as a country.
Is because when people disagree with other people, they're like,
I think they probably did X.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
But you need to have facts to do.
Speaker 6 (11:26):
Is if you don't like someone's comedy, guess what you
could turn it off?
Speaker 3 (11:29):
Yeah, and the station could fire him. They don't like
his comedy. Why can't this Why can't the station fire him?
Why don't they have that.
Speaker 6 (11:37):
Right they do?
Speaker 2 (11:39):
Okay, then there's nothing different.
Speaker 6 (11:40):
Play about in America is having different opinions. And there's
nothing wrong without agreeing with somebody.
Speaker 3 (11:45):
No, but you might have to find a different place
to express your different opinion. If the business you work
for says that opinion doesn't work on our airwaves and that's.
Speaker 6 (11:53):
What happened, then the pressure should not come from Trump.
Speaker 3 (11:56):
No one, no one at ABC or Disney is saying
any pressure came from Trump. A bunch of liberals are
theorizing that it might have no Disney and ABC are
saying it was advertisers, it was Next Star, it was Sinclair,
it was stations, and it was Jimmy Kimmel himself wanting
to double down on a line where.
Speaker 6 (12:13):
Lies because you will accept the fact that Trump is
doing a lot of these things emotionally that he really
should just step back from.
Speaker 3 (12:21):
Well, here's here's something I've never ever said that I
agree one hundred percent with everything Trump says or how
he says it. But what I have a even bigger
problem with than that he expresses his opinion is that
people want to make claims that are convenient for them,
that they want to claim Oh, because Trump opened his
mouth and said something, everyone at ABC and Disney is
cowering in fear. And they're doing this not because they
(12:44):
want to, not because it's good for business, but because
Trump threatened them, Like that's a convenient narrative for the left.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
But there's no.
Speaker 6 (12:49):
Fact he does have that kind of temperament.
Speaker 3 (12:52):
Being a bit of a bullet to admit that's not
actually what you've been claiming.
Speaker 2 (12:56):
Though you said ABC and Disney.
Speaker 3 (12:58):
Got Kimmel off the air because Trump made them like,
there's no proof of that, and I think people need
to actually have proof of what they say.
Speaker 6 (13:06):
Oh quick, ready in the country like a gagsteret.
Speaker 3 (13:09):
Well, you can have that opinion, but that's very different
than saying that's actually why they fired him. So you
can dislike his opinions so that he expresses them, but
as a very different story than saying and his opinions
are why this guy was fired.
Speaker 6 (13:20):
Like, thank, here's the question. If someone does the same
comedy you don't like, why do you watch it?
Speaker 3 (13:25):
I'm sure they don't. And that's probably why the business
fired them, is because not enough people.
Speaker 2 (13:28):
Were going to watch it.
Speaker 5 (13:29):
Real quick, Monica, Monica, If I may hold on, mett Monica,
this is right. I I got a question for you.
I want to see if you're intellectually honest. So, as
Jimmy Kimmel said in the very clip that Christy Burton
Brown played back in twenty eighteen, Roseanne Barr had the
number one rated show on ABC. She put out a
tweet that some people didn't like they found offensive. ABC
(13:50):
fired her, Where were you on that one?
Speaker 6 (13:51):
Right? Well, what's again? We're back to Kemp.
Speaker 5 (13:55):
Now, where were you on that one? Answer that direct question?
I gave you a direct question. I would appree, okay, sure, but.
Speaker 6 (14:00):
It was once again, she made a decision.
Speaker 5 (14:03):
Jimmy Kimmel made a decision. He lied about the shooter.
He lied about the guy that shot.
Speaker 6 (14:09):
Charlie Karrent before they got more news about that shooter.
If you go back and see all the pictures and
things he was posing for, it was kind of hard
to tell.
Speaker 5 (14:17):
What doesn't matter, Monica. He was presented with the facts.
Bob Eiger gave him a chance. Hold on, let me finish.
Bob Iiger gave Jimmy Kimmel a chance to go on
the air, retract what he said, apologize for it. Jimmy
Kimmel refused, that's on Jimmy Kimmel.
Speaker 6 (14:33):
That's true.
Speaker 5 (14:34):
You're Craig all right, we're in agreement.
Speaker 6 (14:36):
That has nothing to do with the governments. Trump making
pressure on companies because he doesn't like stuff.
Speaker 5 (14:42):
They don't have to listen to him. That's the thing.
If Jimmy Kimmel had the ratings. Roseanne Barr had I
guarantee you Monica, ABC probably would have stood by him.
There was a financial interest in them staying invested in him.
His ratings have deteriorated, have plummeted since twenty thirteen. They're abysmal.
This just gives them an off ramp. You need an
excuse to cut him loose. And that's a business decision.
Speaker 6 (15:03):
True, that is true, correct, But you can't say that.
So just kind of I'm saying is watch how these
things unfold. We don't want more of just we have
to do everything that so and so doesn't like.
Speaker 2 (15:16):
Well, and I just don't think that's what's happening.
Speaker 3 (15:18):
I think people actually have to have proof that government
is actually doing more than commenting Trump is. We all
know Trump is going to run his mouth, that he's
going to say what he thinks.
Speaker 6 (15:26):
What about it.
Speaker 3 (15:27):
But I think there's a whole lot of businesses that
don't actually actually feel threatened by what he says at all,
Like they make their own decisions.
Speaker 2 (15:34):
So we assuming a whole I have to.
Speaker 6 (15:36):
Like, well what about I've heard about lawsuits where they
still have to donate to the Trump Library.
Speaker 2 (15:41):
Well, no, I haven't heard of that at all.
Speaker 6 (15:43):
So look it up.
Speaker 2 (15:45):
Thank you for your thoughts, Monica, good to talk to you.
Speaker 5 (15:48):
All right, it's all looking for here, Christian and Monica
kind of gave that. I want to give her credit. Yes,
if you're intellectually honest and you had a problem with
Disney ABC letting Gina Corona loose. She was a primary
prominent figure and act on a top rated show on
Disney Plus called The Mandalorian. Yeah, she puts some things
out there about the Jews, Nazis, something like that, and
(16:10):
they didn't like it, and they cut her loose. And
I'm seeing a shortage of these same I'm not saying
Monica as one of these, but of the same leftists
that are so morally outrage at the firing of Jimmy Kimmel.
And by the way, they're reacting with a lot more
vim and vigor about Jimmy Kimmel losing his job than
Charlie Kirk getting shot in the jugular and murdered life. Yeah,
So Charlie Kirk loses his life for free speech, you're silent.
(16:32):
Jimmy Kimmel loses his show because he says something that's
a lie, that's.
Speaker 2 (16:35):
A verifiable lie.
Speaker 5 (16:36):
And to Monica she admitted this. There was time for
Jimmy Kimmel to reflect, for his staff to go home.
We got that one wrong, you know, we should correct that.
He could have done that. Bob Iger gave him that opportunity.
He refused. Why did he refuse?
Speaker 2 (16:50):
Right, because that's what he wants to say. He is
willing to lose his job over it. And that's what
happened there.
Speaker 4 (16:54):
You go.
Speaker 3 (16:54):
So no, And I think there's someone texting in saying,
where can we find Kimmel's quote saying it's going to double.
Speaker 2 (17:00):
It's a lot of people interested in this article. It's
from the Hollywood Reporter.
Speaker 3 (17:03):
Go look up the Hollywood Reporter how Jimmy Kimmel's suspension
went and down. You'll find all the details, sources quoted there,
everything else. But I, you know, I just think it's
it's it's quite interesting to me. So many people feel
so you know, they dislike Trump so much that they
actually want to believe this narrative that everything he says
is interpreted as some huge, big threat. It's like, no,
(17:23):
people actually know how Trump is. They know how he operates,
they know how he talks, and they know it's just
literally how he talks, and most of it is not
backed up by actually much of anything.
Speaker 2 (17:33):
It's his opinion. He's allowed to give it. Would I
talk like that?
