5 ms·

Rand Paul: FCC chair had "no business" intervening in ABC/Kimmel controversy

125 points by voxadam 1y ago

SilverElfin 1y ago
But they didn’t intervene. He made a statement indicating they’d look into it. Action from FCC would require the commissioners to vote. Not just a unilateral choice by the chair. There is also some allowance for the FCC to regulate content under some circumstances, and it has been upheld as constitutional previously. Brendan Carr, the FCC chair, rejected doing anything about online content because it would be unconstitutional. In spirit I don’t think government or large companies should be moderating or censoring speech. But Rand Paul should be focusing on the precedence of FCC being able to regulate things like “obscenity”.
- eesmith 1y ago
  Did the FCC intervene in any sort of regulatory sense? No, that would be the "hard way", which didn't happen. Did FCC chair Carr use the threat of regulatory power to intervene in internal business at ABC? Getting ABC to obey in advance sure seems like the implied "easy way." Both fit the first definition of "intervene" at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/intervene https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/intervene - "To become involved in a situation, so as to alter or prevent an action"
- willmarch 1y ago
  On these reported facts, this looks like unconstitutional government-induced censorship. A court applying Vullo, Backpage, and Bantam Books would likely view the official’s statements as coercive retaliation for protected speech.
  - stretchwithme 1y ago
    You mean like FCC fining people over Janet Jackson's boob? You have freedom of the press, when you own a press. But the spectrum is not owned by the licensees. There are rules. Limits. I am not for government owning the spectrum. But that's the current situation.
    - willmarch 1y ago
      Broadcast indecency rules (like those for a wardrobe malfunction) are a narrow exception and don’t authorize the government to punish political viewpoints; even on publicly licensed spectrum, officials can’t wield licensing power as a cudgel against disfavored speech, because the 1st Amendment forbids it.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
- Sparkle-san 1y ago
  He didn't intervene in the say way that a mobster doesn't make threats when he states "nice place you got here, be a shame if something were to happen to it."
- legitster 1y ago
  The problem isn't limited to the FCC in this case. The FCC doesn't actually have to act - it could be someone in the SEC, it could be the DOJ, or (as we have learned) it can literally be about bags of cash. The FCC chair's statement was a bit of an indirect threat ("Pity if someone looked into your affiliates licenses"). But the timing makes it clear they were at least aware of and complicit in the backroom dealings that led to the show being taken off the air.
  - potato3732842 1y ago
    There's a different between making a threat and posing a threat. The reason we're having this discussion at all is because we've vested too much power in bureaucracies that have too much discretion in how they use it.
    - tw04 1y ago
      No, the reason we're having this discussion is because the current Supreme Court doesn't seem to actually be interested in precedence or existing law, just saying yes to whatever whim Trump has this week. Under any normally functioning government, the head of the FCC would never threaten a television station because it's both an obvious violation of the first amendment, and under literally any other administration would have resulted in immediate dismissal.
      - bmelton 1y ago
        JFK and LBJ systematically leveraged the FCC's obligation to uphold the Fairness Doctrine to weaponize mass-produced complaints against right-leaning radio shows to legally harass them In 1963 the FCC passed the Cullman Doctrine, which was an attempt to double-down on those efforts by bankrupting those who literally couldn't afford to cover equal time Nixon used the FCC to threaten the Washington Post with licensure revocation in an attempt to get them to squash coverage of Watergate Presidents on both sides of recent history have used the might of the government to demand abject censorship on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms. The prior sitting president attempted to establish a ministry of truth, slated as a new entity intended to reside within the department of homeland security so as to supercharge those efforts, and appointed Nina "I believe I should be allowed to edit other people's tweets" Jankowicz to executive director None of these are healthy, but the idea that Carr's actions are somehow the result of the modern Supreme Court's actions requires us to ignore all of American history before Trump's second election
- b0sk 1y ago
  There's actually a word for it - jawboning
- xnx 1y ago
  The Supreme Court decision in NRA v. Vullo (2024) states that a government actor can't threaten legal action unless content is removed by a social media platform (or a TV network in this case).
- anigbrowl 1y ago
  Nice HN account. Be a shame if it were to be shadowbanned.
  - llllm 1y ago
    Done
  - hagbard_c 1y ago
    Don't worry, they're free for the taking. Burn one, start another, rinse and repeat. It is the only way to stay afloat if you paddle against the stream here.
    - anigbrowl 1y ago
      It seems the joke went over your head. The point was that vague probabilistic statements equivalent to Carr's 'we can do this the easy way or we can do this the hard way' are easily understood as thinly veiled threats even if they're not delivered on official FCC notepaper and written in verbose bureaucratic language leveraging established procedural rules.
      - hagbard_c 1y ago
        I just made a statement of fact in response to your 'joke'. If you doubt the veracity of my statement it would be interesting to know why.
mensetmanusman 1y ago
[flagged]
- tw04 1y ago
  Did you have a sibling growing up? Did you ever have that sibling beat the crap out of you and tell you it'd be worse if you told mom about it? The chair of the FCC literally threatened them in public. It doesn't matter if "ABC admitted they didn't get pressure" in some attempt to appease Trump. We all got to watch and hear it for ourselves.
- suzdude 1y ago
  The chair of the FCC said: >What people don’t understand is that the broadcasters … have a license granted by us at the FCC, and that comes with it an obligation to operate in the public interest. When we see stuff like this, look, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct, on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead. Do you really want to pretend that he is no applying pressure by threatening businesses who broadcast speech he doesn't like?
  - cvwright 1y ago
    So you’re telling me that, in the past 10 years, this was the only speech on network TV that the Trump crowd didn’t like? Kimmel got caught spreading blatant falsehood about who the shooter was. That has always been against the rules for public airwaves.
    - suzdude 1y ago
