Not necessarily. Broadcasters have a license from the government to use the airwaves and they are obligated to act in the public interest. So some restrictions apply to them.

▲

digitaltrees 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

1. You can’t take someone’s property with out due process of law. There has been no showing that they violated that obligation. 2. The constitution has supremacy, so you can’t violate someone’s first amendment rights in service of FCC regulations.

In fact there is a more than credible argument that criticizing and mocking politicians is an essential public service.

▲

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

> Broadcasters have a license from the government to use the airwaves and they are obligated to act in the public interest. So some restrictions apply to them.

Necessarily.

Carr threatened to revoke licenses based on the political speech of ABC. That's clearly unconstitutional. Trump followed up by saying licenses should be revoked for criticism of himself. Unitary President cuts both ways.

If this is okay, the next Democrat who's President needs to shut down Fox News and their ilk or be impeached. (From the perspective of fomenting rebellion and generally posing a threat to our republic, Jimmy Kimmel isn't even on the list.)

▲

yannyu 15 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

▲

billfor 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

▲

kenjackson 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Fox News doesn’t have a broadcast license but Fox Broadcasting does. If people are doing this sort of extortion, it wouldn’t be a leap to see the whole Fox corporation in the crosshairs. This is all just a terrible precedent for what the future holds.

	▲	SauciestGNU 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Except non-NewsCorp Fox assets were bought by none other than Disney! It's a gordian knot of monopolistic corruption!

▲

JumpCrisscross 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> 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

Not comparable. That said, I agree—if this precedent stands, there should be personal liability for Newsmax commenters under a future administration. (And, of course, they should be barred from federal property.)

One would also go after the online streaming companies to delist their content. Google and Meta are constantly under antitrust controlled. TikTok is government owned. And you could start knocking on X with its money-transfer ambitions and Elon’s robotaxi approvals (to say nothing of federal contracts).

▲

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

Which restriction applied here?

▲

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

That's not what the public interest requirement means. In fact, the FCC's own website says "the public interest is best served by permitting free expression of views."[0] And anyway, there are specific carve outs for late-night programming.

[0] https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/fcc-and-speech

▲

rdtsc 14 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

▲

SauciestGNU 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Nothing he said was false though, the Republicans were trying to paint the shooter as anyone other than one of their own. It might be that he's actually a leftist, but Kimmel described Republican behavior and did not actually make any assertions of fact regarding the alleged shooter.

	▲	rdtsc 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		There was some initial social media reaction portraying this guy as some hard right fascist or whatever, as well. So it wasn't something just Kimmel had come up with. It could be that by the time the show started more evidence came out and he was looking more one way, and Jimmy just had stale info or his staffers were lazy and didn't update him. > Nothing he said was false though, the Republicans were trying to paint the shooter as anyone other than one of their own. Yeah, and the show owners could have fought it. There might be a warning, a lawsuit, maybe a period to comply and make changes etc. But they folded immediately. They probably figured technically they could have explained it, but the PR aspect of it was a losing battle. Here is another part of the country flying flags half staff, and what is ABC's doing? Oh right, explaining away Kimmel's news and jokes and defending him. A lot of these corporations and their leaders can smell the way the wind blows and they really hate it when the wind blows away their profits, so they just react accordingly.

▲

brendoelfrendo 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What hoax or false info? Also, Kimmel isn't a journalist or news reporter and his show isn't broadcast journalism. As far as obscenity rules, the rules don't necessarily apply between 10pm and 6am; "obscene" material is not allowed at any time of day, but "indecent" material is allowed on late-night television. These are terms that have specific meaning in the context of the law, and what Kimmel said would in no way rise to the level of obscene.

▲

rdtsc 12 hours ago | parent [-]

So why did the network fold so quickly? It's a simple enough explanation "we not journalists, these are all made up jokes and parodies, we send our condolences to the family ... etc".

They folded because they knew how the statement was perceived. Here is half the country flying flags half staff and ABC owners are defending Kimmel. They are worried about views and profits and when that is threatened everything goes out of the window.

Paradoxically, I think Kimmel is all of the sudden on top again, just due to the controversy. The younger crowd who don't sit and watch ABC, might have just learned about this Kimmel guy the first time. May be another network will pick him up, it could be a win for him overall.

▲

willmarch 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

No, they folded because the United States Federal government threatened them. That fact is the only thing that should matter in this discussion. This is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment by the government against protected speech (no matter how many people find that protected speech distasteful).

	▲	rdtsc 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> No, they folded because the United States Federal government threatened them. Yes because they control the FCC and FCC has rules in regards to the content of broadcasts. Kimmel is free to say anything he wants on his own website or platform and such, but as soon as it's on the "air" rules apply. > This is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment by the government against protected speech (no matter how many people find that protected speech distasteful). If it's that clear the would have fought it. It wasn't clear at all. Moreover it was just a bad PR look instead of saying something like "condolences for the family blah blah" they would be defending Kimmel's phrasing. That's why they dropped like him a hot potato.

▲

kingkawn 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Perception has nothing to do with it, the mafia-threats did

	▲	rdtsc 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Perception has nothing to do with it, the mafia-threats did Mafia threats work precisely because of perception. The perception of the power is the power. If everyone caves, and can't fight back, the mafia gets stronger.

▲

16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]