Mandatory state ideology is very worrisome.
Participation is never mandatory and retaliation or forcing the pledge is an invitation for an expensive civil rights suit.
Even if it's not strictly "mandatory" there can be substantial pressure in conservative areas. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47095381
I don’t have a list of schools for you.
Sure peer pressure can be a thing (at the school I went to you would have been bullied for doing the pledge), but it is pretty firmly established law that a student has every right to not participate and not be pressured to participate by public school staff.
In my case the pressure came from my teachers and the principal. I never got in any official trouble but I was sent to the principal's office for refusing to say it and it required a phone call with my dad for them to begrudgingly let me continue to not say it.
I know some that don't, it's not announced that they don't and as long as nobody notices I don't think anyone local really cares.
I was only 9 the first time it happened but even back then it felt really weird.
Yes, and it doesn't make it any less cult-like.
Even for them, even though they may believe otherwise now. There's no loyalty among thieves.
More importantly licensees pledge to serve their _local_ communities and maintain _local_ standards. That's the entire well documented point of the license system. As such the FCC has very little actual authority over stations outside of general technical requirements of the radio broadcast itself and no authority over content unless prompted by local complaints.
Does this phrase have non obvious meaning? They are an agency and make rules.[1]
> As such the FCC has very little actual authority over stations outside of general technical requirements of the radio broadcast itself and no authority over content unless prompted by local complaints.
To prompt local complaints would be trivial.
> Broadcasters can voluntarily choose to indicate their commitment to the Pledge America Campaign and highlight their ongoing and relevant programming to their viewing and listening audiences.
The article said Carr has repeatedly threatened to punish broadcast stations for violating the public interest standard.
> They’re free to meet their public interest obligations the normal way as well and not participate in this.
Carr's view of public interest included suspending Jimmy Kimmel for his criticism of Trump and other MAGA figures after Charlie Kirk was killed.[1]
> They could also participate in this in a rebellious way if they so pleased. “While we don’t agree with the FCC…. We do think this is an important milestone in our nation worth celebrating… not because the FCC told us to but because…”
There would be no reason to state disagreement unless they thought it was a threat. And it would have the effects of a child saying they will go to sleep but not because their parent told them to.
[1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/after-jimmy-kimmels-sh...
No reason to do any of it other than you want to. But, because some broadcasters will want to signal to their audience there is a difference between complying with FCC "mandate" and doing what the mandate says because they were planning on doing it anyway or are independently doing it. Stating disagreement is how you signal to your audience that you are participating but on your own free will.
> And it would have the effects of a child saying they will go to sleep but not because their parent told them to.
Self realization that sleep is healthy, not a bad thing. Patriotism, or simply acknowledging major national milestones, is healthy in my opinion.