Anonymous #1 4d

Bro the FCC chair legit said on a podcast that he wants to revoke the broadcasters’ licenses to pressure ABC 💀 they admitted to it in broad daylight

5

Anonymous #1 4d

I don’t even know how this constitutes an illegal contribution lmfao. That would put Fox News in the same position, no?

9

Anonymous #1 4d

Trump should be in prison for 34 felonies😐

13

Anonymous OP 4d

This specifically doesn’t, but if there’s evidence that ABC colluded with Democrats by providing discounted or free services that would normally cost money, Trump may have a valid reason to sue them

0

Anonymous #1 4d

I don’t see how that’s illegal, and there’s zero basis for that allegation anyway lol

3

Anonymous #1 4d

Is the evidence in the room with us right now?

1

Anonymous OP 4d

Ahhh you bring up an interesting point! Why is it that ABC has a right to a broadcast license? Who gets to decide who does and doesn’t get broadcast licenses?

0

Anonymous OP 4d

Unethical? Probably. Illegal? Highly doubtful. US campaign laws and bribery laws are literally the Wild West

1

Anonymous #1 4d

This is a lot of words to say “the government doesn’t care about the right to free speech”

4

Anonymous #1 4d

I fail to see your point. The reason they need to be licensed is because the FAA has jurisdiction of the airwaves that broadcast networks use. Stuff like ESPN, NFL Network, etc is through cable so they don’t need a license

4

Anonymous OP 4d

FCC** my brain was briefly thinking about airspace instead of airwaves

2

Anonymous #3 4d

No it’s not. The FCC makes broadcasting decisions. Therefore, the American people decide who does and doesn’t get broadcasting licenses through representative democracy. In fact, Trump has every right to liberate the airwaves and replace ABC with a more deserving news outlet. Left wing news outlets get WAY too much priority

0

Anonymous #1 4d

The fuck are you talking about the American people decide? FCC decisions are not put up to a vote, nor are FCC officials decided by vote. “Liberate the airwaves” just say you can’t tolerate free speech when it’s not speech you like bro

1

Anonymous #1 4d

What does “liberate the airwaves” even mean?

2

Anonymous #3 4d

The commissioners are approved by a majority of the senate, but the way that Trump fired the two democratic commissioners is highly questionable

2

Anonymous #3 4d

Yes the American people decide, but indirectly through their votes. That’s how representative democracy works. The American people voted for Trump, who then uses his power. Why does ABC have a right to use the airwaves, but not a different news outlet? Hardly anybody watches it! That’s totally unfair when we get down to it

0

Anonymous #1 4d

That has got to be the single most roundabout, indirect, mental gymnastics way I’ve seen for someone to justify this lol. Even then, the FCC is not allowed to regulate the content of satellite or cable television. Thats just the blatant truth whether you like it or not.

5

Anonymous #1 4d

Others can apply for a license if they want it. No one is stopping them

6

Anonymous #1 4d

Just because people vote for President months prior does not mean decisions their administration makes months down the line are just or fair. If you genuinely believe that scenario counts as the U.S. population being directly democratically involved in this decision, you’re either blindly ignorant, stupid, trolling or all of the above.

8

Anonymous OP 4d

No fr like Kimmel being on the air isn’t stealing a piece of the pie from someone else, there’s no limit to sharing that space lol

1

Anonymous #3 4d

What the hell are you talking about? That literally IS the job of the FCC. Of course they’re allowed to do that. These are public airwaves we’re talking about.

-2

Anonymous #1 4d

Get a trial for HBO and watch a show. Notice how they can curse on it. FCC can’t regulate them as much. They don’t use radio frequencies

2

Anonymous #1 4d

They control aspects like spectrum management and consumer rights, but they do NOT control the content of satellite or cable television, end of story

5

Anonymous #1 4d

If you’re going to try and debate aspects of the U.S. government, you might want to actually make sure you know how they work first.

2

Anonymous #3 4d

FCC doesn’t directly regulate the content, BUT it does decide who does and doesn’t get licenses. So in other words, the FCC is very much still involved in what type of content is put on the air.

