4 ms·

> The FCC chair threatening your broadcast license That's a clear violation of the First Amendment.

epistasis 1y ago
Yep! And he wrote the whole chapter in Project 2025 outlining that he would do exactly this, in advance of taking the job. Who is going to stop him? The Supreme Court? Not likely.
SoftTalker 1y ago
Not necessarily. Broadcasters have a license from the government to use the airwaves and they are obligated to act in the public interest. So some restrictions apply to them.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > Broadcasters have a license from the government to use the airwaves and they are obligated to act in the public interest. So some restrictions apply to them. Necessarily. Carr threatened to revoke licenses based on the political speech of ABC. That's clearly unconstitutional. Trump followed up by saying licenses should be revoked for criticism of himself. Unitary President cuts both ways. If this is okay, the next Democrat who's President needs to shut down Fox News and their ilk or be impeached. (From the perspective of fomenting rebellion and generally posing a threat to our republic, Jimmy Kimmel isn't even on the list.)
  - billfor 1y ago
    Fox news doesn't have a broadcast license. ABC does. As with redistricting, democrats are limited because things are already biased in their favor. Broadcast networks are all center-left at this point, if not then show me one major broadcaster that is center right. Democrats basically have nobody to go after. To your point, The Democrats, when back in power, could extend licensing issues into cableTV, etc... and attempt to fire Fox or Newsmax commentators... I would argue the Biden administration already attempted to do a form of this, as we saw with Facebook, Twitter, et al, the last administration certainly tried influencing the online arena. I just think both sides do it, although on this forum it seems to trigger mostly the left side.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > would argue the Biden administration already attempted to do a form of this, as we saw with Facebook, Twitter, et al, the last administration certainly tried influencing the online arena Not comparable. That said, I agree—if this precedent stands, there should be personal liability for Newsmax commenters under a future administration. (And, of course, they should be barred from federal property.) One would also go after the online streaming companies to delist their content. Google and Meta are constantly under antitrust controlled. TikTok is government owned. And you could start knocking on X with its money-transfer ambitions and Elon’s robotaxi approvals (to say nothing of federal contracts).
    - kenjackson 1y ago
      Fox News doesn’t have a broadcast license but Fox Broadcasting does. If people are doing this sort of extortion, it wouldn’t be a leap to see the whole Fox corporation in the crosshairs. This is all just a terrible precedent for what the future holds.
      - SauciestGNU 1y ago
        Except non-NewsCorp Fox assets were bought by none other than Disney! It's a gordian knot of monopolistic corruption!
  - yannyu 1y ago
    Fox News is technically cable, as the other poster under you has noted, which is a favored defense for this sort of discussion. What they ignore is that local Fox affiliate stations who are also licensed by the FCC have a history of aligning with Fox News misinformation campaigns relating to covid, election integrity, Russia and Ukraine, Palestine, etc. So no, the FCC licensed world is not left leaning, and these local affiliate stations should absolutely be held to the same standard.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- akerl_ 1y ago
  Which restriction applied here?
- brendoelfrendo 1y ago
  That's not what the public interest requirement means. In fact, the FCC's own website says "the public interest is best served by permitting free expression of views."[0] And anyway, there are specific carve outs for late-night programming. [0] https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/fcc-and-speech https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/fcc-and-speech
  - rdtsc 1y ago
    However the same website they describes the exceptions and limits: https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public-and-broadcasting#JOURNALISM https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public-and-broadcasting#JOUR... > Hoaxes. The broadcast by a station of false information concerning a crime or catastrophe violates the FCC's rules if: > The station licensee knew that the information was false There quite a few other rules, obscenity and violence and such. But they probably got Jimmy on the crime that was just committed + spreading false information.
    - SauciestGNU 1y ago
      Nothing he said was false though, the Republicans were trying to paint the shooter as anyone other than one of their own. It might be that he's actually a leftist, but Kimmel described Republican behavior and did not actually make any assertions of fact regarding the alleged shooter.
      - rdtsc 1y ago
