4 ms·

So if Trump does the same, that's not the government saying it, because he also can't act unilaterally for the government, right? And in fact, no individual po

• kcplate 1y ago
  Trump is different. He is the executive branch. He has the ability to EO change without anyone else having to agree before the fact. The FCC operates as a commission. The chairman might set the agenda, but the commission has to agree by majority. You could argue that he has great influence within the FCC, but he is not the FCC. When you make the leap from Carr to “the FCC” it’s roughly like if Sen. John Thune said something and you attributed his words to “the senate”.
  • rezonant 1y ago
    Court cases have established that you don't need actual action for a free speech violation to have occurred. The act of using your government position to pressure, coerce, or threaten people who are using speech you don't like is a violation of the Constitution, flat out. Otherwise the protection of free speech means nothing, because politicians can merely threaten you all day but never pull the trigger on an obviously disallowed act while implying that you'll make trouble for involved actors which has a degree of separation, enough to avoid it being a direct cause and effect. And in this case Carr did exactly that by threatening to make trouble for affiliates like Nexstar -- as long as your threat has a material impact (like causing a company to adhere to the desired action to avoid further red tape in their acquisition approvals), it would be enough to quell constitutionally protected speech.