-1

Anonymous #3 4d

The only limit would be on frequencies that can be allocated but I’m not sure if it’s full. An individual show certainly isn’t stealing it 💀 and the broadcasters (Nexstar, Sinclair, etc) are the ones that hold the licenses anyway. ABC doesn’t hold licenses themselves in most cases

6

Anonymous #1 4d

Regulating licenses isn’t comparable to regulating specific content lol. Again, more roundabout logic, this time with a healthy side of goalpost moving.

8

Anonymous #1 4d

The FCC also can’t just take a license away whenever they want, they have to prove that there’s been some sort of rule violation, felony or generally “operating against public interest” involved, none of which are applicable to ABC and Kimmel. You genuinely do not understand how this works and yet you’re still trying to debate it.

3

Anonymous #3 4d

This is not a matter of free speech. Public airwaves are a limited resource and only a few news outlets get permission to use them. So if the landscape of news outlets are not accurately representing the American people, something needs to be done about that. You mention “operating against public interest.” They absolutely ARE doing that!

-1

Anonymous #1 4d

How are they doing that lol, because it’s not what you like? Because it’s not what Trump likes? “Operating against public interest” doesn’t mean a stations programs are in EVERYONE’s interests, of course not everyone is going to enjoy a stations content. This cannot be genuine lol

5

Anonymous #1 4d

You’re conflating a *ton* of things. A conservative outlet is absolutely able to apply for a license. No one is preventing them from doing so. Sinclair is conservative and holds the second largest number of broadcast licenses

3

Anonymous #1 4d

Here’s an example: I and hundreds of thousands of others do not like Fox News. I believe it is deplorable and bad for this nation’s understanding of politics. However, that is a subjective stance, and is not so widely or commonly held as a base value to stand as an example of Fox “operating against public interest.” It cannot be taken down simply because a group doesn’t like the content.

1

Anonymous #1 4d

The fact that you perceive most broadcast TV as being left-leaning is simply a result of the free market and the abolition of the fairness doctrine btw. Fox could absolutely make more deals with broadcast TV if they wanted to

4

Anonymous OP 4d

Sorry, they actually do have broadcast stations. It’s under the Fox Television Stations subsidiary

3

Anonymous #3 4d

Quite frankly yes, it’s not what I like, but more importantly it’s not what the AMERICAN PEOPLE like. So therefore, something needs to change, especially considering our tax dollars are involved here. Public airwaves are not the same thing as the town square. They need to represent the people in a similar way that teachers need to, although more loosely but it’s a similar concept

-2

Anonymous #1 4d

In other words, your speech has consequences and those consequences could mean losing a broadcast license. You don’t have a much free reign to say whatever you want on television as you do on say the internet

0

Anonymous #1 4d

It doesn’t matter that you simply don’t like it. There is a sizeable portion of the American population that likes it, you don’t define that lol. The FCC can’t regulate content just because a group has complaints about it. They can’t regulate content to begin with. Every single point you’ve made has demonstrated a naive and uninformed view of how media law actually works.

7

Anonymous #1 4d

The only way the FCC could actually remove that license is if a rule was violated, and in the case of Kimmel, none were. If that’s really all you have as a reasoning for this, then cry about it lol, it’s not a just reasoning for what you’re advocating for

1

Anonymous #1 4d

That went out the window when the fairness doctrine was abolished. Take that up with Reagan

2

Anonymous #3 4d

That’s straight up false, in fact a large priority of the FCC is to gauge public input towards every single broadcasting decision

0

Anonymous OP 4d

Usually, taxpayer dollars are technically not used btw. While Congress appropriates funds for the FCC, they direct the FCC to collect that same amount in fees from broadcasters, cell phone carriers, satellite companies, etc. It usually balances out

4

Anonymous #1 4d

That’s called a comment period, and the FCC can give those comments the middle finger to some extent. They’ve absolutely done that before

4

Anonymous OP 4d

Yes they are used! Our tax dollars are directly used to support the public airwaves. We can’t operate public broadcasting without tax dollars. How come the government gets to forcible take money out of my pay check each month, just to platform a slew of news outlets a mostly disagree with? That’s a violation of MY free speech!