Speaker 7 (17:36):
No?
Speaker 3 (17:37):
But I'm not Donald Trump, and so I think what
you actually have to connect though, is not like I
don't like how he talks. Okay, great, what's the connection
to something actually happening with a private business cowering to him?
Speaker 2 (17:47):
You have no proof, so that's not what happened. I'm
Christy Britton Brown.
Speaker 3 (17:50):
You're on the Dan Kaplis Show. Callin over the break
three oh three seven one.
Speaker 2 (17:54):
Three eight two five five.
Speaker 5 (17:58):
You're listening to the Dan Kaplish your podcast.
Speaker 2 (18:01):
We have the Dankapa Show. I'm Christy Burton Brown.
Speaker 3 (18:03):
We're talking about real reasons behind the suspension of Jimmy
Kimmel and lots of callers with lots of thoughts today,
which is great. You also can call in three zero
three seven one three eight two five five. A new
article by aph saying that Trump's moves against the media
mirror approaches by authoritarian leaders to silence dissent.
Speaker 2 (18:23):
Okay, interesting headline. I'm like, all right, you betta have.
Speaker 3 (18:26):
Some proof for this, but most of their proof is
comments Trump makes after people are fired, which are often hilarious.
Speaker 5 (18:34):
Right, he has bad ratings. I had tremendous ratings on
The Apprentice. They were way better than Colbert and Kimmel combined.
Speaker 2 (18:42):
You know, things like that, Oh, something like that.
Speaker 5 (18:44):
The other part too. That just makes me crack up.
If Trump is such an authoritarian, why was he unable
to counter the fact that both Twitter and Facebook banned him,
I know during the twenty twenty election from both of
those platforms. How did that happen? I know, how did
that happen?
Speaker 2 (19:01):
Maybe because private businesses can make their own decisions no matter.
Speaker 5 (19:03):
What well they did in the official sense that was
met with much consternation. But Trump didn't have a lot
of power that he was the sitting president of the
United States. Then let's do this thought exercise here for
our listeners out there are texters five seven seven three nine.
If Donald Trump was the authoritarian you claimed to be,
how did Twitter and Facebook remove him from their platforms?
(19:25):
Could they have done that in the Soviet Union under
Stalin could not see Germany? Could there have been some
insurgents that removed Adolf Hitler from various platforms? Yeah, we
just check in.
Speaker 3 (19:36):
Well, right, And I think, and I'll make it very clear,
I don't agree with the government pressuring private business anything
like if it is actual pressure forced by the government,
completely wrong. My problem is that full comments as threats
and pressure with no proof, and so like, here's a
couple a couple examples in the AP article, acting like
he's some authoritarian dictator, saying after Jimmy Kimmel was suspended,
(20:02):
Trump cheered ABC's suspension, saying congratulations to ABC for finally
having the courage to do what had to be done.
And then AP continues it was the latest in a
string of attacks against news outlets and media figures. Like
excuse me, Like commenting because someone was already suspended and
their company already made a decision is not a threat.
Speaker 2 (20:24):
It is not pressure.
Speaker 3 (20:25):
It's commenting after the fact because you have an opinion
and the president happens to have an opinion. And then
they have this other part that says Kimmel's suspension is
part of a pattern by Trump and they as their example.
You'd think, Okay, maybe now they have an example of
some actual threat, actual pressure.
Speaker 2 (20:42):
He's done.
Speaker 7 (20:43):
Nope.
Speaker 3 (20:44):
After Colbert was taken off the air, it says Trump
celebrated it. I absolutely love that Colbear got fired. His
talent was even less than his ratings. Okay, so many
threats right there, like you know, so much pressure. He's
literally commenting after the act. So anyways, I just want
it to be interesting. I'm gonna go through some texto
(21:05):
because people have a lot of thoughts, which again is great.
Speaker 2 (21:07):
I like thoughts.
Speaker 3 (21:08):
So this person says, you have to admit to the
comment by Brendan Carr. That's the FCC chairman was ham
handed or bone hit, bone headed at best. I do
believe the firing of Kimmel went down the way you described,
meaning that ABC and Disney did it because of pressure
from advertiser stations, et cetera.
Speaker 2 (21:23):
And I actually agree with this.
Speaker 3 (21:24):
I don't think it was smart of the FCC chairman
to go on a podcast and say what he said,
because it opens.
Speaker 5 (21:29):
The door to this accusation. And when it comes to
Next Star in Sinclair, you know they are acting finally
on behalf of their reviewers. And what Jimmy Kimmel has
done is what I call it's narrow casting. It's not broadcasting.
It's supposed to be the American broadcasting company that ABC
stands for. But over the years, and especially over these
last say ten years, since Trump was in the political sphere,
(21:53):
they have it's a law of diminishing returns, and even strategically,
even if you are galvanized in the caw that Jimmy
Kimmel wants to represent being anti Trump and standing in
the breach and being brave and doing he's presenting. He
has this delusion of grandeur that he's standing in the breach,
he's fighting for democracy, all this stuff, but he is
transmitting his show to a smaller and smaller number of
(22:17):
coastal liberal elites, thumbing his nose at flyover Country. I
saw this on Facebook too, and it made my stomach turn.
There was a country music artists who had appeared on
Jimmy Kimmel's show and then later was on Fox and
Friends and appeared there and was singing a song was
kind of you know, one of these where I come from,
maybe redneck country that people would enjoy, and Kimmel mocked
(22:38):
him openly on the air on his show. And in
the aftermath of this cancelation, that country music artist came
on Facebook and said, good, this guy has contempt. He
views us with condescension in Flyover Country and all the
red states in between the left coast and the right coast,
and there's just so much animosity and this sense of
(23:01):
supremacy that they don't deign to engage in any conversation
with somebody, you know, and it comes to Michigan or
in the Des Moines, Iowa. They don't care about these
people because they're beneath Jimmy Kimmel. And that's that's how
it feels, that's how it comes across, and there's a
reason why his ratings have diminished. That then the way
(23:22):
it has all of this to say what we're just
talking about right here, If Jimmy Kimmel had mass appeal,
if he had massive ratings, advertising dollars, if he was
Dave Chappelle two point zero, he would not be off
the air right now, right his show was failing. And
then he goes and he does double down, maybe not
that exact phrase, but he said what he said on Monday,
(23:42):
that the shooter was Maga, and all of us on
the right we're trying our best to deny that that
was false. He was given an opportunity by Bob iger
Disney say we got to clean this up. We got
next Star, we got Sinclair. They're pulling your show. You
gotta go on the air, you gotta apologize. He refused
to do that. Okay, you're noble. You're losing your show, though,
Go be a podcast somewhere else, do your own thing.
Speaker 3 (24:03):
Well, And that's what people don't understand about the piece
of the First Amendment. They're like, oh, my goodness, he's
losing his right to free speech. No, he continued to
experience his right to free speech. It was his right
to free speech to say I don't want to apologize,
I want to double down. That's right, and there's just
people don't understand that there are consequences sometimes to the
way you use your free speech. Like the government is
not allowed to punish you for using free speech, but
(24:24):
other people may decide not to associate with you anymore,
and that is their freedom of association rights. Incidentally, business
owners have a freedom of association right. They cannot keep
someone on their payroll who's a viewpoints that they don't
agree with. You're actually allowed to do that as a business.
And so freedom of speech First Amendment exercise goes both ways.
People have it, and so to business owners there are
(24:44):
people too, So I think people just forget that sometimes
when you choose in the private world to speak freely
how you wish, you also will.
Speaker 2 (24:52):
Experience consequences from that. So that's what Jimmy Kimmel got a.
Speaker 3 (24:56):
Few other comments from the Texters. Look at the timeline.
It's my underst standing that the FCC's comment about looking
into ABC's license was only hours before the show was canceled,
no time for anyone to consider and exactly. This is
the point that I've also made for anyone who thinks that,
you know, the FCC chairman is so insanely scary that
a comment you made on a podcast, not even on
a phone call to ABC or Disney, is like, you know,
(25:18):
so threatening to ABC and Disney that they instantly act like, no,
like read this what the sources are saying that it
calls from advertisers and actual stations saying get this guy
off the air.
