4 ms·
> The FCC is barred by law from trying to prevent the broadcast of any point of view. The Communications Act prohibits the FCC from censoring broadcast materia
by voxadam 1y ago
> The FCC is barred by law from trying to prevent the broadcast of any point of view. The
Communications Act prohibits the FCC from censoring broadcast material, in most cases, and from
making any regulation that would interfere with freedom of speech. Expressions of views that do not
involve a “clear and present danger of serious, substantive evil” come under the protection of the
Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press and prevents suppression
of these expressions by the FCC. According to an FCC opinion on this subject, “the public interest is
best served by permitting free expression of views.” This principle ensures that the most diverse and
opposing opinions will be expressed, even though some may be highly offensive.
Source: https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/the_fcc_and_freedom_of_speech.pdf https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/the_fcc_and_freedom_...
"Last Reviewed: 12/30/19" (Trump's first term)
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y agoHighly cherry-picked. The next paragraph says that FCC limits broadcast of indecent and profane material. As I said, the FCC is allowed to enforce a certain morality. It seems clear that the morality being enforced would fall in line with the ruling power of the day.
- voxadam 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.” What part of that sentence qualifies as either indecent or profane?
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y agoI said that the FCC is allowed to enforce morality. The morality in question here is lying about someone being assassinated for their political views. The right sees Charlie Kirk as a political martyr (e.g. their MLK) and they don't want that taken away.
- davorak 1y ago> The morality in question here is lying about someone being assassinated for their political views. Please quote Jimmy to clear up what you think the lie was.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y agoCharlie Kirk was assassinated for his political views. Stated differently: someone with an opposing political viewpoint killed Charlie in order to stop Charlie from promoting Charlie's politics. Jimmy Kimmel said that Charlie Kirk was killed by someone with the same political views as Charlie. That is the lie.
- davorak 1y agoIs there a quote from jimmy you can share and that I can reference?
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago[flagged]
- davorak 1y agoI can not start to understand your position without a quote. It has to be something Jimmy said that lead to your beliefs, I know of no better place to start.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y agoNo one needs davorak to understand their position. A large swath of the US is angry at Jimmy Kimmel profaning their martyr through a gross lie. Those angry people have power right now and used their power to punish Jimmy Kimmel. If you don't understand that, it doesn't affect those people at all.
- platevoltage 1y agoI don't think that's what did it. It was the showing of Trump being asked about his "friend" Charlie Kirk being killed, for which his response was "They're building my ballroom. It's gonna be the best ballroom. Trump has been trying to get Kimmel removed for a while for making fun of him. This was just an opportunity.
- xracy 1y agoWhat was the opportunity in that segment? Surely airing things the POTUS said is not a limitation of Freedom of the Press? The thing about the FCC threatening Kimmel for this speech, is that someone needs to identify what was problematic about the speech other than "I didn't like that he said it." I would love for someone to explain to me what the problematic part of the statement was, because I think then we could have a more substantive discussion. As is, this is pretty clearly a 1st amendment violation by the FCC chair as his statements demonstrably chilled speech (it's hard to get much clearer an example than this legally).
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- duskwuff 1y agoObscenity, indecency, and profanity are narrowly defined by the FCC: https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-profane-broadcasts https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-pr... Kimmel's performance was clearly not obscene or indecent - it did not depict or describe sexual conduct or excretory organs - and it aired after 10 PM, so whether it was profane is irrelevant.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y agobad reading comprehension. here is what I said: >As I said, the FCC is allowed to enforce a certain morality. It seems clear that the morality being enforced would fall in line with the ruling power of the day.
- duskwuff 1y agoAnd what you said was incorrect. Under 1A, the only content which the FCC can ban outright is obscenity, defined as per the document I linked; see FCC v. Pacifica for context.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y agoThe FCC is allowed to enforce a certain morality. You actually agree with me here, since we both cited obscenity as a clear example. I also assert that the morality being enforced by the FCC [in a given time period] will fall in line with the morality of the rulers of [that time period]. That is a descriptive statement. Which part am I wrong about?
- duskwuff 1y agoYou are wrong about this part: > The FCC is allowed to enforce a certain morality. As I said previously, the FCC is bound by the First Amendment. They do not have the power to restrict speech, whether on grounds of "morality" or otherwise. Obscenity is not considered speech as far as 1A is concerned, so the FCC is able to ban it. I disagree with this categorization, but it is what it is.