-1

Anonymous #1 4d

Yes, but again, that doesn’t mean just because a large group doesn’t like it that it is just rights for being taken down. Thats not what “operating against public interest” means in a legal context. Lots of conservatives hate CNN, but it’s not going to be taken down because there is a sizeable enough demographic that is interested and it isn’t violating rules, so it can stand. Again, you don’t know how this works lol

1

Anonymous #1 4d

That is not a violation of your free speech lol. Again, you just don’t understand how this works.

1

Anonymous #1 4d

No. They are considered self-funded

4

Anonymous OP 4d

https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/fcc-annual-appropriations-summary-fy2024.pdf “Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated shall be reduced as such offsetting collections are received during fiscal year 2024 so as to result in a final fiscal year 2024 appropriation estimated at $0”

4

Anonymous #3 4d

I honestly don’t give a fuck how it works. The way it works is totally unfair and Trump needs to fight like hell to change it! We need to demolish the institutions that allow the government to use taxpayer money to fund the megaphones of people the American people hate!

-1

Anonymous OP 4d

Plain English: “the amount of taxpayer money the FCC is allowed to spend goes down as they collect more in fees, such that the amount of taxpayer money they’re allowed to spend becomes $0”

4

Anonymous #1 4d

Cry about it

6

Anonymous #1 4d

your cult isn't as big as you think it is my friend

2

Anonymous OP 4d

Ok, so what? My tax dollars are still funding it indirectly. The government as a whole is funded by tax dollars. And these are limited public airwaves. These airwaves belong to EVERYONE, not a small handful of elites

-1

Anonymous #1 4d

So apply for a license then? No one is stopping you

4

Anonymous OP 4d

Ok, if Joe Rogan applies for a license do you honestly believe he’ll get one?

0

Anonymous #1 4d

Yes

1

Anonymous #1 4d

“I don’t give a fuck how it works” lol okay man, too bad. If that’s all you’ve got to run on, this debate is pointless. Just admit you don’t know how this shit works lol

6

Anonymous #3 4d

The system as it is designed to be fair and equal regarding either side of the political spectrum, you just don’t like that you can’t leverage it to have it favor YOUR side over another. Which is just about the most unamerican thing I can imagine to advocate for in media law lol

2

Anonymous #1 4d

You asked me if Rogan could get one. I said yes. Rush Limbaugh’s show aired on multiple radio stations

6

Anonymous OP 4d

What about television? I want to watch my favorite speakers live on TV, but I can’t because there’s no opportunities for them to do it.

0

Anonymous #1 4d

There are absolutely opportunities for them to do it lol.

1

Anonymous #3 4d

That’s your opinion. The way broadcasting is set up right now is totally unfair. Unfortunately you people lost in November. The American people decided that they don’t want Democrats to make the rules.

-2

Anonymous #1 4d

On cable? Absolutely, but you’ll need to find a provider that will carry your channel. Most, if not all, of the broadcast channels are probably used right now though. If they’re not used you could buy it from the owner

1

Anonymous #3 4d

There is a 100% chance that someone like Candace Owens or Joe Rogan cannot have their own TV station lmao

-1

Anonymous #1 4d

Candace doesn’t have that kind of money. Rogan might

5

Anonymous #1 4d

Well not 100% because we’re fighting to change things. If things stay the same is what I mean

-1

Anonymous OP 4d

Then that’s bullshit. We to decide if the airwaves are property like land is to be bought and sold or if the airwaves are socialized.

-1

Anonymous #1 4d

It was originally auctioned. Now the government doesn’t own it

2

Anonymous #1 4d

Also the democratic members of the FCC have been removed (arguably illegally) so the only one preventing you here is Brendan Carr lmao

5

Anonymous #1 4d

It’s also “just your opinion” that broadcasting is unfair, lol. Cry about it.

5

Anonymous OP 4d

Well something needs to change regardless of who’s in charge. The airwaves need to be representative of the American people unless they’re specifically gonna allow the airwaves to be purchased as property.

-1

Anonymous #3 4d

It’s not “just my opinion” when Trump takes action. And he has every right to. The American people are fighting for what’s ours

-1

Anonymous #1 4d

If by “what’s ours” you mean “violating media law and overstepping bureaucratic boundaries” the yes you are fighting for that lol

1