Speaker 5 (25:28):
It's terrible for business. So Brendan Carr went on, I
think it was Benny Johnson. Yeah, yeah, so that's a
niche kind of I know podcast.
Speaker 6 (25:34):
Now.
Speaker 5 (25:35):
What ABC was responding to, quite obviously was Next Star
and Sinclair and these corporations owned several stations in a
group that collectively represented a large footprint for what should
have been Jimmy Kimmel's program on ABC. And if those
all go dark, now you're losing all those ad dollars.
(25:55):
Oh yeah, money, ABC, Disney. They had a decision to make,
Bob Iger had to decision to make, and Jimmy Kimmel
steadfastly resolutely said I'm not gonna apologize doesn't matter. So
the fact that he cared more about appealing to those
people in his circle rather than the broad general public,
which again he is casting out half of America right
(26:19):
out of the gate, Right out of the gate. I
hate you, I don't want you, don't watch my show
is basically what he's telling them. I know, Johnny Carson
didn't do that. Jay Leoneld didn't do that. Heck huh,
even in his prime, David Letterman didn't do that. Conan
O'Brien didn't do that. Right empowered to be like, no, no, no,
we are social justice warriors. We are fighting against Trump
in the good fight, and we are gonna These are
(26:39):
no longer late night comedy shows.
Speaker 2 (26:41):
We'll get a different job. You're not funny anymore.
Speaker 5 (26:43):
Are you pundit. Yeah, go on a panel, do it.
Speaker 7 (26:45):
Do it.
Speaker 3 (26:45):
This show fit your job, what you're hired for. Okay,
I'm promising the whole show to talk about Pam Bondi
and Kyle Clerk and they're misreading in my opinion at
the first amendment. So we will talk about that in
the last segmond of the show. After this break on Christiever,
You're on the Dan Kapla Show.
Speaker 5 (27:03):
And now back to the Dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (27:06):
Well, you're happy about the weekend coming up? I know
I am.
Speaker 3 (27:09):
My son will actually have his first official hockey game
tomorrow morning. Oh, I'm excited about that. Nice at a
scrimmage last weekend.
Speaker 5 (27:15):
What level is he playing at these days?
Speaker 3 (27:17):
He's a wreck level so there's like travel wreck house.
So it's like he actually just learned to skate four
months ago. So yeah, and he actually made the wreck team.
He had to try out and made it.
Speaker 5 (27:27):
It's an amazing evolution in a very short period of time.
Speaker 3 (27:30):
I'm super happy. I grew up at the rink. As
some people know, I figure skated for a number of years.
My brothers played hockey, but we kind of always told
him like I don't know, too expensive always at the rink,
and we looked into it. There's actually a really good
program and it is a kind of expensive, but so
are so many other sports these days.
Speaker 2 (27:47):
They are so pick between them.
Speaker 5 (27:49):
What you're saying, KBB is he's getting his ice skating
skills from you and your side of the family, not
mister bred.
Speaker 7 (27:57):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (27:57):
If he gets some athletic ability from my husband, I
will say that maybe not a skater, but definitely are athletic.
A good combination.
Speaker 5 (28:05):
Good.
Speaker 3 (28:06):
Yeah, but that and then my mother in law is
turning seventy, so we're having a big party for her
at our house. That's oh yeah, it's gonna be a
big day tomorrow. Hopefully everyone else has fun weekends. Maybe
just relaxing. That's a good thing.
Speaker 2 (28:17):
Oh I love her.
Speaker 5 (28:18):
She wow.
Speaker 2 (28:19):
Yeah, she helped up.
Speaker 5 (28:21):
Funny I gave you the Dan cap. Oh wow, yeah,
I know.
Speaker 2 (28:25):
No, she's great. She like kind of helped set up
my husband and me.
Speaker 3 (28:29):
Actually, well, so his dad actually found me in the
newspaper because I was running the person of campaign at
the time and so literally a horrible picture of me,
like I look absolutely horrible.
Speaker 2 (28:42):
But his dad found it.
Speaker 3 (28:42):
Gave it to his mom, and his mom's like, here, Dave,
like you would like what this girl's doing. The whole
story about, like why I was doing what I was
doing with a pro life campaign, and she's like, I
found your future wife. Literally what she told my husband
and his sisters are like, oh he has older sisters.
They're like, that is not how it works, mom, And
look at her picture. That is not his tie, like no,
and he's like, yeah, I don't know about that, mom,
(29:03):
but I like what she's doing, so like I'll go
volunteer in her campaign.
Speaker 2 (29:06):
Like good idea.
Speaker 5 (29:07):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (29:08):
Well I ended up meeting and thankfully, according to him,
I looked very different from my picture.
Speaker 2 (29:12):
In person.
Speaker 3 (29:13):
We both would say it was like a love at
first sight type thing. So his mom just ended up
being right and like, you know, who can't love their
who would not love their mother in law?
Speaker 2 (29:21):
And they like, you know, picked picked you out.
Speaker 5 (29:23):
So what I'm picking up is this was like a
reverse catfish situation in that the photo was not maybe
as flattering in the newspaper, and in person, you surpassed
the expectation in the photo. You know, most of the
time Christy got to tell you not that I would
know from personal experience. Who knows, but the it's kind
of a best foot forward Scenariolet's say on a dating
(29:44):
app or a photo that's out there, and then you
meet the person in person, Like, wait a minute, you're
not the person in the photo. What's going on to
that photos? Like fifteen years old? What's going on here?
Speaker 2 (29:55):
Yes?
Speaker 5 (29:55):
But no, see you said, you know, so see, I
have to at.
Speaker 3 (29:58):
Least know that he didn't come meet me because of
like how I looked. He came to meet me with
like good intentions, like oh I like her work, I
like her heart, like I want to go work on
that too, And then you know, we saw each other
and as a little difference.
Speaker 5 (30:11):
So that guy is I've never heard that story before.
I'm so glad you shared it.
Speaker 2 (30:14):
Now you know.
Speaker 5 (30:14):
Now you know, no one's got the battle.
Speaker 2 (30:17):
All right.
Speaker 3 (30:17):
Well as the final comment on the show, Pam Bondie,
I do have a problem with this for anyone thinking I.
Speaker 2 (30:23):
Never criticized the Trump administration.
Speaker 3 (30:25):
She said that businesses are obligated to print posters for
a Charlie Kirk vigil. But the part where I think
she really went wrong, and she said they were going
to look into a civil rights violation against like I
think it was the office depot employee who refused to
print the posters. Incidentally, Office Depot fire at the employee.
And then Sokyle Clark comes in. He comments on this,
and he says, declaring the private business refusing to print
(30:47):
a vigil poster for the president's friend is a civil
rights violation is an interesting legal argument. Brings to mind
Colorado Case's Masterpiece Cake Shop and three h three Creative.
So I have said, all show a log I think
they're both wrong. And here's why. I think Office Deep
of firing the employee is once again the private business
world at work, they basically saw like our employee went
(31:08):
off the deep end, refused to like, let someone use
a copy machine to print a poster. We don't do
that at office depot. You don't get to choose which
posters people get to print and which ones they don't like.
Speaker 2 (31:19):
But I don't think it is a civil rights violation.
A civil rights violation.