        There was some initial social media reaction portraying this guy as some hard right fascist or whatever, as well. So it wasn't something just Kimmel had come up with. It could be that by the time the show started more evidence came out and he was looking more one way, and Jimmy just had stale info or his staffers were lazy and didn't update him. > Nothing he said was false though, the Republicans were trying to paint the shooter as anyone other than one of their own. Yeah, and the show owners could have fought it. There might be a warning, a lawsuit, maybe a period to comply and make changes etc. But they folded immediately. They probably figured technically they could have explained it, but the PR aspect of it was a losing battle. Here is another part of the country flying flags half staff, and what is ABC's doing? Oh right, explaining away Kimmel's news and jokes and defending him. A lot of these corporations and their leaders can smell the way the wind blows and they really hate it when the wind blows away their profits, so they just react accordingly.
- digitaltrees 1y ago
  1. You can’t take someone’s property with out due process of law. There has been no showing that they violated that obligation. 2. The constitution has supremacy, so you can’t violate someone’s first amendment rights in service of FCC regulations. In fact there is a more than credible argument that criticizing and mocking politicians is an essential public service.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
rdtsc 1y ago
As it turns out the government can dictate how the broadcast frequencies are used, including dictate things about the content. The company could have switched to online only and continued the show. Heck, they should have called uncle sam's bluff maybe and see what happened. They are not sending Jimmy to gulag or arresting him. Jimmy can still continue his show just maybe on his own youtube channel or his own online platform or something.
- pseudalopex 1y ago
  "[g]overnment officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors"[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association_of_America_v._Vullo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association_of_...
  - rdtsc 1y ago
    The executive branch controls the FCC which controls broadcasting licenses. Specifically broadcast journalism over the air is controlled https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public-and-broadcasting#JOURNALISM https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public-and-broadcasting#JOUR... Note: > Nevertheless, there are two issues related to broadcast journalism that are subject to Commission regulation: hoaxes and news distortion. Hoaxes. The broadcast by a station of false information concerning a crime or catastrophe violates the FCC's rules if [...] The station licensee knew that the information was false. All Jimmy had to do, it seems, was to say "this is all a made up joke" and move on, instead of presenting whatever he was saying as information or news. > If a station airs a disclaimer before the broadcast that clearly characterizes the program as fiction and the disclaimer is presented in a reasonable manner under the circumstances, the program is presumed not to pose foreseeable public harm. > However, as public trustees, broadcast licensees may not intentionally distort the news. The FCC has stated that “rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest.” The Commission will investigate a station for news distortion if it receives documented evidence of rigging or slanting, such as testimony or other documentation, from individuals with direct personal knowledge that a licensee or its management engaged in the intentional falsification of the news. Of particular concern would be evidence of the direction to employees from station management to falsify the news. However, absent such a compelling showing, the Commission will not intervene. Again, Jimmy didn't get sent to the gulag and didn't go to jail. He can still run a show on his own platform or a youtube channel or maybe Netflix will sign him up. Heck, after this, I'd say he would easily triple his view numbers if anything.
tim333 1y ago
That goes: >Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press... It doesn't say anything about the FCC not pressuring Disney. They are not congress and are not making a law. I mean I don't agree with it but it's not clear it violates the actual text of the first amendment as written in the constitution. The spirit of it perhaps.
- epistasis 1y ago
  > law ... abridging the freedom of speech Where does the FCC's authority to do anything come from? Congressional laws. If the FCC is using the laws to abridge free speech it is clearly an unconstitutional action. It's so weird to see sooooooo many people trying to make up reasons to justify clearly unconstitutional behavior, with extremely motivated reasoning, or perhaps motivated lack of reason. You cited exactly what you are saying doesn't exist! This is baffling behavior.
  - tim333 1y ago
    I'm actually motivated the other way - I don't like Trump attacking freedom of speech, along with most others. But I'm skeptical of the legal situation. That said I know little about the laws.

