3 ms·

FCC aside, how is it any different from ABC canceling Rosanne Barr because of something she said? They may cancel whomever and whatever they want, which in the

FCC aside, how is it any different from ABC canceling Rosanne Barr because of something she said? They may cancel whomever and whatever they want, which in the past has been due to pressure from the outside, justified or not. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/roseanne-barr-obama-adviser-baby-muslim-brotherhood-planet/story?id=55504982 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/roseanne-barr-obama-adviser-...

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
daveguy 1y ago
The first amendment of our Constitution explicitly protects against the government as the censor. The head of the FCC going on Fox to call for it, is an overreach. You do realize the FCC is part of the executive branch, right?
- billfor 1y ago
  But it’s not just the government even assuming your comment about the first amendment is correct. Sinclair + Nexstar are about 80% of the stations and they both refused to carry it, so there’s a financial component. I believe their affiliates were the first to cancel even before the FCC comments. Why should ABC lose 80% of their income. https://x.com/WeAreSinclair/status/1968471160359645658 https://x.com/WeAreSinclair/status/1968471160359645658
  - daveguy 1y ago
    The first amendment restricts the government.
    - intended 1y ago
      There is no real engagement with your core point. What you are going to see is an evolutionary approach to finding which message is the most able to defuse umbrage, and further right leaning interests. If it’s useful to argue for free speech in one breath, then for censorship in the next, followed by “its just words” - it will be argued in that order. The utility function is politics, not reason or logic. Getting people to engage, and get tied up in the logic, is a feature not a bug. It wastes energy and creates the impression that this is an issue resolved with words and understanding.
  - suzdude 1y ago
    Sinclair did so _after_ the FCC comments. They did not take issue with the jokes prior to the FCC head.
_DeadFred_ 1y ago
'Other than the government pressure, from the head of the agency that has direct oversight and is currently deciding on a huge FCC exemption request and who stated we can do this the hard way or the easy way when it came to punishing Jimmy Kimmel....'
abnercoimbre 1y ago
Excuse me? "pressure from the outside" in this case is a government regulator. Furthermore, ABC wants pending mergers approved by this administration. We don't notice the huge, gaping difference?
croon 1y ago
> FCC aside, how is it any different from ABC canceling Rosanne Barr because of something she said? They may cancel whomever and whatever they want, which in the past has been due to pressure from the outside, justified or not. You are trying to draw a conclusion from the information available, and then you ask: What if I ignore the central piece of evidence?
seadan83 1y ago
The first amendment protects speech from government repercussion. So aside from the threat of government repercussion, yeah, I also totally don't see how this is a first amendment issue.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

daveguy 1y ago

The first amendment of our Constitution explicitly protects against the government as the censor. The head of the FCC going on Fox to call for it, is an overreach. You do realize the FCC is part of the executive branch, right?

billfor 1y ago
But it’s not just the government even assuming your comment about the first amendment is correct. Sinclair + Nexstar are about 80% of the stations and they both refused to carry it, so there’s a financial component. I believe their affiliates were the first to cancel even before the FCC comments. Why should ABC lose 80% of their income. https://x.com/WeAreSinclair/status/1968471160359645658 https://x.com/WeAreSinclair/status/1968471160359645658
- daveguy 1y ago
  The first amendment restricts the government.
  - intended 1y ago
    There is no real engagement with your core point. What you are going to see is an evolutionary approach to finding which message is the most able to defuse umbrage, and further right leaning interests. If it’s useful to argue for free speech in one breath, then for censorship in the next, followed by “its just words” - it will be argued in that order. The utility function is politics, not reason or logic. Getting people to engage, and get tied up in the logic, is a feature not a bug. It wastes energy and creates the impression that this is an issue resolved with words and understanding.
- suzdude 1y ago
  Sinclair did so _after_ the FCC comments. They did not take issue with the jokes prior to the FCC head.

_DeadFred_ 1y ago

'Other than the government pressure, from the head of the agency that has direct oversight and is currently deciding on a huge FCC exemption request and who stated we can do this the hard way or the easy way when it came to punishing Jimmy Kimmel....'

abnercoimbre 1y ago

Excuse me? "pressure from the outside" in this case is a government regulator. Furthermore, ABC wants pending mergers approved by this administration. We don't notice the huge, gaping difference?

croon 1y ago

> FCC aside, how is it any different from ABC canceling Rosanne Barr because of something she said? They may cancel whomever and whatever they want, which in the past has been due to pressure from the outside, justified or not. You are trying to draw a conclusion from the information available, and then you ask: What if I ignore the central piece of evidence?

seadan83 1y ago

The first amendment protects speech from government repercussion. So aside from the threat of government repercussion, yeah, I also totally don't see how this is a first amendment issue.