Speaker 3 (31:23):
A can happen by businesses, but it's based on race, religion,
gender ethnicity is actually not based on viewpoint. Viewpoint discrimination
is something the government can commit against a person, not
a private business, you're actually allowed to disagree with a
customer's viewpoint and in limited cases, can choose not to
serve them. When I say in limited cases, what I
(31:45):
mean is, for example, the Masterpiece Cake Shop and three
h three Creative that Kyle Clark brought up. When artistic
expression is at issue, that is what the Supreme Court
was fault. That's a line of precedent they were following
in those cases, is saying Jack Phillips. He said the
gay couple could buy a pre made cake and take
it like he would sell anything to them that was
(32:06):
already made. What he said is, I'm not going to
use my artistic talents, my freedom of speech through my
expression to create something to celebrate a message I do
not believe in. And he won in the courts. Three
h three Creative, same thing she said. I think she
was either a wedding event planner or I don't know
if she's a photographer, actually can't remember, but either way,
her own artistic talents, and she's like, I can't use
(32:26):
that at a gay wedding because I'm not going to
use my artistic celebration, my free speech to participate in
something I don't agree with.
Speaker 2 (32:33):
And the Supreme Court said, yeah, you don't have to.
Speaker 3 (32:35):
That is light years away from not letting someone use
your copy machine at office depot.
Speaker 2 (32:41):
Now no artistic expression involved.
Speaker 5 (32:43):
You just broke that down extremely well in a way
that the average person me can understand without a law degree.
You have a law degree. Shouldn't the Attorney General in
the United States know this and exactly what you said
and how you said it? And if not, why not?
Speaker 2 (32:59):
Yeah, you know what, I don't know. I've struggled trying
to understand that myself. I think Pam Bondi.
Speaker 3 (33:04):
Has done a lot of things right, but I think
she does some things that I just think are too far.
And I do think as much as I've talked about
like Jimmy Kimmel and people on the left taking it
too far, I do think there are some government figures,
either on the right or left, who also need to
be careful not to take their comments too far because
of how they then become interpreted by members of the
public things that can be seen as threats or misinterpretations
(33:25):
of the Constitution. And so I think when you say
that civil rights is more than it is, it just
confuses people. And I do think our attorney general, and
our president and our governor and other people in high
positions should do their best to clarify the law for
people not confuse it. And so it may sound good
on a sound bite. Sometimes it's like we're going to
go after this person. They're violating civil rights. And I
(33:47):
do think too many government officials and I'm going to
accuse them specifically because I don't know them personally, but
want the sound bite instead of the actual win on
the things we can go in and so I think
we should instead focus on helping Americans understand the Constitution again,
understand their rights and today government may never discriminate against
your viewpoint, but sometimes private businesses do and that's not
a civil rights violation and so important for people to
(34:09):
know that.
Speaker 2 (34:10):
Thanks for tuning in to the Dan Kaplo Show today.
I'm Christy Burton Brown. Loved being with you all and
I hope you have a wonderful weekend.
This is Dan Caplis and welcome to today's online podcast
edition of The Dan Caplis Show. Please be sure to
give us a five star rating if you'd be so kind,
and to subscribe, download and listen to the show every
single day on your favorite podcast platform.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
We're back of the Dan Caplas Show.
Speaker 3 (00:16):
I'm Christy Burton Brown in for the second hour after
the first hour of The Dan Caplis Show.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
Good to have you.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
We've been talking about Jimmy Kimmel's suspension and the real
reasons behind that, uncovered in an article by The Hollywood
Reporter today, talking to sources from Disney and ABC, saying
that the real reason is not government interference, but instead
calls from advertisers and stations and Jimmy Kimmel's own refusal
to back down at all. But when they asked him
(00:44):
how he's going to handle a situation, he was going
to double down on his lie. So I agree with
this texter that says what's embarrassing is an entire side
of the Aisle venerating a liar comedian while cheering on
the assassination of a public speaker moments after he was
gunned down in front of his wife and children, and
I absolutely agree with that. There's so many people treating
(01:05):
Jimmy Kimmel's suspension as even more significant than the shooting
of Charlie Kirk. Like they've gone way overboard talking about
it over and over and over and what a horrible
thing it is, and they said in many cases, these
people said almost nothing when Charlie Kirk was shocked, so
it clearly shows you what they actually value. But one
(01:25):
thing I actually want to play for you because I
find this to be very interesting, But Jimmy Kimmel himself
was not silent when other media hosts got canceled. In fact,
he had a lot of thoughts about it himself. So
let's play this flashback from twenty eighteen when he commented
on Roseanne Barr being fired.
Speaker 4 (01:43):
The biggest story of the day today was Roseanne. Roseanne,
You're not gonna believe this, but she tweeted something outrageous.
I know, yeah, right, the President did it too.
Speaker 5 (01:57):
It's crazy.
Speaker 6 (01:57):
Anyway.
Speaker 4 (01:58):
ABC decided to cancel their highest rated show, Roseanne, following
following a tweet in which Roseanne compared an African American woman,
a former advisor to President Obama, to an ape, which
did not sit well with ABC management or anyone with
a brain really, so they announced that this first season
the show is also its last, which is a huge
blow to business. I mean, we don't have much on
(02:21):
this network. We're hoping the NBA Finals goes eleven games
this year. We're still airing America's Funniest home videos. Okay,
Roseanne was very bigly hit for ABC and we needed it.
Speaker 3 (02:34):
So clearly, he seemed to understand in that clip that, oh,
you make a really really offensive comment and it doesn't
sit right with the public, you just might get fired
by your boss that is a private company somehow. And
he I don't think he's actually made a statement since
his suspension, a least not that I've seen. But all
these people, you know, speaking against his suspension don't seem
(02:55):
to be applying his own standards to himself. Like he
told a very very very offense lie about who shot
Charlie Kirk, blaming Charlie Kirk's own side for doing it,
and wanted to double down on that, And he doesn't
think that's offensive enough to also get fired. Let's go
to twenty twenty three when he mocked Tucker Carlson from
(03:16):
after being fired by Fox News.
Speaker 7 (03:18):
But let's be.
Speaker 4 (03:18):
Honest, the sort should have been called Benbath.
Speaker 5 (03:21):
And that's it. There's no beyond.
Speaker 4 (03:23):
There never was a beyond, right Gerll that's Yer Sky,
who could probably use one of those big blue twenty
percent off coupons to cheer him up right now, and
you probably know him too.
Speaker 8 (03:35):
We have some news from within our Fox family. Fox
News Media and Tucker Carlson have mutually agreed to part
ways Tucker's last shows this past Friday.
Speaker 4 (03:47):
That's right, Fox News has severed bow ties with Tucker
Carlson after all these years. They are parting ways, which
means he was fired. I mean, that's really what parting
ways means.
Speaker 7 (03:58):
He was said to be stun by the movie, reportedly
was in the middle of renegotiating his contract taker couldn't
be reached for comment.
Speaker 4 (04:09):
He's already on a plane to Moscow to meet with
his manager. But what a shock, I mean, what an
absolutely delightful shock. This is so.
Speaker 3 (04:18):
He also thought it was, in his own words, delightful
to see other hosts fired, Cancel taken off the air
for comments that he didn't agree with. And mind you,
the comments he's talking about were things that were either
offensive or he didn't agree with, but not blatant lies.
Those take a whole other level, especially when you're talking
about not a cable news show but the actual public airwaves,
(04:40):
and many times networks shockingly take it serious when you
defame and lie about people, and when.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
They could get the blowback that's experienced from that.
Speaker 3 (04:50):
So for a lot of business reasons, ABC and Disney
let Jimmy Kimmel go, and according to his own quotes,
it seems like he should be okay with this this
based on how he handled it when other hosts were removed.
And if for whatever reason, you don't know what comment
Jimmy Kimmel made, I am going to play it for
you so you can see just what a blatant lie
(05:11):
this was.
Speaker 4 (05:14):
We had some new lows over the weekend with the
Maga Gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered
Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and
everything they can to score political points from it.
Speaker 3 (05:26):
That was the statement he made that, according to sources
inside ABC and Disney, when he was asked how he
was going to handle it, he said he was going
to double down on those comments, like how you double
down on a clear lie that's been proven false by
like every actual source out there. I am very unclear
where the doubling down could even possibly happen, but that's
what he wanted to do because he didn't want to
(05:48):
cave to the MAGA.
Speaker 2 (05:49):
Right, Well, good luck to him.