Yep! And he wrote the whole chapter in Project 2025 outlining that he would do exactly this, in advance of taking the job. Who is going to stop him? The Supreme Court? Not likely.

SoftTalker 1y ago

Not necessarily. Broadcasters have a license from the government to use the airwaves and they are obligated to act in the public interest. So some restrictions apply to them.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> Broadcasters have a license from the government to use the airwaves and they are obligated to act in the public interest. So some restrictions apply to them. Necessarily. Carr threatened to revoke licenses based on the political speech of ABC. That's clearly unconstitutional. Trump followed up by saying licenses should be revoked for criticism of himself. Unitary President cuts both ways. If this is okay, the next Democrat who's President needs to shut down Fox News and their ilk or be impeached. (From the perspective of fomenting rebellion and generally posing a threat to our republic, Jimmy Kimmel isn't even on the list.)
- billfor 1y ago
  Fox news doesn't have a broadcast license. ABC does. As with redistricting, democrats are limited because things are already biased in their favor. Broadcast networks are all center-left at this point, if not then show me one major broadcaster that is center right. Democrats basically have nobody to go after. To your point, The Democrats, when back in power, could extend licensing issues into cableTV, etc... and attempt to fire Fox or Newsmax commentators... I would argue the Biden administration already attempted to do a form of this, as we saw with Facebook, Twitter, et al, the last administration certainly tried influencing the online arena. I just think both sides do it, although on this forum it seems to trigger mostly the left side.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > would argue the Biden administration already attempted to do a form of this, as we saw with Facebook, Twitter, et al, the last administration certainly tried influencing the online arena Not comparable. That said, I agree—if this precedent stands, there should be personal liability for Newsmax commenters under a future administration. (And, of course, they should be barred from federal property.) One would also go after the online streaming companies to delist their content. Google and Meta are constantly under antitrust controlled. TikTok is government owned. And you could start knocking on X with its money-transfer ambitions and Elon’s robotaxi approvals (to say nothing of federal contracts).
  - kenjackson 1y ago
    Fox News doesn’t have a broadcast license but Fox Broadcasting does. If people are doing this sort of extortion, it wouldn’t be a leap to see the whole Fox corporation in the crosshairs. This is all just a terrible precedent for what the future holds.
    - SauciestGNU 1y ago
      Except non-NewsCorp Fox assets were bought by none other than Disney! It's a gordian knot of monopolistic corruption!
- yannyu 1y ago
  Fox News is technically cable, as the other poster under you has noted, which is a favored defense for this sort of discussion. What they ignore is that local Fox affiliate stations who are also licensed by the FCC have a history of aligning with Fox News misinformation campaigns relating to covid, election integrity, Russia and Ukraine, Palestine, etc. So no, the FCC licensed world is not left leaning, and these local affiliate stations should absolutely be held to the same standard.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
akerl_ 1y ago
Which restriction applied here?
brendoelfrendo 1y ago
That's not what the public interest requirement means. In fact, the FCC's own website says "the public interest is best served by permitting free expression of views."[0] And anyway, there are specific carve outs for late-night programming. [0] https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/fcc-and-speech https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/fcc-and-speech
- rdtsc 1y ago
  However the same website they describes the exceptions and limits: https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public-and-broadcasting#JOURNALISM https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public-and-broadcasting#JOUR... > Hoaxes. The broadcast by a station of false information concerning a crime or catastrophe violates the FCC's rules if: > The station licensee knew that the information was false There quite a few other rules, obscenity and violence and such. But they probably got Jimmy on the crime that was just committed + spreading false information.
  - SauciestGNU 1y ago
    Nothing he said was false though, the Republicans were trying to paint the shooter as anyone other than one of their own. It might be that he's actually a leftist, but Kimmel described Republican behavior and did not actually make any assertions of fact regarding the alleged shooter.
    - rdtsc 1y ago
      There was some initial social media reaction portraying this guy as some hard right fascist or whatever, as well. So it wasn't something just Kimmel had come up with. It could be that by the time the show started more evidence came out and he was looking more one way, and Jimmy just had stale info or his staffers were lazy and didn't update him. > Nothing he said was false though, the Republicans were trying to paint the shooter as anyone other than one of their own. Yeah, and the show owners could have fought it. There might be a warning, a lawsuit, maybe a period to comply and make changes etc. But they folded immediately. They probably figured technically they could have explained it, but the PR aspect of it was a losing battle. Here is another part of the country flying flags half staff, and what is ABC's doing? Oh right, explaining away Kimmel's news and jokes and defending him. A lot of these corporations and their leaders can smell the way the wind blows and they really hate it when the wind blows away their profits, so they just react accordingly.
digitaltrees 1y ago
1. You can’t take someone’s property with out due process of law. There has been no showing that they violated that obligation. 2. The constitution has supremacy, so you can’t violate someone’s first amendment rights in service of FCC regulations. In fact there is a more than credible argument that criticizing and mocking politicians is an essential public service.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

