Liberal Forum

jerrab » 18 Sep 2025, 5:02 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2025, 5:02 pm

---------------------------------------Here, by contrast, the evidence of “specific causation” is plain to see: Carr threatens ABC unless it sanctions Kimmel. ABC does as Carr asks. The FCC, to be sure, does not have authority to police the alleged truth of statements made on television. But that doesn’t mean that the agency can’t use its investigative powers to raise costs for targeted media outlets and it can clearly exert its influence on any potential acquisitions. And for all his recent talk about supporting free speech, this isn’t Carr’s first pressure campaign against a perceived antagonist of President Donald Trump. In July, he issued threats against Comcast, demanding more favorable coverage of Republicans from its NBC affiliates.The Trump administration also has a clear model when it comes to leaning on media firms to silence speech it dislikes: The president’s executive orders punishing law firms for their association with disfavored clients and advocacy of out-of-season causes likewise deployed regulatory tools to try to achieve plainly impermissible censorship. Like Carr’s action this week, those executive orders in part worked through the economic pressure firms experienced, even as their First Amendment rights were being violated.Watch: The Conversation

Claim: Brendan Carr threatened ABC unless it sanctioned Jimmy Kimmel

While FCC Chair Brendan Carr did publicly criticize Jimmy Kimmel’s comments and urged ABC to take action, the FCC does not have direct authority to censor content or force programming decisions. ABC’s decision to preempt Kimmel’s show was made by Disney executives, reportedly under pressure from affiliates like Nexstar Media Group. Carr’s remarks may have been provocative, but they do not constitute a formal regulatory threat backed by FCC enforcement powers. The FCC cannot legally punish broadcasters for speech it dislikes.

Claim: The FCC uses investigative powers to raise costs for targeted media outlets

This assertion implies a misuse of regulatory tools for political retaliation. However, the FCC’s investigative powers are bound by administrative law and subject to judicial review. Any attempt to target media outlets without cause would likely trigger legal challenges and congressional oversight. In fact, Democratic lawmakers have already called for investigations into Carr’s conduct, underscoring that such actions are not unchecked.

Claim: Carr has a history of pressuring media firms to favor Trump

While Carr has made public statements critical of certain media figures and praised decisions that align with conservative interests, equating this with systemic censorship is a leap. The FCC’s role is to ensure broadcasters serve the public interest—not to dictate editorial content. Carr’s comments may reflect partisan leanings, but they do not amount to formal FCC policy or enforcement.

Try to keep up !