Speaker 3 (05:51):
Business decisions would indicate that he should part pads with
his with his hosts, and that's what he has done.
So But course, because of the situation and because of
Charlie Kirk's life himself, there's been just so much about
the First Amendment being discussed, and this is something I
wanted to get to on the show today, is how
we think we understand the First Amendment, but how we
(06:13):
should actually understand the First Amendment in context of where
your rights begin and when you actually get to use
your free speech. And I'm going to play you a
clip from Pambondi that I actually disagree with when we
come back up to the next break, because I want
some time to actually talk about it. And then we're
going to talk about a claim from Kyle Clark, which
everyone knows he's the host of Next on nine News.
(06:36):
He is trying to relate a very dissimilar situation to
the Masterpiece case and the three Ozho three cases out
of Colorado and the line of Supreme Court precedence saying
that business, that people in business have a right to
freedom of expression. So I want to distinguish the situation
that Pam Bondi is talking about from what Kyle Clark
thinks is so similar to Masterpiece in three Ozho three.
(06:56):
He's an accurate and correct, but I actually think Pam
Bondi is to two and so we'll talk about that.
But what I want to do while we're still in
this segment is read you this really well explained information
about the First Amendment from Michael Ferris. For everyone who
doesn't know Michael Ferris, he has done so many things
in his life, but for a long time he was
(07:17):
the president of ADF Alliance Defending Freedom. He's argued multiple
cases at the US Supreme Court, very very successful constitutional attorney.
Speaker 2 (07:26):
And here's what he writes. This is well worth listening to.
Speaker 3 (07:28):
He says, freedom of speech and freedom of business owners. Oh,
how I wish everyone in America knew at least a
little constitutional law. But alas, here's a mini lesson much
needed right now. The freedom of speech protected by the
First Amendment prevents the government from improperly limiting your speech.
It has absolutely no application to private employers or businesses.
Speaker 2 (07:49):
On the other hand, business owners.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
Have freedom to hire and fire for almost any reason
they want. The exceptions are they cannot hire and fire
based on race, religion, sex, etc. And all this unless,
of course, a religious employer, then you can.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
Do it based on religion.
Speaker 3 (08:03):
The exact list of protected categories varies by state. Thus,
if a business owner fires an employee for condoning violence,
that is one hundred percent within his right. That is
his freedom, and the fired employee has not suffered a
free speech right violation because the employer is not the government.
Government employees have some free speech rights outside of their employment,
(08:24):
but the privilege of such employment carries with it some limits.
In general, speech that materially disrupts the government's functions is
grounds for firing. Advocating violence is likely to be sustained
as a valid ground for such firing. The government cannot
criminally punish people for celebrating violence, but if they advocate
future violence in a manner that poses an actual threat,
(08:46):
then that may be prosecuted. Free speech protects the right
to deliver controversial remarks on a public college campus. It
is a government institution that people commenting about such events
are not protected by the Constitution. If their private boss
doesn't like what they said and shows them the door,
that's his freedom to run his business as he wills.
I think that is very well explained and something that
(09:07):
a lot of people across America who are talking right
now would do well to understand both the limits of
the First Amendment do they protect us against government and
the freedoms that business owners have to make their own decisions.
You're on the Dan Kapla Show. I'm Christy Burton Brown.
When we come back, we'll talk about Pam Bondie, Kyle Clark,
and a lot more. You can call in three zero
three seven one three eight two five five or text
(09:28):
your thoughts to five seven seven three nine.
Speaker 5 (09:31):
And now back to the Dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (09:34):
Here, I'm the Dan Capli Show.
Speaker 3 (09:35):
I'm Christy Burton Brown. Thanks for joining us. We've been
talking a whole lot about free speech and what it
really means in the freedom of businesses to make their
own decisions. If you have thoughts or comments, and I
definitely have somebody need to get to you can text
them into five seven seven three nine start it with
Dan or call three zero three seven one three eight
two five five. I'm going to go to Monica from
(09:56):
Denver on the phone lines. Welcome to the Dan Kapla Show.
Speaker 6 (10:00):
Oh thanks for having me. So, I just had something
that I think people should be aware of and be
a little more cautious. I totally understand the business aspect,
that totally makes sense. But some of the things I'm hearing,
and you have to admit, if Trump gets upset about something,
he is the government. He's putting pressure on some of
these companies.
Speaker 2 (10:18):
And what's your example of that.
Speaker 6 (10:21):
Did he not have the director of the SEC the
pressure on the.
Speaker 2 (10:27):
TV station who said he did that?
Speaker 6 (10:28):
You're telling me that, so, so you actually think that
Trump had nothing to say, no emotional reaction to that
at all.
Speaker 3 (10:38):
Here's my point. That's an assumption on your part. You're
assuming Trump told the SEC chairman to do it. You're
assuming he didn't just speak for himself, Like.
Speaker 2 (10:45):
Did you have no proof?
Speaker 6 (10:48):
Well, honestly, do you honestly think that Trump is not
I mean, that's what I don't like the idea that
that because that is the government, well that shouldn't be government.
Speaker 3 (11:00):
But people just theorizing about what may have happened, could
have happened, it might have happened, isn't valid.
Speaker 2 (11:05):
Honestly, Honestly, you need facts.
Speaker 6 (11:08):
Didn't say anything about that.
Speaker 2 (11:10):
It's not about what you.
Speaker 3 (11:12):
Think, what I think, you're what anyone else thinks. It's
about what actually happened. And this is in many ways
why we're going down the wrong road as a country.
Is because when people disagree with other people, they're like,
I think they probably did X.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
But you need to have facts to do.
Speaker 6 (11:26):
Is if you don't like someone's comedy, guess what you
could turn it off?
Speaker 3 (11:29):
Yeah, and the station could fire him. They don't like
his comedy. Why can't this Why can't the station fire him?
Why don't they have that.
Speaker 6 (11:37):
Right they do?
Speaker 2 (11:39):
Okay, then there's nothing different.
Speaker 6 (11:40):
Play about in America is having different opinions. And there's
nothing wrong without agreeing with somebody.
Speaker 3 (11:45):
No, but you might have to find a different place
to express your different opinion. If the business you work
for says that opinion doesn't work on our airwaves and that's.
Speaker 6 (11:53):
What happened, then the pressure should not come from Trump.
Speaker 3 (11:56):
No one, no one at ABC or Disney is saying
any pressure came from Trump. A bunch of liberals are
theorizing that it might have no Disney and ABC are
saying it was advertisers, it was Next Star, it was Sinclair,
it was stations, and it was Jimmy Kimmel himself wanting
to double down on a line where.
Speaker 6 (12:13):
Lies because you will accept the fact that Trump is
doing a lot of these things emotionally that he really
should just step back from.
Speaker 3 (12:21):
Well, here's here's something I've never ever said that I
agree one hundred percent with everything Trump says or how
he says it. But what I have a even bigger
problem with than that he expresses his opinion is that
people want to make claims that are convenient for them,
that they want to claim Oh, because Trump opened his
mouth and said something, everyone at ABC and Disney is
cowering in fear. And they're doing this not because they
(12:44):
want to, not because it's good for business, but because
Trump threatened them, Like that's a convenient narrative for the left.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
But there's no.
Speaker 6 (12:49):
Fact he does have that kind of temperament.
Speaker 3 (12:52):
Being a bit of a bullet to admit that's not
actually what you've been claiming.
Speaker 2 (12:56):
Though you said ABC and Disney.
Speaker 3 (12:58):
Got Kimmel off the air because Trump made them like,
there's no proof of that, and I think people need
to actually have proof of what they say.
Speaker 6 (13:06):
Oh quick, ready in the country like a gagsteret.
Speaker 3 (13:09):
Well, you can have that opinion, but that's very different
than saying that's actually why they fired him. So you
can dislike his opinions so that he expresses them, but
as a very different story than saying and his opinions
are why this guy was fired.