rdtsc 1y ago

As it turns out the government can dictate how the broadcast frequencies are used, including dictate things about the content. The company could have switched to online only and continued the show. Heck, they should have called uncle sam's bluff maybe and see what happened. They are not sending Jimmy to gulag or arresting him. Jimmy can still continue his show just maybe on his own youtube channel or his own online platform or something.

pseudalopex 1y ago
"[g]overnment officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors"[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association_of_America_v._Vullo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association_of_...
- rdtsc 1y ago
  The executive branch controls the FCC which controls broadcasting licenses. Specifically broadcast journalism over the air is controlled https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public-and-broadcasting#JOURNALISM https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public-and-broadcasting#JOUR... Note: > Nevertheless, there are two issues related to broadcast journalism that are subject to Commission regulation: hoaxes and news distortion. Hoaxes. The broadcast by a station of false information concerning a crime or catastrophe violates the FCC's rules if [...] The station licensee knew that the information was false. All Jimmy had to do, it seems, was to say "this is all a made up joke" and move on, instead of presenting whatever he was saying as information or news. > If a station airs a disclaimer before the broadcast that clearly characterizes the program as fiction and the disclaimer is presented in a reasonable manner under the circumstances, the program is presumed not to pose foreseeable public harm. > However, as public trustees, broadcast licensees may not intentionally distort the news. The FCC has stated that “rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest.” The Commission will investigate a station for news distortion if it receives documented evidence of rigging or slanting, such as testimony or other documentation, from individuals with direct personal knowledge that a licensee or its management engaged in the intentional falsification of the news. Of particular concern would be evidence of the direction to employees from station management to falsify the news. However, absent such a compelling showing, the Commission will not intervene. Again, Jimmy didn't get sent to the gulag and didn't go to jail. He can still run a show on his own platform or a youtube channel or maybe Netflix will sign him up. Heck, after this, I'd say he would easily triple his view numbers if anything.

tim333 1y ago

That goes: >Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press... It doesn't say anything about the FCC not pressuring Disney. They are not congress and are not making a law. I mean I don't agree with it but it's not clear it violates the actual text of the first amendment as written in the constitution. The spirit of it perhaps.

epistasis 1y ago
> law ... abridging the freedom of speech Where does the FCC's authority to do anything come from? Congressional laws. If the FCC is using the laws to abridge free speech it is clearly an unconstitutional action. It's so weird to see sooooooo many people trying to make up reasons to justify clearly unconstitutional behavior, with extremely motivated reasoning, or perhaps motivated lack of reason. You cited exactly what you are saying doesn't exist! This is baffling behavior.
- tim333 1y ago
  I'm actually motivated the other way - I don't like Trump attacking freedom of speech, along with most others. But I'm skeptical of the legal situation. That said I know little about the laws.