FCC aside, how is it any different from ABC canceling Rosanne Barr because of something she said? They may cancel whomever and whatever they want, which in the past has been due to pressure from the outside, justified or not.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/roseanne-barr-obama-adviser-...

▲

croon 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> FCC aside, how is it any different from ABC canceling Rosanne Barr because of something she said? They may cancel whomever and whatever they want, which in the past has been due to pressure from the outside, justified or not.

You are trying to draw a conclusion from the information available, and then you ask: What if I ignore the central piece of evidence?

▲

abnercoimbre 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Excuse me? "pressure from the outside" in this case is a government regulator. Furthermore, ABC wants pending mergers approved by this administration. We don't notice the huge, gaping difference?

▲

7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

_DeadFred_ 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

'Other than the government pressure, from the head of the agency that has direct oversight and is currently deciding on a huge FCC exemption request and who stated we can do this the hard way or the easy way when it came to punishing Jimmy Kimmel....'

▲

daveguy 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The first amendment of our Constitution explicitly protects against the government as the censor. The head of the FCC going on Fox to call for it, is an overreach. You do realize the FCC is part of the executive branch, right?

▲

billfor 8 hours ago | parent [-]

But it’s not just the government even assuming your comment about the first amendment is correct. Sinclair + Nexstar are about 80% of the stations and they both refused to carry it, so there’s a financial component. I believe their affiliates were the first to cancel even before the FCC comments. Why should ABC lose 80% of their income.

https://x.com/WeAreSinclair/status/1968471160359645658

▲

daveguy 8 hours ago | parent [-]

The first amendment restricts the government.

	▲	intended 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		There is no real engagement with your core point. What you are going to see is an evolutionary approach to finding which message is the most able to defuse umbrage, and further right leaning interests. If it’s useful to argue for free speech in one breath, then for censorship in the next, followed by “its just words” - it will be argued in that order. The utility function is politics, not reason or logic. Getting people to engage, and get tied up in the logic, is a feature not a bug. It wastes energy and creates the impression that this is an issue resolved with words and understanding.