Speaker 6 (13:20):
Like, thank, here's the question. If someone does the same
comedy you don't like, why do you watch it?
Speaker 3 (13:25):
I'm sure they don't. And that's probably why the business
fired them, is because not enough people.
Speaker 2 (13:28):
Were going to watch it.
Speaker 5 (13:29):
Real quick, Monica, Monica, If I may hold on, mett Monica,
this is right. I I got a question for you.
I want to see if you're intellectually honest. So, as
Jimmy Kimmel said in the very clip that Christy Burton
Brown played back in twenty eighteen, Roseanne Barr had the
number one rated show on ABC. She put out a
tweet that some people didn't like they found offensive. ABC
(13:50):
fired her, Where were you on that one?
Speaker 6 (13:51):
Right? Well, what's again? We're back to Kemp.
Speaker 5 (13:55):
Now, where were you on that one? Answer that direct question?
I gave you a direct question. I would appree, okay, sure, but.
Speaker 6 (14:00):
It was once again, she made a decision.
Speaker 5 (14:03):
Jimmy Kimmel made a decision. He lied about the shooter.
He lied about the guy that shot.
Speaker 6 (14:09):
Charlie Karrent before they got more news about that shooter.
If you go back and see all the pictures and
things he was posing for, it was kind of hard
to tell.
Speaker 5 (14:17):
What doesn't matter, Monica. He was presented with the facts.
Bob Eiger gave him a chance. Hold on, let me finish.
Bob Iiger gave Jimmy Kimmel a chance to go on
the air, retract what he said, apologize for it. Jimmy
Kimmel refused, that's on Jimmy Kimmel.
Speaker 6 (14:33):
That's true.
Speaker 5 (14:34):
You're Craig all right, we're in agreement.
Speaker 6 (14:36):
That has nothing to do with the governments. Trump making
pressure on companies because he doesn't like stuff.
Speaker 5 (14:42):
They don't have to listen to him. That's the thing.
If Jimmy Kimmel had the ratings. Roseanne Barr had I
guarantee you Monica, ABC probably would have stood by him.
There was a financial interest in them staying invested in him.
His ratings have deteriorated, have plummeted since twenty thirteen. They're abysmal.
This just gives them an off ramp. You need an
excuse to cut him loose. And that's a business decision.
Speaker 6 (15:03):
True, that is true, correct, But you can't say that.
So just kind of I'm saying is watch how these
things unfold. We don't want more of just we have
to do everything that so and so doesn't like.
Speaker 2 (15:16):
Well, and I just don't think that's what's happening.
Speaker 3 (15:18):
I think people actually have to have proof that government
is actually doing more than commenting Trump is. We all
know Trump is going to run his mouth, that he's
going to say what he thinks.
Speaker 6 (15:26):
What about it.
Speaker 3 (15:27):
But I think there's a whole lot of businesses that
don't actually actually feel threatened by what he says at all,
Like they make their own decisions.
Speaker 2 (15:34):
So we assuming a whole I have to.
Speaker 6 (15:36):
Like, well what about I've heard about lawsuits where they
still have to donate to the Trump Library.
Speaker 2 (15:41):
Well, no, I haven't heard of that at all.
Speaker 6 (15:43):
So look it up.
Speaker 2 (15:45):
Thank you for your thoughts, Monica, good to talk to you.
Speaker 5 (15:48):
All right, it's all looking for here, Christian and Monica
kind of gave that. I want to give her credit. Yes,
if you're intellectually honest and you had a problem with
Disney ABC letting Gina Corona loose. She was a primary
prominent figure and act on a top rated show on
Disney Plus called The Mandalorian. Yeah, she puts some things
out there about the Jews, Nazis, something like that, and
(16:10):
they didn't like it, and they cut her loose. And
I'm seeing a shortage of these same I'm not saying
Monica as one of these, but of the same leftists
that are so morally outrage at the firing of Jimmy Kimmel.
And by the way, they're reacting with a lot more
vim and vigor about Jimmy Kimmel losing his job than
Charlie Kirk getting shot in the jugular and murdered life. Yeah,
So Charlie Kirk loses his life for free speech, you're silent.
(16:32):
Jimmy Kimmel loses his show because he says something that's
a lie, that's.
Speaker 2 (16:35):
A verifiable lie.
Speaker 5 (16:36):
And to Monica she admitted this. There was time for
Jimmy Kimmel to reflect, for his staff to go home.
We got that one wrong, you know, we should correct that.
He could have done that. Bob Iger gave him that opportunity.
He refused. Why did he refuse?
Speaker 2 (16:50):
Right, because that's what he wants to say. He is
willing to lose his job over it. And that's what
happened there.
Speaker 4 (16:54):
You go.
Speaker 3 (16:54):
So no, And I think there's someone texting in saying,
where can we find Kimmel's quote saying it's going to double.
Speaker 2 (17:00):
It's a lot of people interested in this article. It's
from the Hollywood Reporter.
Speaker 3 (17:03):
Go look up the Hollywood Reporter how Jimmy Kimmel's suspension
went and down. You'll find all the details, sources quoted there,
everything else. But I, you know, I just think it's
it's it's quite interesting to me. So many people feel
so you know, they dislike Trump so much that they
actually want to believe this narrative that everything he says
is interpreted as some huge, big threat. It's like, no,
(17:23):
people actually know how Trump is. They know how he operates,
they know how he talks, and they know it's just
literally how he talks, and most of it is not
backed up by actually much of anything.
Speaker 2 (17:33):
It's his opinion. He's allowed to give it. Would I
talk like that?
Speaker 7 (17:36):
No?
Speaker 3 (17:37):
But I'm not Donald Trump, and so I think what
you actually have to connect though, is not like I
don't like how he talks. Okay, great, what's the connection
to something actually happening with a private business cowering to him?
Speaker 2 (17:47):
You have no proof, so that's not what happened. I'm
Christy Britton Brown.
Speaker 3 (17:50):
You're on the Dan Kaplis Show. Callin over the break
three oh three seven one.
Speaker 2 (17:54):
Three eight two five five.
Speaker 5 (17:58):
You're listening to the Dan Kaplish your podcast.
Speaker 2 (18:01):
We have the Dankapa Show. I'm Christy Burton Brown.
Speaker 3 (18:03):
We're talking about real reasons behind the suspension of Jimmy
Kimmel and lots of callers with lots of thoughts today,
which is great. You also can call in three zero
three seven one three eight two five five. A new
article by aph saying that Trump's moves against the media
mirror approaches by authoritarian leaders to silence dissent.
Speaker 2 (18:23):
Okay, interesting headline. I'm like, all right, you betta have.
Speaker 3 (18:26):
Some proof for this, but most of their proof is
comments Trump makes after people are fired, which are often hilarious.
Speaker 5 (18:34):
Right, he has bad ratings. I had tremendous ratings on
The Apprentice. They were way better than Colbert and Kimmel combined.
Speaker 2 (18:42):
You know, things like that, Oh, something like that.
Speaker 5 (18:44):
The other part too. That just makes me crack up.
If Trump is such an authoritarian, why was he unable
to counter the fact that both Twitter and Facebook banned him,
I know during the twenty twenty election from both of
those platforms. How did that happen? I know, how did
that happen?
Speaker 2 (19:01):
Maybe because private businesses can make their own decisions no matter.
Speaker 5 (19:03):
What well they did in the official sense that was
met with much consternation. But Trump didn't have a lot
of power that he was the sitting president of the
United States. Then let's do this thought exercise here for
our listeners out there are texters five seven seven three nine.
If Donald Trump was the authoritarian you claimed to be,
how did Twitter and Facebook remove him from their platforms?
(19:25):
Could they have done that in the Soviet Union under
Stalin could not see Germany? Could there have been some
insurgents that removed Adolf Hitler from various platforms? Yeah, we
just check in.
