5 ms·

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 t

by 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.
  - willmarch 1y ago
    The US government threatened a private company in an attempt to suppress speech that is protected under the 1st Amendment from government interference. This is a violation of the US Constitution. Full stop.
    - rdtsc 1y ago
      > This is a violation of the US Constitution. Full stop I needs a comma, or semicolon at least. > The US government threatened a private company Threatened with what, imprisonment, death? They threatened to pull the FCC license. It turns out broadcast content is controlled by the government. It always has been. Kimmel can and should continue saying what he was saying on his own website or platform or whatever. > This is a violation of the US Constitution. Ok, let's say it's a clear cut violation, with a full stop, an open and shut case. ABC can file a lawsuit, it's an easy win isn't then? And, plus they get to show how they fought and won over fascism. Why did they fold so quickly then?
  - kingkawn 1y ago
    That’s a lotta words to justify complete bs
    - rdtsc 1y ago
      > That’s a lotta words to justify complete bs If that's the rebuttal, I'll take it as an acknowledgement that's it's right.
      - kingkawn 1y ago
        How mouth breather of you
        rdtsc 1y ago
        I do use moth my mouth and my nose for breathing. Not sure how that matters, but ok.
rfrey 1y ago
[flagged]
- rdtsc 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - willmarch 1y ago
    In the sense of both of them being violations of the US Constitution, yes they are exactly the same.
    - rdtsc 1y ago
      Absolutely. That perfectly illustrates my point. Thank you.
beej71 1y ago
If that's the case, the next Democrat is definitely ending right wing talk radio.
- 28304283409234 1y ago
  What on earth makes you think there will be a next Democrat?
- rdtsc 1y ago
  Yeah that is definitely on the table, we'll see what happens. Here, interestingly, just a threat was enough. I wonder why the owners didn't want to fight it at all? The speed with with they folded was very telling. As others mentioned, I suspect if they decided they just didn't want to keep paying Kimmel for the show. He was making somewhere around $15m/year or something they saw a chance to say "goodbye".
  - zzrrt 1y ago
    IANAL but this doesn’t get them out of their contract though. They could “say ‘goodbye’” anytime they wanted and continue paying the rest of the contract. They are submitting to what they view as either an existential threat, or the opportunity to make millions in the merger they want the FCC chair to approve.
    - rdtsc 1y ago
      It depends on what the contract says. Each side has various clauses to protect their interests, like say if Kimmel starting showing porn on his show, now the station risks FCC license they can drop him. I imagine there was something. Technically I think they could have fought, could have argued he was just describing the behavior of maga people or that his shows is all made up parody and everyone should know it, etc. However it would have been a losing PR battle even if the FCC lost eventually in court.
- jaybrendansmith 1y ago
  And what makes you think we will continue to have elections? This Project 25 is clearly a plan to destroy our Republic and subject us all to minority Christo-Fascist rule. We need to wake up and recognize what we are up against, or it is guaranteed to happen here.

by rdtsc 1y ago

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.
- willmarch 1y ago
  The US government threatened a private company in an attempt to suppress speech that is protected under the 1st Amendment from government interference. This is a violation of the US Constitution. Full stop.
  - rdtsc 1y ago
    > This is a violation of the US Constitution. Full stop I needs a comma, or semicolon at least. > The US government threatened a private company Threatened with what, imprisonment, death? They threatened to pull the FCC license. It turns out broadcast content is controlled by the government. It always has been. Kimmel can and should continue saying what he was saying on his own website or platform or whatever. > This is a violation of the US Constitution. Ok, let's say it's a clear cut violation, with a full stop, an open and shut case. ABC can file a lawsuit, it's an easy win isn't then? And, plus they get to show how they fought and won over fascism. Why did they fold so quickly then?
- kingkawn 1y ago
  That’s a lotta words to justify complete bs
  - rdtsc 1y ago
    > That’s a lotta words to justify complete bs If that's the rebuttal, I'll take it as an acknowledgement that's it's right.
    - kingkawn 1y ago
      How mouth breather of you
      - rdtsc 1y ago
        I do use moth my mouth and my nose for breathing. Not sure how that matters, but ok.

rfrey 1y ago

[flagged]

rdtsc 1y ago
[flagged]
- willmarch 1y ago
  In the sense of both of them being violations of the US Constitution, yes they are exactly the same.
  - rdtsc 1y ago
    Absolutely. That perfectly illustrates my point. Thank you.

beej71 1y ago

If that's the case, the next Democrat is definitely ending right wing talk radio.

28304283409234 1y ago
What on earth makes you think there will be a next Democrat?
rdtsc 1y ago
Yeah that is definitely on the table, we'll see what happens. Here, interestingly, just a threat was enough. I wonder why the owners didn't want to fight it at all? The speed with with they folded was very telling. As others mentioned, I suspect if they decided they just didn't want to keep paying Kimmel for the show. He was making somewhere around $15m/year or something they saw a chance to say "goodbye".
- zzrrt 1y ago
  IANAL but this doesn’t get them out of their contract though. They could “say ‘goodbye’” anytime they wanted and continue paying the rest of the contract. They are submitting to what they view as either an existential threat, or the opportunity to make millions in the merger they want the FCC chair to approve.
  - rdtsc 1y ago
    It depends on what the contract says. Each side has various clauses to protect their interests, like say if Kimmel starting showing porn on his show, now the station risks FCC license they can drop him. I imagine there was something. Technically I think they could have fought, could have argued he was just describing the behavior of maga people or that his shows is all made up parody and everyone should know it, etc. However it would have been a losing PR battle even if the FCC lost eventually in court.
jaybrendansmith 1y ago
And what makes you think we will continue to have elections? This Project 25 is clearly a plan to destroy our Republic and subject us all to minority Christo-Fascist rule. We need to wake up and recognize what we are up against, or it is guaranteed to happen here.