The War on Free Speech

[UNI88]

FCC challenges ABC broadcast licenses

The Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday said it is reviewing ABC’s broadcast licenses, upping the pressure on the network’s owner, Disney, which is again under White House fire over a late-night monologue.

Those ABC licenses were not slated for license review until 2028 at the earliest. The FCC said in a filing that Disney’s corporate diversity politics may have violated anti-discrimination rules.

But the move, which Semafor first reported earlier Tuesday, comes a day after President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump demanded that the broadcaster fire Jimmy Kimmel, the host of ABC’s eponymous late-night show, over a monologue he made two days before a gunman allegedly attempted to assassinate the president and top administration officials at the annual White House Correspondents’ Dinner, in which he said the first lady looked like “an expectant widow.”
...
“If the evidence does in fact play out and shows that they were engaged in race- and gender-based discrimination, that’s a very serious issue at the FCC, that could fundamentally go to their character qualifications to even hold a license,” Carr told Fox in April.

The FCC and DOJ should be looking at the Department of War Crimes for race- and gender-based discrimination.

[kalm]

FCC challenges ABC broadcast licenses

The Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday said it is reviewing ABC’s broadcast licenses, upping the pressure on the network’s owner, Disney, which is again under White House fire over a late-night monologue.

Those ABC licenses were not slated for license review until 2028 at the earliest. The FCC said in a filing that Disney’s corporate diversity politics may have violated anti-discrimination rules.

But the move, which Semafor first reported earlier Tuesday, comes a day after President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump demanded that the broadcaster fire Jimmy Kimmel, the host of ABC’s eponymous late-night show, over a monologue he made two days before a gunman allegedly attempted to assassinate the president and top administration officials at the annual White House Correspondents’ Dinner, in which he said the first lady looked like “an expectant widow.”
...
“If the evidence does in fact play out and shows that they were engaged in race- and gender-based discrimination, that’s a very serious issue at the FCC, that could fundamentally go to their character qualifications to even hold a license,” Carr told Fox in April.

The FCC and DOJ should be looking at the Department of War Crimes for race- and gender-based discrimination.

Snowflakes.

[UNI88]

ABC Lashes Out at Trump FCC in Blistering Filing Accusing Them of Violating First Amendment

Some may dislike certain—or even most—of the viewpoints expressed on The View or similar shows. Such dislike, however, cannot justify using regulatory processes to restrict those views. The government does not get to decide “what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.”4 Or which “ideas and beliefs [are] deserving of expression [and] consideration.”5 The danger is that the government will simply decide which perspectives to regulate and which to leave undisturbed. In fact, while the Commission now questions The View’s decades-long exemption, it has not expressed any inclination to apply a similar interpretation of the equal opportunities rule to other broadcasters, including the many voices— conservative and liberal—on broadcast radio. And as a broad array of voices, including many conservatives, have recognized, if the government is allowed to discriminate on the basis of viewpoint in a Republican administration, there is little preventing it from doing so when the Democrats are in charge.

The ABC attorneys devoted an entire section to explaining the First Amendment violation, and concluded:

The View, and other shows like it, support the public interest, as Congress envisioned when it adopted the bona fide news exemptions. This goal—giving the public the broadest access to news about political races by permitting broadcasters to cover political news without fear of sanction—is especially critical today. As the 2026 election approaches, the American people need more access to political news and more exposure to political candidates, not less. It is therefore imperative that the Commission act quickly to assure broadcasters that it will uphold its long-established standards protecting broadcasters’ good faith news judgment in including political candidates in bona fide news programming. To do anything else—on the eve of an election cycle—would compound the uncertainty and resulting First Amendment chill that the Commission’s recent actions have engendered. ABC therefore respectfully requests that the Commission expeditiously affirm that The View continues to qualify for the bona fide news interview exemption under Section 315(a).

This could fit in the socialism thread as well.

