I find it hard to take that threat seriously. There would be blood on the street - real blood - americans won't stand for it. (Some will of course but enough would not that the fcc would blink)

▲

Cheer2171 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

FCC chair literally said "We can do this the easy way or the hard way" the easy way being ABC cancelling it, the hard way being pulling the license.

And if you wait for the license to be pulled as your red line, you misunderstand how this works. This is an actual threat, the kind of thing that mobsters get RICO charges for. The threat has done its work and served the purposes of the administration. The crime has already taken place. The mobster says "but he agreed to pay the protection money and nobody ever actually broke his kneecaps"

"These companies can find ways to change conduct and take actions on Kimmel,” said Carr, a Trump appointee, “or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/article/jimmy-kimmel-liv...

▲

bluGill 16 hours ago | parent [-]

Anyone can say anything. Follow through and abc can just ignore the order and tell everyone watching what is happening. They have the power of the pen and will get people running to their congressman.

they blinked so we will never know.

▲

ethbr1 15 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> 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.

▲

epistasis 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

▲

Cheer2171 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

▲

bluGill 7 hours ago | parent [-]

It is not fine. I'm saying they should have had the guts to fight

	▲	throw0101a 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> It is not fine. I'm saying they should have had the guts to fight Yes they should have. But ideally we should live in a society that guts aren't necessary because threats are not made, especially from the government. It's the second part that's the everyone is really worried about.

▲

Cheer2171 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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."

▲

7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

BoiledCabbage 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I find it hard to take that threat seriously.

Based on everything that has gone one that seems to me at least very naive. There was practically a textbook length document outlining what the administrstion planned to do if they got in power and they are going step by step through it.

The president said there are 4 comedians (who make fun of him) that he wants to get off the air. After this event he posted something along the lines of "2 down, 2 to go." Followed by "Why don't you just force the other two out now?".

There was nothing wrong about what was said - they just already have a plan and pick any small item to claim is the cause.

For example they want to defund left leaning non profits and think tanks. They don't have a reason to. But now they are trying to claim they motivated the Kirk killing - not because they think it did, but because it's what is already their plan.

People still thinking they are being objectives or that there are "norms" left, in my opinion haven't been paying attention.

▲

epistasis 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The threat was taken seriously.

I don't believe you yet that Americans won't stand for it. There have been so many red lines crossed that most Americans don't even know what's going on.

▲

infinite8s 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Would you have gone to the streets for it?

▲

brendoelfrendo 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Americans are standing for it. There's a lot of "I'm a free speech absolutist, but..." coming out of the American right-wing right now.