Most active commenters
  • lenerdenator(4)
  • ahmeneeroe-v2(4)

←back to thread

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

(arstechnica.com)
125 points voxadam | 13 comments | 22 Sep 25 20:09 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
ahmeneeroe-v2 ◴[22 Sep 25 21:05 UTC] No.45339423[source]▶
The FCC exists (in part) to enforce a certain morality on public broadcasters. Whatever we think about that today, that was a core responsibility of the FCC when it started and that still exists today.
replies(9): >>45339461 #>>45339475 #>>45339529 #>>45339534 #>>45339574 #>>45339951 #>>45340085 #>>45340187 #>>45340473 #
1. lenerdenator ◴[22 Sep 25 21:15 UTC] No.45339534[source]▶
How is Jimmy's speech immoral?

A list of words you can't say is about morality; it's a drag but at least it's objective. You either said the word or you didn't.

This is far more subjective.

replies(1): >>45339611 #
2. pupppet ◴[22 Sep 25 21:26 UTC] No.45339661[source]▶
Look at you straight-up parroting Trump's comments.
replies(1): >>45339732 #
3. lenerdenator ◴[22 Sep 25 21:29 UTC] No.45339716[source]▶
Okay, then the person he lied about can file a defamation suit. That still doesn't fall within the FCC's regulatory authority, so far as I can tell. They're not the arbiters of what is and isn't a lie; a judge or jury during the defamation trial is.
replies(1): >>45340573 #
4. ahmeneeroe-v2 ◴[22 Sep 25 21:30 UTC] No.45339732{3}[source]▶
I assure you Trump did not invent "jimmy Kimmel isn't funny"
replies(1): >>45339886 #
5. hamdingers ◴[22 Sep 25 21:41 UTC] No.45339886{4}[source]▶
Beautiful motte you've got there.
6. ahmeneeroe-v2 ◴[22 Sep 25 22:48 UTC] No.45340573{3}[source]▶
The FCC is well enabled to make judgment calls. Yes a network can bring that judgement call in front of an actual judge in a court of law. That doesn't mean the FCC lacks the authority for such calls, only that the judge likely has higher authority.
replies(1): >>45342783 #
7. craftkiller ◴[23 Sep 25 01:30 UTC] No.45341812[source]▶
> having terrible ratings.

Not true. His ratings have him right in the middle of the pack: https://latenighter.com/news/ratings/late-night-tv-ratings-q...

8. lenerdenator ◴[23 Sep 25 04:14 UTC] No.45342783{4}[source]▶
Do you have an example of the FCC enforcing action against a television broadcaster or personality for saying something materially similar to what Kimmel said, at the same time slot and same genre of programming, on the basis that it was false and/or defamatory, without any sort of pre-existing court case related to the same?
replies(1): >>45342897 #
9. beej71 ◴[23 Sep 25 04:23 UTC] No.45342827[source]▶
Even if he did lie, that's absolutely protected speech and the FCC is out of line. Every Constitution-respecting American knows this and would be against the FCC saying anything no matter what party was in charge.
replies(1): >>45346176 #
10. ahmeneeroe-v2 ◴[23 Sep 25 04:39 UTC] No.45342897{5}[source]▶
insane standard. how would you ever govern with that as your standard?
replies(1): >>45347210 #
11. bmelton ◴[23 Sep 25 12:37 UTC] No.45346176{3}[source]▶
The speech itself may be protected, but it endangers ABC's broadcast license. If ABC knowingly broadcasts a lie the broadcast of that lie causes harms, then it is in violation of FCC's section 73.1217, which specifically exists to thwart against "Broadcast Hoaxes"

In fairness to the provision, I think it's outdated, and I've argued against its relevance and that it seems unlikely to me to stand up in any court that interprets 1A jurisprudence to a modern standard, but the law exists and exists specifically to prevent against broadcast lies.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/73.1217

replies(1): >>45360905 #
12. lenerdenator ◴[23 Sep 25 14:04 UTC] No.45347210{6}[source]▶
It's just looking for precedent for what you're saying.
13. beej71 ◴[24 Sep 25 14:26 UTC] No.45360905{4}[source]▶
If that's the case, then Fox News would be in a heap of trouble.