The FCC exists (in part) to enforce a certain morality on public broadcasters. Whatever we think about that today, that was a core responsibility of the FCC when it started and that still exists today.
There’s also more than two sides to an issue.
The supposed fairness doctrine was utter nonsense for many many reasons.
When everyone is given a loudspeaker, and the power to create an audience of millions; when "journalism" is equivalent to any random opinion; when anyone with the will and a negligible amount of resources can promote their agenda... No amount of oversight can bring back balanced discussion about actual facts. Reversing a post-truth society cannot happen without radical disruptions to the system that got us here in the first place.
Whatever you think it did, it almost certainly did not do that. In practice it meant that J. Random Crazypants would be allowed to give an editorial -- sometimes in the middle of the night, and sometimes as 60 second after the news. Additionally the Doctrine never applied to Cable TV for obvious First Amendment reasons.
Source: https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/the_fcc_and_freedom_...
"Last Reviewed: 12/30/19" (Trump's first term)
As I said, the FCC is allowed to enforce a certain morality. It seems clear that the morality being enforced would fall in line with the ruling power of the day.
What part of that sentence qualifies as either indecent or profane?
Please quote Jimmy to clear up what you think the lie was.
Jimmy Kimmel said that Charlie Kirk was killed by someone with the same political views as Charlie.
That is the lie.
Trump has been trying to get Kimmel removed for a while for making fun of him. This was just an opportunity.
The thing about the FCC threatening Kimmel for this speech, is that someone needs to identify what was problematic about the speech other than "I didn't like that he said it." I would love for someone to explain to me what the problematic part of the statement was, because I think then we could have a more substantive discussion. As is, this is pretty clearly a 1st amendment violation by the FCC chair as his statements demonstrably chilled speech (it's hard to get much clearer an example than this legally).
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-pr...
Kimmel's performance was clearly not obscene or indecent - it did not depict or describe sexual conduct or excretory organs - and it aired after 10 PM, so whether it was profane is irrelevant.
>As I said, the FCC is allowed to enforce a certain morality. It seems clear that the morality being enforced would fall in line with the ruling power of the day.
I also assert that the morality being enforced by the FCC [in a given time period] will fall in line with the morality of the rulers of [that time period]. That is a descriptive statement.
Which part am I wrong about?
> The FCC is allowed to enforce a certain morality.
As I said previously, the FCC is bound by the First Amendment. They do not have the power to restrict speech, whether on grounds of "morality" or otherwise.
Obscenity is not considered speech as far as 1A is concerned, so the FCC is able to ban it. I disagree with this categorization, but it is what it is.
Olive Garden isn't given access to something it requires to operate at the pleasure of the government. Broadcast TV on the other hand...
All of broadcast TV is allowed because the government says it is. ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX don't own the radio spectrum they are operating on, the government does and they grant the right to use it to those companies. There's a long list of things that the government requires them to do in order to keep this pleasure. One of them used to be the Saturday morning cartoons. I miss those.
A list of words you can't say is about morality; it's a drag but at least it's objective. You either said the word or you didn't.
This is far more subjective.
Why do California and Mississippi have to follow the same standards?
So the justification for federal intervention (interstate commerce) is there.
Of course, that doesn't prevent the feds from letting the states handle it, but it does create an incentive for some states to want the feds to handle it.
I think the New England states could manage this together fine.
I agree, the constitution grants the authority to the federal government to. But more and more, I think we should just let the states deal with as much as possible. It seems pretty clear we are far from a national consensus on many basic issues, and the constant winner take all grab for power is making things worse.
As a separate matter, it's long been clear the FCC was created to serve a very time, context and needs - most of which either no longer exist or have changed substantially. Most media no longer travels through the limited shared resource of "airwaves". The agency's whole charter is in need of a major rethink.
Your next point about the FCC needing a major rethink is interesting. What are you thinking here? FCC also regulates internet-based communications (e.g. Youtube or podcasts)?