I knew this was going to be the outcome...
FCC (Threats)
Company: quick, save the money! Do what they want!
FCC: I didn't do anything, it was the companies decision!
this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2025
65 points (98.5% liked)
politics
25730 readers
4527 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
That's not what the commissioner is saying. She's describing how the threats mean nothing. The FCC would not be able to act. She's disappointed ABC caved.
“That’s exactly the point, because we don’t have the authority to do this, because it’s against the law. We would not be able to actually take that final action, because on appeal, the FCC would be wrong on the facts and the law if, in fact, it retaliated against the … broadcasters, the local licensees, because of what they air,” Gomez, an attorney who has served at the FCC for two years, said during an appearance on CNN’s “Erin Burnett Outfront.”
“So the threats are the point, and the capitulation is so disappointing, because what we are doing is eroding, little by little, the freedom of the press, the freedom of speech on which our democracy relies,” she told host Erin Burnett. “We need the fourth estate to push back against the likes of me, to hold me and the government to account.”
It's nice that said that.
Unfortunately that's not how the law works in regards to chilling free speech, simply threatening and that threat having an outcome is a guest amendment violation. The fact they paid so they didn't have to deal with a psychopath in the mean time while they flight it on the backend as the law provides and intends is just the smart legal way to deal with it and achieve the same outcome. That's ignoring the fact you can sue for interest for unlawful impactful takings under imminent domain.
That would matter if a lot more if the broadcasters actually challenged the threats of retaliation instead of caving.
Well that would be a blatant lie. The FCC has the power to revoke broadcast licenses.
https://govfacts.org/federal/fcc/when-the-fcc-can-revoke-your-broadcast-license/