[BDKJMU]

ABC Lashes Out at Trump FCC in Blistering Filing Accusing Them of Violating First Amendment

Some may dislike certain—or even most—of the viewpoints expressed on The View or similar shows. Such dislike, however, cannot justify using regulatory processes to restrict those views. The government does not get to decide “what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.”4 Or which “ideas and beliefs [are] deserving of expression [and] consideration.”5 The danger is that the government will simply decide which perspectives to regulate and which to leave undisturbed. In fact, while the Commission now questions The View’s decades-long exemption, it has not expressed any inclination to apply a similar interpretation of the equal opportunities rule to other broadcasters, including the many voices— conservative and liberal—on broadcast radio. And as a broad array of voices, including many conservatives, have recognized, if the government is allowed to discriminate on the basis of viewpoint in a Republican administration, there is little preventing it from doing so when the Democrats are in charge.

The ABC attorneys devoted an entire section to explaining the First Amendment violation, and concluded:

The View, and other shows like it, support the public interest, as Congress envisioned when it adopted the bona fide news exemptions. This goal—giving the public the broadest access to news about political races by permitting broadcasters to cover political news without fear of sanction—is especially critical today. As the 2026 election approaches, the American people need more access to political news and more exposure to political candidates, not less. It is therefore imperative that the Commission act quickly to assure broadcasters that it will uphold its long-established standards protecting broadcasters’ good faith news judgment in including political candidates in bona fide news programming. To do anything else—on the eve of an election cycle—would compound the uncertainty and resulting First Amendment chill that the Commission’s recent actions have engendered. ABC therefore respectfully requests that the Commission expeditiously affirm that The View continues to qualify for the bona fide news interview exemption under Section 315(a).

This could fit in the socialism thread as well.

No do when the Biden admin was pressuring Big Tech & Big Social Media to censor conservatives.

[UNI88]

ABC Lashes Out at Trump FCC in Blistering Filing Accusing Them of Violating First Amendment

This could fit in the socialism thread as well.

No do when the Biden admin was pressuring Big Tech & Big Social Media to censor conservatives.

Censorship is wrong, regardless of who does it. I can say that what trump is doing and what biden did is/was wrong - can you?

Spreading lies and Fake News is also wrong.

[UNI88]

Brendan Carr's 'Equal Time' Threat Against The View Is Blatantly Unconstitutional, ABC Says

President Donald Trump is not a fan of The View, an ABC talk show whose panelists frequently criticize him. Neither is Brendan Carr, the Trump-appointed chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), who has suggested that the show could face regulatory consequences because of its political bias. Specifically, Carr is threatening to revoke The View's exemption from the "equal time" rule, which in practice would amount to a ban on interviews with candidates for public office.

If the trump regime moves forward with this, when will they bring similar action against the following who are guilty of the same thing but in favor of MAQA Republicans?

• Hannity
• The Ingraham Angle
• Jesse Watters Primetime
• Fox & Friends
• Gutfeld!
• The Sean Hannity Show
• The Mark Levin Show
• The Glenn Beck Program
• The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show

[SeattleGriz]

FCC challenges ABC broadcast licenses



The FCC and DOJ should be looking at the Department of War Crimes for race- and gender-based discrimination.

Snowflakes.

You were all for censorship and banning during Covid. Hypocrite

[Caribbean Hen]

No do when the Biden admin was pressuring Big Tech & Big Social Media to censor conservatives.

Censorship is wrong, regardless of who does it. I can say that what trump is doing and what biden did is/was wrong - can you?

Spreading lies and Fake News is also wrong.

You were quiet as a corpse when Biden was president when he (well, whoever was directing him) was doing all those nasty things

It’s only now that you’re outraged by it all

[UNI88]

Censorship is wrong, regardless of who does it. I can say that what trump is doing and what biden did is/was wrong - can you?

Spreading lies and Fake News is also wrong.

You were quiet as a corpse when Biden was president when he (well, whoever was directing him) was doing all those nasty things

It’s only now that you’re outraged by it all

Rather than resorting to MAQA snowflake "but, but, but deflections", you should just admit that you can't say it.

