[LeafItAlone]

> However, clearly some people did. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences. In this case, his employer responded to partner backlash over his remarks.

Government officials also threatened to pull the government provided broadcasting licenses that the corporation has. That’s free speech related.

[cebert]

Ok. I missed that detail.

[pogue]

>During a Wednesday podcast appearance, FCC head Brendan Carr threatened to revoke the broadcasting licenses of any stations that continued to air Kimmel’s content.

>“It’s time for them to step and say this garbage…isn’t something that we think serves the needs of our local communities,” he said.

>Carr’s threat should have been toothless. The FCC is prohibited by law from employing “the power of censorship” or interfering “with the right of free speech.” There is a very narrow and rarely used exception for “news distortion,” in which a broadcast news outlet knowingly airs false reports. What Kimmel did — an offhand comment based on weak evidence — is extremely different from creating a news report with the intent to deceive.

>Hours after Carr’s Wednesday threat, Nexstar — the largest owner of local stations in America — suddenly decided that Kimmel’s comments from two nights ago were unacceptable. Nexstar, it should be noted, is currently attempting to purchase one of its major rivals for $6.2 billion — a merger that would require express FCC approval.

Source: https://www.vox.com/politics/461887/jimmy-kimmel-suspension-...

[qcnguy]

If claiming Tyler Robinson is right wing isn't "news distortion", then what is?

[jacobjjacob]

He wasn’t claiming that he is. He was pointing out that people were scrambling to label him as being from “the other side”. The reality isn’t so binary.

I agree it could have been worded better but I think it’s clear if you watch it in context.

[qcnguy]

I don't see any way to interpret those words that doesn't put him in a terrible light.

[LeafItAlone]

That’s understandable. In this 24 hour news cycle of manufactured outrage, who has the time to fully understand an issue before making a proclamation of what is and isn’t true. Facts are old news.

[IAmBroom]

Reading is fundamental.

[tgma]

The same licenses restrict badwords. You can't even say fuck on the same airwaves. That spectrum is public property licensed with restrictions. That's not a First Amendment issue at all, it is a contractual issue.

[seadan83]

You're seemingly equating "obscenity" with "political criticism". I'll note that "political criticism" is offensive when you don't agree with it. The first amendment is exactly for that kind of offensive language.

[tgma]

Well, First Amendment protects your rights to obscene speech too, so you just affirmed here the license terms are controlling, not First Amendment. I am not litigating this exact incident (which in all likelihood had most to do with business decisions as WSJ reports,) nor suggesting that I think what was said was overly offensive, just pointing out that the airwaves in question are much more restricted than general speech in the United States and debates over what is allowed would not automatically escalate to a constitutional concern.

[seadan83]

> Well, First Amendment protects your rights to obscene speech too, so you just affirmed here the license terms are controlling, not First Amendment

Nonsense. Feel free to point out how my comments about just the first amendment is related to you equating that to licensing terms.

> which in all likelihood had most to do with business decisions as WSJ reports

I am not convinced. Please provide the WSJ report. Seems the FCC chair saying "easy way or hard way" was more salient.

To boot, Kimmel is back on the air. If there were substance to the abrupt firing for business reasons, or regulatory, Kimmel would not have been reinstated.

> just pointing out that the airwaves in question are much more restricted than general speech in the United States

I do agree. The restrictions are for obscene speech generally. It is significant when that is extended to political speech.

> United States and debates over what is allowed would not automatically escalate to a constitutional concern.

Indeed. Except in this case we have selective enforcement at the behest of the government for what the government does not like. It is exactly First Amendment territory.