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!
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/