←back to thread

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

(arstechnica.com)
125 points voxadam | 2 comments | 22 Sep 25 20:09 UTC | HN request time: 0.427s | source
Show context
SilverElfin ◴[22 Sep 25 20:12 UTC] 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 #
anigbrowl ◴[22 Sep 25 21:14 UTC] No.45339523[source]▶
Nice HN account. Be a shame if it were to be shadowbanned.
replies(2): >>45339792 #>>45345676 #
hagbard_c ◴[23 Sep 25 11:51 UTC] No.45345676[source]▶
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.
replies(1): >>45350552 #
1. anigbrowl ◴[23 Sep 25 17:55 UTC] No.45350552[source]▶
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.
replies(1): >>45352553 #
2. hagbard_c ◴[23 Sep 25 20:48 UTC] No.45352553[source]▶
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.