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.