      > We hit 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 doing everything they can to score political points from it There's Mr. Kimmel's quote. Where did he lie? He never said what Mr. Robinson's political affiliations are or where.
      - 1y ago
mindslight 1y ago
So presumably Rand Paul supports impeachment and conviction, right? The Supreme Council has Decreed that the only possible check on this naked corruption is impeachment by Congress, so you either support impeachment or you're just grandstanding.
- nickff 1y ago
  If the FCC chair was the one engaged in wrong-doing (as Paul seems to believe), they would be the prime candidate for impeachment. In any case, it seems like Paul thinks that the previous administration was also engaging in censorship, and there were no impeachments in that case either, so perhaps he does not believe that censorship is a 'high crime or misdemeanor'.
  - xp84 1y ago
    I think wherever you stand on the left vs. right spectrum, it's clear now that "High crimes and misdemeanors" is now de facto defined only as "stuff we don't like that the other party's guy did." Trump could openly commit treason and probably not even be impeached ny his party, let alone removed. But I don't for a second believe that the Democratic Party would cooperate with "their" person being impeached now either, except if it was politically advantageous for them (for instance, to remove an unpopular Democrat for an embarrassing misstep when there was a popular VP ready to go). No way would they impeach for crimes of overstepping presidential authority to do something the President from The West Wing would be proud of, for instance.
- mothballed 1y ago
  The House has the sole power of bringing impeachment, Rand is in the Senate. If he did the thing you ask, he would just be 'grandstanding' on something he has no vote to bring forward, which your statement would appear to damn him for.
  - anonymars 1y ago
    This splits hairs. He can still support it, or not. And the message says "supports impeachment and conviction"
suzdude 1y ago
He could have said, "No comment'. But a Project 2025 co-author felt he wanted to illegally use his position in government to silence those who he disagreed with.
- donatj 1y ago
  > Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) slammed Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr for policing speech I don't understand what you're taking from this, and I'm guessing you didn't read it.
  - mlinsey 1y ago
    GP was agreeing with Rand Paul. Paul was not a Project 2025 co-author, Brendan Carr was
ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
The FCC exists (in part) to enforce a certain morality on public broadcasters. Whatever we think about that today, that was a core responsibility of the FCC when it started and that still exists today.
- gwd 1y ago
  I'd be all for bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. ETA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
    Yes please
  - TacticalCoder 1y ago
    [dead]
  - smegger001 1y ago
    problem is who gets to decide that both sides are bing presented fairly? do you think that Fox Newsmax and OAN are going to be under the same pressure to give the liberal viewpoint as MSNBC and CNN will to show a righting viewpoint?
    - koolba 1y ago
      > problem is who gets to decide that both sides are bing presented fairly? There’s also more than two sides to an issue. The supposed fairness doctrine was utter nonsense for many many reasons.
  - imiric 1y ago
    The fairness doctrine was a good thing, but it existed in a different time. Bringing it back today wouldn't address the main issue which is the internet. When everyone is given a loudspeaker, and the power to create an audience of millions; when "journalism" is equivalent to any random opinion; when anyone with the will and a negligible amount of resources can promote their agenda... No amount of oversight can bring back balanced discussion about actual facts. Reversing a post-truth society cannot happen without radical disruptions to the system that got us here in the first place.
Animats 1y ago
Kimmel will be back on the air next week.[1] [1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2025/09/22/jimmy-kimmel-suspension-ends-return-to-abc/86298338007/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2025/09/22/j...
- jonny_eh 1y ago
  Tomorrow, September 23. > Following a suspension of the show for host Jimmy Kimmel's comments about the death of Charlie Kirk, Disney says "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" will return to air on Tuesday, Sept 23.
  - anigbrowl 1y ago
    Just in time for the Rapture - COINCIDENCE??!?!?!?!?!?!?! Edit: apparently HN readers are unaware that there's a viral belief going around that the Rapture is happening between Tuesday and Wednesday of this week.
    - platevoltage 1y ago
      I thought the Rapture was happening last night when I was shaken from a peaceful slumber by a 4.3 earthquake.
    - Jtsummers 1y ago
      RaptureTok, that was not a term I ever thought I'd read. I'll be playing D&D right in the middle of their predicted Rapture-window, guess I'll still be here on Thursday.
    - rimunroe 1y ago
      > Edit: apparently HN readers are unaware that there's a viral belief going around that the Rapture is happening between Tuesday and Wednesday of this week. While it's certainly being talked about a lot on TikTok, but I'm not sure how many people are posting there about how they really think it's going to happen. Last I looked a couple of days ago it looked like a few dozen accounts at most were posting original content about it, but there were tons of people making content satirizing it. In general I think "trends" on TikTok get treated as though they're far more widespread than similar phenomena on other platforms, like Twitter.
stretchwithme 1y ago
In a free market, the spectrum would be private property.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
  Tautology.
- mindslight 1y ago
  No, it wouldn't. The idea of spectrum allocation depends on government intervention. In a free market, transmitting radio waves would be a free for all.
  - mindslight 1y ago
    ^ no idea why this was downvoted. I'm sympathetic to the idea that most real estate boundaries, even though currently enforced by government, are Schelling points that could mostly persist with private enforcement. But that seems like a tall argument for RF frequencies. Sure, if you were right next to the equivalent of an AM/FM station broadcast antenna, you wouldn't want to bother with trying to reuse that frequency. But if you were hundreds of miles away (where its signal is quite low), you could easily reuse the frequency with relatively small power transmitter. So the current exclusive use of radio frequencies is very much an artifact of government intervention.
platevoltage 1y ago
Every other year or so, Rand Paul pretends to actually be a libertarian.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
  It's his worst trait
Esophagus4 1y ago
[flagged]
- bongawonhav 1y ago
  [dead]

