←back to thread

125 points voxadam | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
SilverElfin ◴[] No.45338837[source]
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”.

replies(7): >>45339046 #>>45339099 #>>45339178 #>>45339252 #>>45339426 #>>45339462 #>>45339523 #
willmarch ◴[] No.45339099[source]
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.
replies(1): >>45339498 #
stretchwithme ◴[] No.45339498[source]
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.

replies(2): >>45339552 #>>45339590 #
1. ◴[] No.45339590{3}[source]