[claytongulick]

> but that's not what's going on here.

How?

Everything I've seen is that is specifically what's going on, do you have different information?

The only threat to pulling a license would be if they didn't comply with the FCC rule change, that we've both agreed is reasonable, correct?

Do you have specific examples of the administration threatening to pull a license due to criticism? If that's the case, I'd certainly be vehemently against such action, just as I was when the government illegally acted to suppress and censor alternate viewpoints during covid.

[SpicyLemonZest]

When the FCC chair originally announced he was pursuing this (https://time.com/7318743/abc-kimmel-the-view-brendan-carr-fc...), he was pretty clear that he was doing so in pursuit of the President's directive to punish broadcast channels that say things he doesn't like. Trump himself was pretty explicit that the ultimate goal is pulling their broadcast licenses and his subordinates should fabricate an excuse.

As you say, the FCC has declined to pursue talk radio programs over this issue, even though they're clearly subject to the rule in principle. That's not a mistake, it's because those programs push viewpoints the President favors so he doesn't want to punish them.

[claytongulick]

Thank you for the link and the concrete reference, I hadn't seen that before.

I think the article and the video summaries I've seen of that interview are a little deceptively edited, but the idea appears to be the same.

Apparently, it's illegal to knowingly broadcast false information [1] within certain guidelines, and that can indeed cause a license revocation:

"The FCC prohibits broadcasting false information about a crime or a catastrophe if the broadcaster knows the information is false and will cause substantial “public harm” if aired. FCC rules specifically say that the “public harm must begin immediately, and cause direct and actual damage to property or to the health or safety of the general public, or diversion of law enforcement or other public health and safety authorities from their duties.”

The FCC chair referenced this law in response to Jimmy Kimmel claiming that the Charlie Kirk shooter was "maga":

“We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang trying to characterize this kid who killed Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,”

While this was demonstrably untrue, and it was widely known to be untrue at the time, I agree that it doesn't appear to meet the FCC standard I quoted above.

I actually find the FCC rule itself a bit disturbing, as it seems to position the government as an arbiter of truth.

It isn't a new problem, Jefferson struggled with how to deal with it too [2]

"Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle"

What do you suggest as a solution? Should false information be ok to broadcast with a FCC license? Who gets to determine whether it's false?

[1] https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/broadcasting_false_i...

[2] https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_sp...

[ImPostingOnHN]

> What do you suggest as a solution? Should false information be ok to broadcast with a ... license?

This seems like begging the question. The issue here obviously isn't truth vs untruth, it is fealty to the regime vs opposition to the regime. All the evidence points in this direction, and there isn't a better case yet made in the opposite.

Witness the example cited above: right-wing talk radio, famous for spreading untruthful info and agreeing with the regime, is let off scot-free. Or how the regime itself spread untruths about Alex Pretti after they killed him. That categorically debunks any purported "truth vs untruth" decision criteria and seems to confirm the fealty vs opposition decision criteria.

Fun thought experiment: re-read this situation, but imagine it took place in russia, by putin's hand. Like seriously, what oppressive regime in modern history HASN'T had some variation of silencing the opposition "for broadcasting 'false information'"?:

> On the morning of March 4, the last remaining independent news outlet in Russia — the award-winning Novaya Gazeta — announced the end of its reporting on the war in Ukraine in response to Russian government demands.

> A new law that bans the “dissemination of knowingly false information” about the Russian armed forces — and carries up to a 15-year penalty — was the final blow. [0]

0: https://niemanreports.org/putin-ukraine-russia-media/

[claytongulick]

There's definitely a "both sides" argument here, but honestly that's boring and doesn't really move a conversation forward.

The problem isn't simple, and there don't seem to be obvious answers - civilizations have been struggling with it since recorded history.

I assume you're not trying to make the point that exceeding authority is a characteristic limited to the current administration are you?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

We've been asking this since at least 1st century Rome.

I think it's more important to evaluate systems, institutions and their effectiveness than specific politicians.

[ImPostingOnHN]

Are you sure you replied to the right post? Mine was about how this action was clearly done on the basis of opposition to the current regime.

Neither the conversation nor the country can really move forward without that shared understanding of where we're at now.

[claytongulick]

Yep, agreed.

If you aren't able to see how the issue is much broader than any specific politician, it's difficult to move a conversation forward.

You may want to take a serious and critical look at how these problems have been a part of all politics throughout history.

If your viewpoint is that the current team is the bad guy, but some other team is the good guy, it just means that their propaganda has been effective with you.