125 points by voxadam 1y ago

But they didn’t intervene. He made a statement indicating they’d look into it. Action from FCC would require the commissioners to vote. Not just a unilateral choice by the chair. There is also some allowance for the FCC to regulate content under some circumstances, and it has been upheld as constitutional previously. Brendan Carr, the FCC chair, rejected doing anything about online content because it would be unconstitutional. In spirit I don’t think government or large companies should be moderating or censoring speech. But Rand Paul should be focusing on the precedence of FCC being able to regulate things like “obscenity”.

eesmith 1y ago
Did the FCC intervene in any sort of regulatory sense? No, that would be the "hard way", which didn't happen. Did FCC chair Carr use the threat of regulatory power to intervene in internal business at ABC? Getting ABC to obey in advance sure seems like the implied "easy way." Both fit the first definition of "intervene" at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/intervene https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/intervene - "To become involved in a situation, so as to alter or prevent an action"
willmarch 1y ago
On these reported facts, this looks like unconstitutional government-induced censorship. A court applying Vullo, Backpage, and Bantam Books would likely view the official’s statements as coercive retaliation for protected speech.
- stretchwithme 1y ago
  You mean like FCC fining people over Janet Jackson's boob? You have freedom of the press, when you own a press. But the spectrum is not owned by the licensees. There are rules. Limits. I am not for government owning the spectrum. But that's the current situation.
  - willmarch 1y ago
    Broadcast indecency rules (like those for a wardrobe malfunction) are a narrow exception and don’t authorize the government to punish political viewpoints; even on publicly licensed spectrum, officials can’t wield licensing power as a cudgel against disfavored speech, because the 1st Amendment forbids it.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
Sparkle-san 1y ago
He didn't intervene in the say way that a mobster doesn't make threats when he states "nice place you got here, be a shame if something were to happen to it."
legitster 1y ago
The problem isn't limited to the FCC in this case. The FCC doesn't actually have to act - it could be someone in the SEC, it could be the DOJ, or (as we have learned) it can literally be about bags of cash. The FCC chair's statement was a bit of an indirect threat ("Pity if someone looked into your affiliates licenses"). But the timing makes it clear they were at least aware of and complicit in the backroom dealings that led to the show being taken off the air.
- potato3732842 1y ago
  There's a different between making a threat and posing a threat. The reason we're having this discussion at all is because we've vested too much power in bureaucracies that have too much discretion in how they use it.
  - tw04 1y ago
    No, the reason we're having this discussion is because the current Supreme Court doesn't seem to actually be interested in precedence or existing law, just saying yes to whatever whim Trump has this week. Under any normally functioning government, the head of the FCC would never threaten a television station because it's both an obvious violation of the first amendment, and under literally any other administration would have resulted in immediate dismissal.
    - bmelton 1y ago
      JFK and LBJ systematically leveraged the FCC's obligation to uphold the Fairness Doctrine to weaponize mass-produced complaints against right-leaning radio shows to legally harass them In 1963 the FCC passed the Cullman Doctrine, which was an attempt to double-down on those efforts by bankrupting those who literally couldn't afford to cover equal time Nixon used the FCC to threaten the Washington Post with licensure revocation in an attempt to get them to squash coverage of Watergate Presidents on both sides of recent history have used the might of the government to demand abject censorship on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms. The prior sitting president attempted to establish a ministry of truth, slated as a new entity intended to reside within the department of homeland security so as to supercharge those efforts, and appointed Nina "I believe I should be allowed to edit other people's tweets" Jankowicz to executive director None of these are healthy, but the idea that Carr's actions are somehow the result of the modern Supreme Court's actions requires us to ignore all of American history before Trump's second election
