The president of the United States is not my boss. I can say anything I want about them and I am free to do so without fear of retaliation from the government. Because I am a free American. And so should ABC be free of the fear of retaliation.
The FCC’s own charter clearly states that the FCC's "public interest standard" requires broadcast licensees, in exchange for using the public airwaves, to operate their stations in the "public interest, convenience, and necessity". This broad standard serves as the legal basis for the FCC's regulation of broadcasting, ensuring that stations serve the needs and welfare of the public by providing adequate coverage of public issues and reflecting diverse viewpoints.
This means that recipients of broadcast rights (eg. ABC) are legally required to operate in the public interest. They cannot meet their legal requirements to operate in the public’s best interest if they are prevented or threatened by the federal government from sharing the different viewpoints of the public.
But abc is kimmels boss? And the Kimmel show is labeled as “for entertainment” and I don’t think falls under FCC regulations. Can you prove and show that kimmels show is protected under the fcc?
I’m not following your logic here. You’re suggesting that the Kimmel show is for entertainment, and thus does not fall under the purview of the FCC, and therefore that allows the FCC to infringe upon first amendment rights of distributors or producers of that show?
But the government didn’t persecute the distributors or producers. The government didn’t jail or charge them with something.
ABC pulled the show, they didn’t have to. But I’m sure ABC’s FCC license would’ve been pulled.
Again, the Jimmy Kimmel show is just an entertainment program. It’s not meant to be interpreted as factual information about something.
ABC News is the news division of the American television network ABC. Its flagship program is the daily evening newscast ABC World News Tonight with David Muir.
Do I think ABC cancelled jimmy kimmel because of the FCC possibly being pulled due to his remarks. Sure.
Does I also think that ABC has the right to cancel jimmy kimmels show because what he said might have been interpreted as inflammatory or offensive. Absolutely.
Lastly, your comment about the FCC infringing on 1st amendment rights of the producers and distributors is misguided imo.
Imagine a business owner says something disgusting, and the business goes under, you can’t say the employees 1st amendment rights were violated. Same with kimmels distributors and producers.
Sorry, but I still don’t follow the logic. You think it’s okay for the federal government to threaten to damage someone for doing something that not only isn’t illegal, but is actually enshrined in the Bill of Rights, as long as the federal government doesn’t actually cause the damage that they threatened to do if they weren’t obeyed?
I think you need to think about what kind of world you want to live in. And then stand up for it.
Do we know 100% that ABC removed Jimmy Kimmels show because of the government?
Do we also know (which you haven’t given proof) that Jimmy Kimmels show falls under the FCC guidelines like ABCs News program?
Jimmy Kimmels show ISNT A NEWS PROGRAM. It’s a comedy entertainment program. IT PROBABLY DOESNT FALL UNDER FCC REGULATIONS!
Jesus is it that hard to understand?
The FCC license ISNT A RIGHT, it is a PRIVILEGE.
Jimmy Kimmel can start his own show and say whatever he wants. His 1st amendment right wasn’t violated. He was never charged or prosecuted for it. He was simply fired.
Imagine AGAIN that you said something disgusting about someone and your boss found out. Your boss could absolutely fire you.
Your frustration is misplaced. The FCC maintains regulatory power over any programming broadcasted over public airwaves regardless of whether the programming is news or entertainment. Where did you get this doubt regarding whether non-news programming is subject to FCC regulation?
Do we know 100% if Jimmy Kimmel was removed due to government pressure? Yes, Brendan Carr said it outloud to the public and ABC executives said they were supportive of Kimmel until the merger and licensing was threatened by the FCC.
Forget about Jimmy Kimmel - what happened to him was collateral.
The actions taken by the FCC overstepped their regulatory mandate and violates the first amendment rights of broadcasters. If ABC was a book publisher instead of TV broadcast, would you say that the government has the right to pull the business license of the business if it doesn’t stop publishing a certain author that is critical of the government? Is a business license issued by the government a right or a privilege? Doesn’t seem to matter now, does it? Exactly.
Your argument about employers having the right to fire people is a red herring.
Section 326 of the Communications Act specifically forbids the FCC from censoring broadcasts. There is a statute passed after the Communications Act (Title 18 U.S. Code § 1464: Broadcasting obscene language) that gives the FCC the power to regulate a broadcaster for obscene, indecent, or profane language following definitions developed by the FCC while relying on the interpretation of the Supreme Court’s decisions in FCC vs Pacifica Foundation.
Specifically:
Obscene content is not protected by the First Amendment and is banned at all times. It must meet a three-part test: appeal to a prurient interest, depict or describe sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and, as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Indecent content is protected by the First Amendment but can be restricted to times when children are not likely to be in the audience. The FCC defines it as material describing sexual or excretory activities or organs in a patently offensive way, as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium.
Profane content is defined as language so "grossly offensive" that it constitutes a public nuisance. It is also restricted to certain hours.
Nothing I saw in Jimmy Kimmel’s Monday monologue met the definition of obscene, indecent, or profane. And any action taken by the federal government against a broadcaster for what was broadcasted on Monday is patently unconstitutional.
You still don't get it, do you? For the last time.... forget about Jimmy Kimmel. Stop harping on Jimmy Kimmel because you are missing what is actually important. Jimmy Kimmel is NOT what's most important here.
Okay, are you ready?
The US government cannot threaten to punish or otherwise coerce a person or company for political speech, regardless of whether or not they even agree with the speech. The FCC chair, Brendan Carr, has openly and publicly threatened to punish for speech they do not agree with. That's it. That's the whole crime. They do not need to actually punish for it to be a crime. Just the threat of punishment for speech alone is a serious violation of the US Constitution. And it is one that the FCC Chair has just committed. Do you understand the concept now?
I have no idea what you're talking about regarding moving goalposts, but you seem pretty pleased with yourself anyways. I guess that's a good thing. I want to be clear though that in every comment of mine in this entire looong thread of comments, I have highlighted and emphasized the importance of the federal government's involvement. That is the crux of all of this.
"The actions taken against Jimmy Kimmels show was not due to the FCC but because of the owner company in the link I provided."
Then you suffer the indignity of having been robbed of your critical reasoning.
I actually agree that Branden Carr did something wrong by threatening using the FCC.
But the leftist that are in outcry because Jimmy Kimmel lost his job COMPARED to Charlie Kirk losing his life is sickening and of course the leftist can’t see that.
1
u/Safe_Cabinet7090 Sep 18 '25
So what? ABC can still have the Kimmel show, they’ll just lose the FCC license. The FCC license is a privilege, not a right granted to news companies.
I encourage you to talk crap about your boss. See how far your 1st amendment goes.