←back to thread

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

(arstechnica.com)
125 points voxadam | 1 comments | 22 Sep 25 20:09 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
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 #
voxadam ◴[22 Sep 25 21:10 UTC] No.45339475[source]▶
> The FCC is barred by law from trying to prevent the broadcast of any point of view. The Communications Act prohibits the FCC from censoring broadcast material, in most cases, and from making any regulation that would interfere with freedom of speech. Expressions of views that do not involve a “clear and present danger of serious, substantive evil” come under the protection of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press and prevents suppression of these expressions by the FCC. According to an FCC opinion on this subject, “the public interest is best served by permitting free expression of views.” This principle ensures that the most diverse and opposing opinions will be expressed, even though some may be highly offensive.

Source: https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/the_fcc_and_freedom_...

"Last Reviewed: 12/30/19" (Trump's first term)

replies(1): >>45339592 #
ahmeneeroe-v2 ◴[22 Sep 25 21:20 UTC] No.45339592[source]▶
Highly cherry-picked. The next paragraph says that FCC limits broadcast of indecent and profane material.

As I said, the FCC is allowed to enforce a certain morality. It seems clear that the morality being enforced would fall in line with the ruling power of the day.

replies(3): >>45339710 #>>45340018 #>>45340568 #
voxadam ◴[22 Sep 25 21:29 UTC] No.45339710{3}[source]▶
“We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.”

What part of that sentence qualifies as either indecent or profane?

replies(2): >>45339782 #>>45340558 #
platevoltage ◴[22 Sep 25 22:46 UTC] No.45340558{4}[source]▶
I don't think that's what did it. It was the showing of Trump being asked about his "friend" Charlie Kirk being killed, for which his response was "They're building my ballroom. It's gonna be the best ballroom.

Trump has been trying to get Kimmel removed for a while for making fun of him. This was just an opportunity.

replies(1): >>45350458 #
1. xracy ◴[23 Sep 25 17:47 UTC] No.45350458{5}[source]▶
What was the opportunity in that segment? Surely airing things the POTUS said is not a limitation of Freedom of the Press?

The thing about the FCC threatening Kimmel for this speech, is that someone needs to identify what was problematic about the speech other than "I didn't like that he said it." I would love for someone to explain to me what the problematic part of the statement was, because I think then we could have a more substantive discussion. As is, this is pretty clearly a 1st amendment violation by the FCC chair as his statements demonstrably chilled speech (it's hard to get much clearer an example than this legally).