b0sk 1y ago
There's actually a word for it - jawboning
xnx 1y ago
The Supreme Court decision in NRA v. Vullo (2024) states that a government actor can't threaten legal action unless content is removed by a social media platform (or a TV network in this case).
anigbrowl 1y ago
Nice HN account. Be a shame if it were to be shadowbanned.
- llllm 1y ago
  Done
- hagbard_c 1y ago
  Don't worry, they're free for the taking. Burn one, start another, rinse and repeat. It is the only way to stay afloat if you paddle against the stream here.
  - anigbrowl 1y ago
    It seems the joke went over your head. The point was that vague probabilistic statements equivalent to Carr's 'we can do this the easy way or we can do this the hard way' are easily understood as thinly veiled threats even if they're not delivered on official FCC notepaper and written in verbose bureaucratic language leveraging established procedural rules.
    - hagbard_c 1y ago
      I just made a statement of fact in response to your 'joke'. If you doubt the veracity of my statement it would be interesting to know why.

mensetmanusman 1y ago

[flagged]

tw04 1y ago
Did you have a sibling growing up? Did you ever have that sibling beat the crap out of you and tell you it'd be worse if you told mom about it? The chair of the FCC literally threatened them in public. It doesn't matter if "ABC admitted they didn't get pressure" in some attempt to appease Trump. We all got to watch and hear it for ourselves.
suzdude 1y ago
The chair of the FCC said: >What people don’t understand is that the broadcasters … have a license granted by us at the FCC, and that comes with it an obligation to operate in the public interest. When we see stuff like this, look, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct, on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead. Do you really want to pretend that he is no applying pressure by threatening businesses who broadcast speech he doesn't like?
- cvwright 1y ago
  So you’re telling me that, in the past 10 years, this was the only speech on network TV that the Trump crowd didn’t like? Kimmel got caught spreading blatant falsehood about who the shooter was. That has always been against the rules for public airwaves.
  - suzdude 1y ago
    > We hit 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 doing everything they can to score political points from it There's Mr. Kimmel's quote. Where did he lie? He never said what Mr. Robinson's political affiliations are or where.
    - 1y ago

mindslight 1y ago

So presumably Rand Paul supports impeachment and conviction, right? The Supreme Council has Decreed that the only possible check on this naked corruption is impeachment by Congress, so you either support impeachment or you're just grandstanding.

nickff 1y ago
If the FCC chair was the one engaged in wrong-doing (as Paul seems to believe), they would be the prime candidate for impeachment. In any case, it seems like Paul thinks that the previous administration was also engaging in censorship, and there were no impeachments in that case either, so perhaps he does not believe that censorship is a 'high crime or misdemeanor'.
- xp84 1y ago
  I think wherever you stand on the left vs. right spectrum, it's clear now that "High crimes and misdemeanors" is now de facto defined only as "stuff we don't like that the other party's guy did." Trump could openly commit treason and probably not even be impeached ny his party, let alone removed. But I don't for a second believe that the Democratic Party would cooperate with "their" person being impeached now either, except if it was politically advantageous for them (for instance, to remove an unpopular Democrat for an embarrassing misstep when there was a popular VP ready to go). No way would they impeach for crimes of overstepping presidential authority to do something the President from The West Wing would be proud of, for instance.
mothballed 1y ago
The House has the sole power of bringing impeachment, Rand is in the Senate. If he did the thing you ask, he would just be 'grandstanding' on something he has no vote to bring forward, which your statement would appear to damn him for.
- anonymars 1y ago
  This splits hairs. He can still support it, or not. And the message says "supports impeachment and conviction"

suzdude 1y ago

He could have said, "No comment'. But a Project 2025 co-author felt he wanted to illegally use his position in government to silence those who he disagreed with.

