Rand Paul: FCC chair had "no business" intervening in ABC/Kimmel controversy

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”.

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"

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

There's actually a word for it - jawboning

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).

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.

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

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.

Done

Don't worry, they're free for the taking. Burn one, start another, rinse and repeat. It is the only way to stay afloat if you paddle against the stream here.

JFK and LBJ systematically leveraged the FCC's obligation to uphold the Fairness Doctrine to weaponize mass-produced complaints against right-leaning radio shows to legally harass them

In 1963 the FCC passed the Cullman Doctrine, which was an attempt to double-down on those efforts by bankrupting those who literally couldn't afford to cover equal time

Nixon used the FCC to threaten the Washington Post with licensure revocation in an attempt to get them to squash coverage of Watergate

Presidents on both sides of recent history have used the might of the government to demand abject censorship on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms.

The prior sitting president attempted to establish a ministry of truth, slated as a new entity intended to reside within the department of homeland security so as to supercharge those efforts, and appointed Nina "I believe I should be allowed to edit other people's tweets" Jankowicz to executive director

None of these are healthy, but the idea that Carr's actions are somehow the result of the modern Supreme Court's actions requires us to ignore all of American history before Trump's second election

> Nixon used the FCC to threaten the Washington Post with licensure revocation in an attempt to get them to squash coverage of Watergate

Wait, what? The Washington Post is a newspaper. Are they licensed by the FCC in any way?

The Washington Post is a newspaper that at the time was owned by The Washington Post Company. The Washington Post Company owned the paper and also some television stations that required FCC licensure

One of the stations (WPLG) still operates in Florida, and is (IIRC) an ABC affiliate

Let's review the Cullman Doctrine:

>Later in 1963, Henry issued a new legal requirement, the Cullman Doctrine, which stipulated that radio stations that aired paid personal attacks had to give the targets free response airtime.

So to be clear - you think the head of the FCC publicly threatening to revoke a stations license if they don't fire a COMEDIAN they don't like, is the same as the fairness doctrine requiring a station to give free airtime for politicans to respond to baseless political attacks if they are paid for those attacks?

>Nixon used the FCC to threaten the Washington Post with licensure revocation in an attempt to get them to squash coverage of Watergate

And Nixon was impeached...

>Presidents on both sides of recent history have used the might of the government to demand abject censorship on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms.

Facebook and Twitter were caught taking money from nation states to spread lies to cause political strife while hiding the source of both who was spreading the message and who was paying for it. Excuse me if I'm not concerned the government is telling them to stop. While our laws are not directly written to address the issue, they are toeing the line of treason and trying to use Free Speech as an excuse for doing so. Let me guess: you also think it's wrong RT was labeled a foreign actor?

>The prior sitting president attempted to establish a ministry of truth, slated as a new entity intended to reside within the department of homeland security so as to supercharge those efforts, and appointed Nina "I believe I should be allowed to edit other people's tweets" Jankowicz to executive director

Ahh, there we have it. Russian influence on US politics isn't an issue as long as they're supporting your side. The "ministry of truth" is a department appointed with policing and attempting to prevent China and Russia from meddling in our elections. Let me guess: the government is suppressing China and Russia's constitutionally protected first amendment rights?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation_Governance_Boar...

>None of these are healthy, but the idea that Carr's actions are somehow the result of the modern Supreme Court's actions requires us to ignore all of American history before Trump's second election

It really doesn't, nothing you cited resulted in a lawsuit that landed at the Supreme Court who promptly ignored all precedent to side with the President. Which is exactly what this one has done, and there are people discussing whether or not they think the current Supreme Court would actually side with the constitution or decide there's some reason it's OK for the President to ignore the constitution entirely. The fact you're bending in circles to try to act like the current situation is just more of the same is baffling.

> So to be clear - you think the head of the FCC publicly threatening to revoke a stations license if they don't fire a COMEDIAN they don't like, is the same as the fairness doctrine requiring a station to give free airtime for politicans to respond to baseless political attacks if they are paid for those attacks

I think that a government representative abusing their perceived power to coerce private entities to quell free speech is equivalent to another government representative abusing their perceived power to coerce private entities to quelling free speech, yes.

> Let me guess: you also think it's wrong RT was labeled a foreign actor?

I think it has nothing to do with my argument

> Russian influence on US politics isn't an issue as long as they're supporting your side

Russian influence on US politics is a wide non-sequitur from the subject

> nothing you cited resulted in a lawsuit that landed at the Supreme Court who promptly ignored all precedent to side with the President

Neither has anything you cited. Neither is Carr the President. /shrug

It seems the joke went over your head. The point was that vague probabilistic statements equivalent to Carr's 'we can do this the easy way or we can do this the hard way' are easily understood as thinly veiled threats even if they're not delivered on official FCC notepaper and written in verbose bureaucratic language leveraging established procedural rules.

I just made a statement of fact in response to your 'joke'. If you doubt the veracity of my statement it would be interesting to know why.