Speaker 3 (19:36):
Well, right, And I think, and I'll make it very clear,
I don't agree with the government pressuring private business anything
like if it is actual pressure forced by the government,
completely wrong. My problem is that full comments as threats
and pressure with no proof, and so like, here's a
couple a couple examples in the AP article, acting like
he's some authoritarian dictator, saying after Jimmy Kimmel was suspended,
(20:02):
Trump cheered ABC's suspension, saying congratulations to ABC for finally
having the courage to do what had to be done.
And then AP continues it was the latest in a
string of attacks against news outlets and media figures. Like
excuse me, Like commenting because someone was already suspended and
their company already made a decision is not a threat.
Speaker 2 (20:24):
It is not pressure.
Speaker 3 (20:25):
It's commenting after the fact because you have an opinion
and the president happens to have an opinion. And then
they have this other part that says Kimmel's suspension is
part of a pattern by Trump and they as their example.
You'd think, Okay, maybe now they have an example of
some actual threat, actual pressure.
Speaker 2 (20:42):
He's done.
Speaker 7 (20:43):
Nope.
Speaker 3 (20:44):
After Colbert was taken off the air, it says Trump
celebrated it. I absolutely love that Colbear got fired. His
talent was even less than his ratings. Okay, so many
threats right there, like you know, so much pressure. He's
literally commenting after the act. So anyways, I just want
it to be interesting. I'm gonna go through some texto
(21:05):
because people have a lot of thoughts, which again is great.
Speaker 2 (21:07):
I like thoughts.
Speaker 3 (21:08):
So this person says, you have to admit to the
comment by Brendan Carr. That's the FCC chairman was ham
handed or bone hit, bone headed at best. I do
believe the firing of Kimmel went down the way you described,
meaning that ABC and Disney did it because of pressure
from advertiser stations, et cetera.
Speaker 2 (21:23):
And I actually agree with this.
Speaker 3 (21:24):
I don't think it was smart of the FCC chairman
to go on a podcast and say what he said,
because it opens.
Speaker 5 (21:29):
The door to this accusation. And when it comes to
Next Star in Sinclair, you know they are acting finally
on behalf of their reviewers. And what Jimmy Kimmel has
done is what I call it's narrow casting. It's not broadcasting.
It's supposed to be the American broadcasting company that ABC
stands for. But over the years, and especially over these
last say ten years, since Trump was in the political sphere,
(21:53):
they have it's a law of diminishing returns, and even strategically,
even if you are galvanized in the caw that Jimmy
Kimmel wants to represent being anti Trump and standing in
the breach and being brave and doing he's presenting. He
has this delusion of grandeur that he's standing in the breach,
he's fighting for democracy, all this stuff, but he is
transmitting his show to a smaller and smaller number of
(22:17):
coastal liberal elites, thumbing his nose at flyover Country. I
saw this on Facebook too, and it made my stomach turn.
There was a country music artists who had appeared on
Jimmy Kimmel's show and then later was on Fox and
Friends and appeared there and was singing a song was
kind of you know, one of these where I come from,
maybe redneck country that people would enjoy, and Kimmel mocked
(22:38):
him openly on the air on his show. And in
the aftermath of this cancelation, that country music artist came
on Facebook and said, good, this guy has contempt. He
views us with condescension in Flyover Country and all the
red states in between the left coast and the right coast,
and there's just so much animosity and this sense of
(23:01):
supremacy that they don't deign to engage in any conversation
with somebody, you know, and it comes to Michigan or
in the Des Moines, Iowa. They don't care about these
people because they're beneath Jimmy Kimmel. And that's that's how
it feels, that's how it comes across, and there's a
reason why his ratings have diminished. That then the way
(23:22):
it has all of this to say what we're just
talking about right here, If Jimmy Kimmel had mass appeal,
if he had massive ratings, advertising dollars, if he was
Dave Chappelle two point zero, he would not be off
the air right now, right his show was failing. And
then he goes and he does double down, maybe not
that exact phrase, but he said what he said on Monday,
(23:42):
that the shooter was Maga, and all of us on
the right we're trying our best to deny that that
was false. He was given an opportunity by Bob iger
Disney say we got to clean this up. We got
next Star, we got Sinclair. They're pulling your show. You
gotta go on the air, you gotta apologize. He refused
to do that. Okay, you're noble. You're losing your show, though,
Go be a podcast somewhere else, do your own thing.
Speaker 3 (24:03):
Well, And that's what people don't understand about the piece
of the First Amendment. They're like, oh, my goodness, he's
losing his right to free speech. No, he continued to
experience his right to free speech. It was his right
to free speech to say I don't want to apologize,
I want to double down. That's right, and there's just
people don't understand that there are consequences sometimes to the
way you use your free speech. Like the government is
not allowed to punish you for using free speech, but
(24:24):
other people may decide not to associate with you anymore,
and that is their freedom of association rights. Incidentally, business
owners have a freedom of association right. They cannot keep
someone on their payroll who's a viewpoints that they don't
agree with. You're actually allowed to do that as a business.
And so freedom of speech First Amendment exercise goes both ways.
People have it, and so to business owners there are
(24:44):
people too, So I think people just forget that sometimes
when you choose in the private world to speak freely
how you wish, you also will.
Speaker 2 (24:52):
Experience consequences from that. So that's what Jimmy Kimmel got a.
Speaker 3 (24:56):
Few other comments from the Texters. Look at the timeline.
It's my underst standing that the FCC's comment about looking
into ABC's license was only hours before the show was canceled,
no time for anyone to consider and exactly. This is
the point that I've also made for anyone who thinks that,
you know, the FCC chairman is so insanely scary that
a comment you made on a podcast, not even on
a phone call to ABC or Disney, is like, you know,
(25:18):
so threatening to ABC and Disney that they instantly act like, no,
like read this what the sources are saying that it
calls from advertisers and actual stations saying get this guy
off the air.
Speaker 5 (25:28):
It's terrible for business. So Brendan Carr went on, I
think it was Benny Johnson. Yeah, yeah, so that's a
niche kind of I know podcast.
Speaker 6 (25:34):
Now.
Speaker 5 (25:35):
What ABC was responding to, quite obviously was Next Star
and Sinclair and these corporations owned several stations in a
group that collectively represented a large footprint for what should
have been Jimmy Kimmel's program on ABC. And if those
all go dark, now you're losing all those ad dollars.
(25:55):
Oh yeah, money, ABC, Disney. They had a decision to make,
Bob Iger had to decision to make, and Jimmy Kimmel
steadfastly resolutely said I'm not gonna apologize doesn't matter. So
the fact that he cared more about appealing to those
people in his circle rather than the broad general public,
which again he is casting out half of America right
(26:19):
out of the gate, Right out of the gate. I
hate you, I don't want you, don't watch my show
is basically what he's telling them. I know, Johnny Carson
didn't do that. Jay Leoneld didn't do that. Heck huh,
even in his prime, David Letterman didn't do that. Conan
O'Brien didn't do that. Right empowered to be like, no, no, no,
we are social justice warriors. We are fighting against Trump
in the good fight, and we are gonna These are
(26:39):
no longer late night comedy shows.
Speaker 2 (26:41):
We'll get a different job. You're not funny anymore.
Speaker 5 (26:43):
Are you pundit. Yeah, go on a panel, do it.
Speaker 7 (26:45):
Do it.
Speaker 3 (26:45):
This show fit your job, what you're hired for. Okay,
I'm promising the whole show to talk about Pam Bondi
and Kyle Clerk and they're misreading in my opinion at
the first amendment. So we will talk about that in
the last segmond of the show. After this break on Christiever,
You're on the Dan Kapla Show.
Speaker 5 (27:03):
And now back to the Dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (27:06):
Well, you're happy about the weekend coming up? I know
I am.
Speaker 3 (27:09):
My son will actually have his first official hockey game
tomorrow morning. Oh, I'm excited about that. Nice at a
scrimmage last weekend.
Speaker 5 (27:15):
What level is he playing at these days?
Speaker 3 (27:17):
He's a wreck level so there's like travel wreck house.
