3 ms·

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 ch

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.

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.