But they didn’t intervene. He made a statement indicating they’d look into it. Action from FCC would require the commissioners to vote. Not just a unilateral choice by the chair.

There is also some allowance for the FCC to regulate content under some circumstances, and it has been upheld as constitutional previously. Brendan Carr, the FCC chair, rejected doing anything about online content because it would be unconstitutional.

In spirit I don’t think government or large companies should be moderating or censoring speech. But Rand Paul should be focusing on the precedence of FCC being able to regulate things like “obscenity”.

▲

willmarch 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

On these reported facts, this looks like unconstitutional government-induced censorship. A court applying Vullo, Backpage, and Bantam Books would likely view the official’s statements as coercive retaliation for protected speech.

▲

stretchwithme 14 hours ago | parent [-]

You mean like FCC fining people over Janet Jackson's boob?

You have freedom of the press, when you own a press. But the spectrum is not owned by the licensees. There are rules. Limits.

I am not for government owning the spectrum. But that's the current situation.

	▲	willmarch 13 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Broadcast indecency rules (like those for a wardrobe malfunction) are a narrow exception and don’t authorize the government to punish political viewpoints; even on publicly licensed spectrum, officials can’t wield licensing power as a cudgel against disfavored speech, because the 1st Amendment forbids it.
	▲	13 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

▲

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

The Supreme Court decision in NRA v. Vullo (2024) states that a government actor can't threaten legal action unless content is removed by a social media platform (or a TV network in this case).

▲

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

The problem isn't limited to the FCC in this case. The FCC doesn't actually have to act - it could be someone in the SEC, it could be the DOJ, or (as we have learned) it can literally be about bags of cash.

The FCC chair's statement was a bit of an indirect threat ("Pity if someone looked into your affiliates licenses"). But the timing makes it clear they were at least aware of and complicit in the backroom dealings that led to the show being taken off the air.

▲

potato3732842 14 hours ago | parent [-]

There's a different between making a threat and posing a threat. The reason we're having this discussion at all is because we've vested too much power in bureaucracies that have too much discretion in how they use it.

	▲	tw04 14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No, the reason we're having this discussion is because the current Supreme Court doesn't seem to actually be interested in precedence or existing law, just saying yes to whatever whim Trump has this week. Under any normally functioning government, the head of the FCC would never threaten a television station because it's both an obvious violation of the first amendment, and under literally any other administration would have resulted in immediate dismissal.

▲

Sparkle-san 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

He didn't intervene in the say way that a mobster doesn't make threats when he states "nice place you got here, be a shame if something were to happen to it."

▲

b0sk 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There's actually a word for it - jawboning

▲

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

Did the FCC intervene in any sort of regulatory sense? No, that would be the "hard way", which didn't happen.

Did FCC chair Carr use the threat of regulatory power to intervene in internal business at ABC? Getting ABC to obey in advance sure seems like the implied "easy way."

Both fit the first definition of "intervene" at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/intervene - "To become involved in a situation, so as to alter or prevent an action"

▲

anigbrowl 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Nice HN account. Be a shame if it were to be shadowbanned.

	▲	llllm 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Done