donatj 1y ago
> Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) slammed Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr for policing speech I don't understand what you're taking from this, and I'm guessing you didn't read it.
- mlinsey 1y ago
  GP was agreeing with Rand Paul. Paul was not a Project 2025 co-author, Brendan Carr was

ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago

The FCC exists (in part) to enforce a certain morality on public broadcasters. Whatever we think about that today, that was a core responsibility of the FCC when it started and that still exists today.

gwd 1y ago
I'd be all for bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. ETA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
  Yes please
- TacticalCoder 1y ago
  [dead]
- smegger001 1y ago
  problem is who gets to decide that both sides are bing presented fairly? do you think that Fox Newsmax and OAN are going to be under the same pressure to give the liberal viewpoint as MSNBC and CNN will to show a righting viewpoint?
  - koolba 1y ago
    > problem is who gets to decide that both sides are bing presented fairly? There’s also more than two sides to an issue. The supposed fairness doctrine was utter nonsense for many many reasons.
- imiric 1y ago
  The fairness doctrine was a good thing, but it existed in a different time. Bringing it back today wouldn't address the main issue which is the internet. When everyone is given a loudspeaker, and the power to create an audience of millions; when "journalism" is equivalent to any random opinion; when anyone with the will and a negligible amount of resources can promote their agenda... No amount of oversight can bring back balanced discussion about actual facts. Reversing a post-truth society cannot happen without radical disruptions to the system that got us here in the first place.

Animats 1y ago

Kimmel will be back on the air next week.[1] [1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2025/09/22/jimmy-kimmel-suspension-ends-return-to-abc/86298338007/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2025/09/22/j...

jonny_eh 1y ago
Tomorrow, September 23. > Following a suspension of the show for host Jimmy Kimmel's comments about the death of Charlie Kirk, Disney says "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" will return to air on Tuesday, Sept 23.
- anigbrowl 1y ago
  Just in time for the Rapture - COINCIDENCE??!?!?!?!?!?!?! Edit: apparently HN readers are unaware that there's a viral belief going around that the Rapture is happening between Tuesday and Wednesday of this week.
  - platevoltage 1y ago
    I thought the Rapture was happening last night when I was shaken from a peaceful slumber by a 4.3 earthquake.
  - Jtsummers 1y ago
    RaptureTok, that was not a term I ever thought I'd read. I'll be playing D&D right in the middle of their predicted Rapture-window, guess I'll still be here on Thursday.
  - rimunroe 1y ago
    > Edit: apparently HN readers are unaware that there's a viral belief going around that the Rapture is happening between Tuesday and Wednesday of this week. While it's certainly being talked about a lot on TikTok, but I'm not sure how many people are posting there about how they really think it's going to happen. Last I looked a couple of days ago it looked like a few dozen accounts at most were posting original content about it, but there were tons of people making content satirizing it. In general I think "trends" on TikTok get treated as though they're far more widespread than similar phenomena on other platforms, like Twitter.

stretchwithme 1y ago

In a free market, the spectrum would be private property.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
Tautology.
mindslight 1y ago
No, it wouldn't. The idea of spectrum allocation depends on government intervention. In a free market, transmitting radio waves would be a free for all.
- mindslight 1y ago
  ^ no idea why this was downvoted. I'm sympathetic to the idea that most real estate boundaries, even though currently enforced by government, are Schelling points that could mostly persist with private enforcement. But that seems like a tall argument for RF frequencies. Sure, if you were right next to the equivalent of an AM/FM station broadcast antenna, you wouldn't want to bother with trying to reuse that frequency. But if you were hundreds of miles away (where its signal is quite low), you could easily reuse the frequency with relatively small power transmitter. So the current exclusive use of radio frequencies is very much an artifact of government intervention.

platevoltage 1y ago

Every other year or so, Rand Paul pretends to actually be a libertarian.

ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
It's his worst trait

Esophagus4 1y ago

[flagged]

bongawonhav 1y ago
[dead]