So it's like he actually just learned to skate four
months ago. So yeah, and he actually made the wreck team.
He had to try out and made it.
Speaker 5 (27:27):
It's an amazing evolution in a very short period of time.
Speaker 3 (27:30):
I'm super happy. I grew up at the rink. As
some people know, I figure skated for a number of years.
My brothers played hockey, but we kind of always told
him like I don't know, too expensive always at the rink,
and we looked into it. There's actually a really good
program and it is a kind of expensive, but so
are so many other sports these days.
Speaker 2 (27:47):
They are so pick between them.
Speaker 5 (27:49):
What you're saying, KBB is he's getting his ice skating
skills from you and your side of the family, not
mister bred.
Speaker 7 (27:57):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (27:57):
If he gets some athletic ability from my husband, I
will say that maybe not a skater, but definitely are athletic.
A good combination.
Speaker 5 (28:05):
Good.
Speaker 3 (28:06):
Yeah, but that and then my mother in law is
turning seventy, so we're having a big party for her
at our house. That's oh yeah, it's gonna be a
big day tomorrow. Hopefully everyone else has fun weekends. Maybe
just relaxing. That's a good thing.
Speaker 2 (28:17):
Oh I love her.
Speaker 5 (28:18):
She wow.
Speaker 2 (28:19):
Yeah, she helped up.
Speaker 5 (28:21):
Funny I gave you the Dan cap. Oh wow, yeah,
I know.
Speaker 2 (28:25):
No, she's great. She like kind of helped set up
my husband and me.
Speaker 3 (28:29):
Actually, well, so his dad actually found me in the
newspaper because I was running the person of campaign at
the time and so literally a horrible picture of me,
like I look absolutely horrible.
Speaker 2 (28:42):
But his dad found it.
Speaker 3 (28:42):
Gave it to his mom, and his mom's like, here, Dave,
like you would like what this girl's doing. The whole
story about, like why I was doing what I was
doing with a pro life campaign, and she's like, I
found your future wife. Literally what she told my husband
and his sisters are like, oh he has older sisters.
They're like, that is not how it works, mom, And
look at her picture. That is not his tie, like no,
and he's like, yeah, I don't know about that, mom,
(29:03):
but I like what she's doing, so like I'll go
volunteer in her campaign.
Speaker 2 (29:06):
Like good idea.
Speaker 5 (29:07):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (29:08):
Well I ended up meeting and thankfully, according to him,
I looked very different from my picture.
Speaker 2 (29:12):
In person.
Speaker 3 (29:13):
We both would say it was like a love at
first sight type thing. So his mom just ended up
being right and like, you know, who can't love their
who would not love their mother in law?
Speaker 2 (29:21):
And they like, you know, picked picked you out.
Speaker 5 (29:23):
So what I'm picking up is this was like a
reverse catfish situation in that the photo was not maybe
as flattering in the newspaper, and in person, you surpassed
the expectation in the photo. You know, most of the
time Christy got to tell you not that I would
know from personal experience. Who knows, but the it's kind
of a best foot forward Scenariolet's say on a dating
(29:44):
app or a photo that's out there, and then you
meet the person in person, Like, wait a minute, you're
not the person in the photo. What's going on to
that photos? Like fifteen years old? What's going on here?
Speaker 2 (29:55):
Yes?
Speaker 5 (29:55):
But no, see you said, you know, so see, I
have to at.
Speaker 3 (29:58):
Least know that he didn't come meet me because of
like how I looked. He came to meet me with
like good intentions, like oh I like her work, I
like her heart, like I want to go work on
that too, And then you know, we saw each other
and as a little difference.
Speaker 5 (30:11):
So that guy is I've never heard that story before.
I'm so glad you shared it.
Speaker 2 (30:14):
Now you know.
Speaker 5 (30:14):
Now you know, no one's got the battle.
Speaker 2 (30:17):
All right.
Speaker 3 (30:17):
Well as the final comment on the show, Pam Bondie,
I do have a problem with this for anyone thinking I.
Speaker 2 (30:23):
Never criticized the Trump administration.
Speaker 3 (30:25):
She said that businesses are obligated to print posters for
a Charlie Kirk vigil. But the part where I think
she really went wrong, and she said they were going
to look into a civil rights violation against like I
think it was the office depot employee who refused to
print the posters. Incidentally, Office Depot fire at the employee.
And then Sokyle Clark comes in. He comments on this,
and he says, declaring the private business refusing to print
(30:47):
a vigil poster for the president's friend is a civil
rights violation is an interesting legal argument. Brings to mind
Colorado Case's Masterpiece Cake Shop and three h three Creative.
So I have said, all show a log I think
they're both wrong. And here's why. I think Office Deep
of firing the employee is once again the private business
world at work, they basically saw like our employee went
(31:08):
off the deep end, refused to like, let someone use
a copy machine to print a poster. We don't do
that at office depot. You don't get to choose which
posters people get to print and which ones they don't like.
Speaker 2 (31:19):
But I don't think it is a civil rights violation.
A civil rights violation.
Speaker 3 (31:23):
A can happen by businesses, but it's based on race, religion,
gender ethnicity is actually not based on viewpoint. Viewpoint discrimination
is something the government can commit against a person, not
a private business, you're actually allowed to disagree with a
customer's viewpoint and in limited cases, can choose not to
serve them. When I say in limited cases, what I
(31:45):
mean is, for example, the Masterpiece Cake Shop and three
h three Creative that Kyle Clark brought up. When artistic
expression is at issue, that is what the Supreme Court
was fault. That's a line of precedent they were following
in those cases, is saying Jack Phillips. He said the
gay couple could buy a pre made cake and take
it like he would sell anything to them that was
(32:06):
already made. What he said is, I'm not going to
use my artistic talents, my freedom of speech through my
expression to create something to celebrate a message I do
not believe in. And he won in the courts. Three
h three Creative, same thing she said. I think she
was either a wedding event planner or I don't know
if she's a photographer, actually can't remember, but either way,
her own artistic talents, and she's like, I can't use
(32:26):
that at a gay wedding because I'm not going to
use my artistic celebration, my free speech to participate in
something I don't agree with.
Speaker 2 (32:33):
And the Supreme Court said, yeah, you don't have to.
Speaker 3 (32:35):
That is light years away from not letting someone use
your copy machine at office depot.
Speaker 2 (32:41):
Now no artistic expression involved.
Speaker 5 (32:43):
You just broke that down extremely well in a way
that the average person me can understand without a law degree.
You have a law degree. Shouldn't the Attorney General in
the United States know this and exactly what you said
and how you said it? And if not, why not?
Speaker 2 (32:59):
Yeah, you know what, I don't know. I've struggled trying
to understand that myself. I think Pam Bondi.
Speaker 3 (33:04):
Has done a lot of things right, but I think
she does some things that I just think are too far.
And I do think as much as I've talked about
like Jimmy Kimmel and people on the left taking it
too far, I do think there are some government figures,
either on the right or left, who also need to
be careful not to take their comments too far because
of how they then become interpreted by members of the
public things that can be seen as threats or misinterpretations
(33:25):
of the Constitution. And so I think when you say
that civil rights is more than it is, it just
confuses people. And I do think our attorney general, and
our president and our governor and other people in high
positions should do their best to clarify the law for
people not confuse it. And so it may sound good
on a sound bite. Sometimes it's like we're going to
go after this person. They're violating civil rights. And I
(33:47):
do think too many government officials and I'm going to
accuse them specifically because I don't know them personally, but
want the sound bite instead of the actual win on
the things we can go in and so I think
we should instead focus on helping Americans understand the Constitution again,
understand their rights and today government may never discriminate against
your viewpoint, but sometimes private businesses do and that's not
a civil rights violation and so important for people to
(34:09):
know that.
Speaker 2 (34:10):
Thanks for tuning in to the Dan Kaplo Show today.
I'm Christy Burton Brown. Loved being with you all and
I hope you have a wonderful weekend.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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.