[UNI88]

Tennessee school district bans Alex Haley’s Roots under 2022 state law

“My grandfather famously said: ‘I think one of the most fascinating things you can do after you learn about your own people is to study something about the history and culture of other people,’” Haley said. “If a book like Roots depicting my family’s multigenerational journey through our nation’s uncomfortable history of slavery may be offensive to some readers, then why not ban another American classic, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, which some readers may find offensive.”

Tasslyn Magnusson, a senior adviser at PEN America, the free expression non-profit, said banning books such as Roots “robs students of a critical connection point as they learn about the world and America’s past”.

“Roots provides a powerful entry point into what the slave trade meant, what it was like to be a slave and what it was like to be part of a culture that had slavery and the impact of that. It transformed our culture in a way that made people understand the inhumanity of slavery. And it did it without being exploitative or demeaning, but in a holistic and real fashion.”

[kalm]

Tennessee school district bans Alex Haley’s Roots under 2022 state law

“My grandfather famously said: ‘I think one of the most fascinating things you can do after you learn about your own people is to study something about the history and culture of other people,’” Haley said. “If a book like Roots depicting my family’s multigenerational journey through our nation’s uncomfortable history of slavery may be offensive to some readers, then why not ban another American classic, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, which some readers may find offensive.”

Tasslyn Magnusson, a senior adviser at PEN America, the free expression non-profit, said banning books such as Roots “robs students of a critical connection point as they learn about the world and America’s past”.

“Roots provides a powerful entry point into what the slave trade meant, what it was like to be a slave and what it was like to be part of a culture that had slavery and the impact of that. It transformed our culture in a way that made people understand the inhumanity of slavery. And it did it without being exploitative or demeaning, but in a holistic and real fashion.”

The most hateful, frightened, ignorant, and gullible people in America. It’s honestly sad what’s happened to the Republican Party. We’re better with a thriving, rational, and better educated GOP who can keep the more crazy ideas from the left in check.

It will take at least a decade to rebuild from Trump’s destruction if ever. Maybe a reasonable and conservative third party of independents, Never Trumpers, and cult survivors can take its place.

[BDKJMU]

Tennessee school district bans Alex Haley’s Roots under 2022 state law

The most hateful, frightened, ignorant, and gullible people in America. It’s honestly sad what’s happened to the Republican Party. We’re better with a thriving, rational, and better educated GOP who can keep the more crazy ideas from the left in check.

It will take at least a decade to rebuild from Trump’s destruction if ever. Maybe a reasonable and conservative third party of independents, Never Trumpers, and cult survivors can take its place.

[kalm]

The most hateful, frightened, ignorant, and gullible people in America. It’s honestly sad what’s happened to the Republican Party. We’re better with a thriving, rational, and better educated GOP who can keep the more crazy ideas from the left in check.

It will take at least a decade to rebuild from Trump’s destruction if ever. Maybe a reasonable and conservative third party of independents, Never Trumpers, and cult survivors can take its place.

See? That’s exactly what I’m talking about. The very thought of being reasonable and ending racism sends MAGA spinning!

[UNI88]

See? That’s exactly what I’m talking about. The very thought of being reasonable and ending racism sends MAGA spinning!

The very thought of discussing racism in the US hurts the tender feelings of fragile MAQA yahoo snowflakes.

[BDKJMU]

See? That’s exactly what I’m talking about. The very thought of being reasonable and ending racism sends MAGA spinning!

Lol yet you‘re the one crying over some imaginary destruction due to Trump.

[BDKJMU]

See? That’s exactly what I’m talking about. The very thought of being reasonable and ending racism sends MAGA spinning!

The very thought of discussing racism in the US hurts the tender feelings of fragile MAQA yahoo snowflakes.

You mean the racism from the left.

[UNI88]

See? That’s exactly what I’m talking about. The very thought of being reasonable and ending racism sends MAGA spinning!

