Fox News is technically cable, as the other poster under you has noted, which is a favored defense for this sort of discussion.

What they ignore is that local Fox affiliate stations who are also licensed by the FCC have a history of aligning with Fox News misinformation campaigns relating to covid, election integrity, Russia and Ukraine, Palestine, etc.

So no, the FCC licensed world is not left leaning, and these local affiliate stations should absolutely be held to the same standard.

Fox news doesn't have a broadcast license. ABC does. As with redistricting, democrats are limited because things are already biased in their favor. Broadcast networks are all center-left at this point, if not then show me one major broadcaster that is center right. Democrats basically have nobody to go after.

To your point, The Democrats, when back in power, could extend licensing issues into cableTV, etc... and attempt to fire Fox or Newsmax commentators... I would argue the Biden administration already attempted to do a form of this, as we saw with Facebook, Twitter, et al, the last administration certainly tried influencing the online arena.

I just think both sides do it, although on this forum it seems to trigger mostly the left side.

However the same website they describes the exceptions and limits:

https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public-and-broadcasting#JOUR...

> 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

There quite a few other rules, obscenity and violence and such. But they probably got Jimmy on the crime that was just committed + spreading false information.

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#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.

> Today: he's not been sent to jail.

> Tomorrow: it's not like they executed him.

Yes threatening to pull the FCC license and canceling Kimmel's show is exactly like torturing, killing and imprisoning people in labor and death camps. We should all fell very sorry for poor Jimmy, we don't know how he'll even manage.

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.

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".

What on earth makes you think there will be a next Democrat?

> The fact that the shooter was conservative, from a conservative family?

He implied it was trump maga head or some kind. Not just implied, he made it sound like it's a sure thing. Moreover, it applied to a crime that was just committed. When FCC threatened them ABC knew they couldn't appeal or fight. It wasn't worth it, it would have been a PR disaster.

This guy is nothing like a maga whatever, he as trans girlfriend, leftist views, parents said that much (they are the ones who turned him even), wrote "Bella ciao" on bullets and "catch, fascist" and most importantly heshoots a trump-loving personality like Kirk. How did Kimmel arrive at him being some trump fan, I don't see it. That's the intentionally spreading misinformation related to a crime, good enough for FCC to threaten him and good enough for ABC to realize they'll be in a losing game defending him.

> Anyone can say anything.

Not as the federal government, because it explicitly lacks the freedom of speech citizens are ensured by the Constitution.

And absent a first amendment claim, the best defense they can come up with would be 'We were joking.'

Which, given the well-cited history of coercion by this administration (both in verbalized plans and actions), would be a hard defense to make.

Saying that they blinked seems to be an admission that it was a threat with impact, no?

What is there to blink about if it was not a threat?

If I walk up to someone with a gun and wave the gun around and demand they give me their money or I'll shoot them, it does not matter if I was "serious" or not about the threat. If I tell a jury that I wouldn't have actually ever have shot the person, and that they just decided to give me their money because they didn't really need it so much, I'm not sure any jury would agree, unless I was a hell of a salesman.

You seem to be saying that what happened is fine because it never actually got to a truly unconstitutional or get-in-the-streets worthy level of censorship. You seem to be saying if they actually revoked the license, that would be the red line. But because they never did, no harm, no foul.

What we are saying is that just by making the threat, the censorship has full and complete effect. They don't need to revoke the license to use the power of the government to influence constitutionalally protected speech. They just need to threaten.

> Anyone can say anything.

This is illegal: "Nice business you've got here," the police officer says. "Shame that crime is on the rise. And we don't have as many officers to patrol. But give a donation and we'll take care of you. Don't and we'll stop answering your 911 calls."

Now replace with "We heard what you said about the mayor. Apologize or we'll stop answering your 911 calls."

Nixon didn't have a thicker skin, he was just more patient and calculating in his revenge. Have we already forgotten his "enemies list"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon%27s_enemies_list