ABC Accuses FCC of 'Attempted Censorship' (politico.com)
- Reference: 0184774182
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/26/07/30/1933258/abc-accuses-fcc-of-attempted-censorship
- Source link: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/07/30/abc-accuses-fcc-of-attempted-censorship-01016992
> "Across the government, regulatory and contracting carrots and sticks have been trained on other disfavored speakers," ABC's lawyers added in the [2]119-page filing . "The tools vary; the objective does not: a media industry too fearful of official reprisal to report the news freely."
>
> Carr has repeatedly rejected accusations of censorship while defending his efforts to rein in what he calls abusive, politically motivated behavior by licensed TV broadcasters. "I don't view the FCC as the speech police," he [3]told POLITICO this week for an upcoming episode of the podcast "The Conversation."
>
> In its filing, ABC pointed to an outpouring of support it has received in more than 152,000 comments in the agency's license review, as well as recent warnings from conservative Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and various pro-free-market organizations about the dangers of a politically motivated FCC. Those include letters from a bipartisan group of former FCC leaders, community and advocacy groups and lawmakers of both parties. "The Commission's attempted censorship of ABC has attracted condemnation across the political aisle," the network wrote.
[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2026/07/30/abc-accuses-fcc-of-attempted-censorship-01016992
[2] https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/26110068342/1
[3] https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2026/07/brendan-carr-i-dont-view-the-fcc-as-the-speech-police-01015485
Here's the thing (Score:2, Troll)
If an adversarial ruling from the Supreme Court allows the FCC to yank licenses, then these networks better have a backup plan of "broadcasting" from the Internet. The current regulatory structure of the FCC doesn't allow them to regulate content on the Internet. That'd take an act of congress if constitutional procedure is properly followed
Of course if the current regime pulls out all the stops and does something like put out an Executive Order requiring licenses for "broadcasting" content on the Internet,
Re: (Score:2)
Quick question.
Can anyone here with a straight face state they truly believe "The View" is a newscast?
Re: Here's the thing (Score:2)
It's as much of a newscast as anything on Fox aside from Fox Business
Re: (Score:2)
> It's as much of a newscast as anything on Fox aside from Fox Business
Fox is technically not a broadcaster. I'm not defending them or anything like that, but they get away with their biased shenanigans because they're a cable network. Disney could do the same thing if they wanted to surrender their broadcast licenses and just go with entirely cable/online distribution, but somewhere around 19%-20% of American households still watch OTA TV.
Yeah, I was kind of surprised it was that many, too.
Re: Here's the thing (Score:2)
The First Amendment that protects your moronic question here also protects the speech of others which is incalculably more valuable and popular.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the argument is that radio frequency is a limited resource and therefore the Feds must ensure it's used to the public benefit. So magically the First Amendment doesn't apply.
This ends up meaning that stations which support whatever the current government is can do what they want and station which oppose risk losing their license. Regardless of who is in charge.
Re: (Score:2)
> Quick question.
> Can anyone here with a straight face state they truly believe "The View" is a newscast?
What difference does that make? The FCC is not threatening the license of "The View", it is threatening the licenses of the American Broadcast Corporation.
FYI, "The View" bills itself as a daytime talk show -NOT A NEWSCAST.
Re: (Score:2)
> FYI, "The View" bills itself as a daytime talk show -NOT A NEWSCAST.
Similarly for many/most Fox News evening shows with the added irony that the network literally has "News" in the name. Then again , they tend to says things the Trump administration likes to hear.
Re: (Score:2)
> If an adversarial ruling from the Supreme Court allows the FCC to yank licenses, then these networks better have a backup plan of "broadcasting" from the Internet.
They already do. The majority of the popular entertainment content their studios put out has been moved behind the paywall of their online streaming services. Google says roughly 22.75 million U.S. household still watch OTA TV, though (spoiler alert: they're mostly poor people).
How Did They Piss Off Trump? (Score:1)
Did the call him Mango in Chief?
Re: (Score:2)
They kept airing The View, and resumed airing Jimmy Kimmel Live!
Both shows may at some point have called him Mango in Chief, but they've said worse about him.
Two sides to every argument (Score:3)
This would be a good time to point out that every political argument has two sides and two points of view.
I've seen the arguments for both sides of this issue, and have come to the conclusion that there is merit for both. People should really look at the specific charges being made, with examples, before coming to any conclusion.
Every time someone tries to rein in the news media, it's received by shouts of first amendment, freedom of speech, chilling effects, and so on; and yet, this leads to insane situations. Google [1]most egregious US media failures in the last 10 years [google.com] for a list of incidents, and note how many of these affected major political events such as a presidential election or national policy.
Should a journalist be able to walk into a church during service and interrupt the proceedings, and not be held accountable because he's a journalist? Should a major news outlet be able to report something without at least a cursory check to see if it's accurate? Should an interview answer be swapped with the answer from a different question?
I've come to the conclusion that knee-jerk framing is on purpose, everyone wants to get "ahead" of an issue, and if an erroneous/misleading/false statement is made they will simply say "oops... I made a mistake" and there's no repurcussions... except that the lie went out to the audience and a small percentage got outraged in the right direction, regardless of whether the statement is true or not.
A "straw-man" argument is where you put your opponent's viewpoint in the most absurd terms and then attack the absurdity. A "strong-man" argument is where you put your opponent's viewpoint in the strongest possible terms and then try to attack it.
Choose the "strong-man" argument here. Find out what the administration is complaining about, and see if you can fault their logic.
[1] https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-lm&q=most+egregious+US+media+failures+in+the+last+10+years
This accusation is a lie! (Score:3, Funny)
Our strong and rose-scented leader signed an executive order that restored freedom of speech: [1]https://www.whitehouse.gov/pre... [whitehouse.gov]
[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/restoring-freedom-of-speech-and-ending-federal-censorship/
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ad when has any member of this Sadministration bothered to comply with the Constitution, the law, or an executive order? They do whatever they feel will please the Orangutan in Chief so that he can direct some of the graft their way.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
90% of what the Federal government does is unconstitutional (including the FCC) and most of that was put in place by Democrats.
The Constitution has been toilet paper since the Civil War.
Re: This accusation is a lie! (Score:2)
Having read this executive order, it amounts to a complaint about the previous administration, and an explicitly unenforceable promise not to abridge free speech.
Whover actually wrote that thing is probably still chuckling about the insanity of saying both that nobody in the federal government will restrict the free expression of speech, and also that this order explicitly doesn't provide any redress of grievances in the event this order is not followed.