Lol yet you‘re the one crying over some imaginary destruction due to Trump.

Says the poster who cried over an imaginary stolen 2020 election, imaginary lawfare/weaponization of the DoJ, etc.

Why ban Roots? It didn't offend people almost 50 years ago when it was first published and broadcast.

[kalm]

See? That’s exactly what I’m talking about. The very thought of being reasonable and ending racism sends MAGA spinning!

Lol yet you‘re the one crying over some imaginary destruction due to Trump.

Has the # of books banned increased under Trump? Were the snowflakes banning things like Roots patiently biding their time or have they been emboldened under Trump? (and to a lesser extent SCOTUS)

You describe criticism of this as crying. Normal people want the truth of our historical record told. Normal people do not consider modern racism and all that goes with it as ok.

There’s a reason why you guys are considered weird.

[BDKJMU]

Lol yet you‘re the one crying over some imaginary destruction due to Trump.

Says the poster who cried over an imaginary stolen 2020 election, imaginary lawfare/weaponization of the DoJ, etc.

Why ban Roots? It didn't offend people almost 50 years ago when it was first published and broadcast.

Maybe because it’s one sided BS that doesn’t show that Africans were just as responsible for the Atlantic slave trade as Europeans, North Africans had white European slaves before and for longer than slavery existed in America, and slavery was practiced before and for far longer in Africa and the rest of the world than America.

[BDKJMU]

Lol yet you‘re the one crying over some imaginary destruction due to Trump.

Has the # of books banned increased under Trump? Were the snowflakes banning things like Roots patiently biding their time or have they been emboldened under Trump? (and to a lesser extent SCOTUS)

You describe criticism of this as crying. Normal people want the truth of our historical record told. Normal people do not consider modern racism and all that goes with it as ok.

There’s a reason why you guys are considered weird.

Name a single book that Trump has banned that you can‘t buy online.

[Caribbean Hen]

Says the poster who cried over an imaginary stolen 2020 election, imaginary lawfare/weaponization of the DoJ, etc.

Why ban Roots? It didn't offend people almost 50 years ago when it was first published and broadcast.

Maybe because it’s one sided BS that doesn’t show that Africans were just as responsible for the Atlantic slave trade as Europeans, North Africans had white European slaves before and for longer than slavery existed in America, and slavery was practiced before and for far longer in Africa and the rest of the world than America.

Exactly right!

the entire story should be told

It’s not like a bunch of pale skin Dutch sailors marched into Africa and captured Africans ….

considering the progress this country has made in the last 150 years with racism is incredible

But the racist race Baiters need profit so they keep it alive

[kalm]

Has the # of books banned increased under Trump? Were the snowflakes banning things like Roots patiently biding their time or have they been emboldened under Trump? (and to a lesser extent SCOTUS)

You describe criticism of this as crying. Normal people want the truth of our historical record told. Normal people do not consider modern racism and all that goes with it as ok.

There’s a reason why you guys are considered weird.

Name a single book that Trump has banned that you can‘t buy online.

Oh good lord. Go back and read my post again. Try harder to keep up.

[kalm]

Says the poster who cried over an imaginary stolen 2020 election, imaginary lawfare/weaponization of the DoJ, etc.

Why ban Roots? It didn't offend people almost 50 years ago when it was first published and broadcast.

Maybe because it’s one sided BS that doesn’t show that Africans were just as responsible for the Atlantic slave trade as Europeans, North Africans had white European slaves before and for longer than slavery existed in America, and slavery was practiced before and for far longer in Africa and the rest of the world than America.

There are no sides. We can all agree that slavery, Jim Crow, etc are wrong. Roots tells a story centered around actual events. Because slavery happened elsewhere or American slavery was assisted by groups on another continent in no way diminishes that reality, makes it ok, or necessitates banning Roots. We still participated and made it possible.

Feel free to write your own book on slavery in Africa. Be bold and tell your truth! May be it will be made into a documentary or even a mini-series!

I’m shocked why it that hasn’t already happened.