[The ACTUAL Threat] Trump Says Broadcasters Risk Losing Licenses When Hosts Criticize Him

Okay so should a left president come in and start trying to "level the playing field" with online media? Rogan endorsed Trump and probably gets similar if not more views than all the left cable networks combined (I got no idea, Tinman back me up with the stats). Elon bought twitter and has manipulated algorithm, etc.

The right put money, effort, (and naturally built) into significant systems of online influencers/media, the left has NOT, this is usually viewed as a failure of the left? But perhaps that's all wrong, and the left should probably start lobbying for the Gov to get to censorin uh making the internet/social media fair and balanced by this logic.

 

You must not have kept up with the latest in campaign financing. You see, there was this thing called Citizens United the conservatives celebrated - are you now saying that was a bad rulling?

 

Citizens United allows corporations to make unlimited campaign contributions or speech. It's totally within the conservative legal framework.

One thing I never understood about the whole libertarian movement - is they are for unlimited spending to criticize democrats, but then say it violates the law if Democrats do it to Trump? What is the way that yall might reconcile this contradiction? I'm very curious.

 

Diff = one extreme wants all to be seen/heard vs. i need to be seen/heard. One side values understanding others vs. I don’t understand. We need the middle fosho but first we gotta turn down the temp.

 

Who are you, again?

 

I can help you here. Libertarians don't believe it violates the law for Democrats to spend unlimited money to criticize Trump. Happy to clear that up for you.

 

The why do libertarians favor pulling FCC licenses for broadcasters who criticize Trump?

 

We don't. That isn't a libertarian position.

 

All I am hearing from the "libertarians" is that companies can fire or hire whomever they please. So seems to me, it's ok for Trump to make companies fire people, but not ok for Biden.

 

THAT is a libertarian position.

If Trump is making companies fire people, then they aren't firing and hiring whomever they want, are they? It seems to me your problem is reading comprehension.

 

OK, I thought about this and looked again at the examples cited in that WSJ piece. A few points:

First, your question assumes both Democratic and Republican actions were “over-zealous.” That’s begging the question. I’ll stick to what I think the differences are, but I don’t accept the characterization that all examples cited were cases of over-zealousness.

Now, it’s clear that Democrats don’t oppose regulation as such. Their stance has generally been that regulation, within constitutional limits, can be justified when it serves the general welfare (e.g. net neutrality rules to prevent ISPs from blocking websites). One can debate the wisdom of those policies, but they weren’t direct attempts to punish political viewpoints.

Let’s not blur the line here. The First Amendment problem isn’t “regulation” per se — it’s retaliatory threats. When an FCC chair says broadcasters could lose their license for airing disfavored political speech, that’s textbook government coercion. The Supreme Court has struck down similar tactics in cases like NRA v. Vullo.

The examples the WSJ article cites (Title II, digital platform proposals) may be unwise or overbroad (debatable), but they don’t amount to the government saying “don’t express political viewpoints that piss me (or my boss) off.” Carr’s comments do, in my view. That’s the crucial difference.

 

Sounds like you are confused - libertarians are saying ABC can fire Kimmel even though Trump ordered it.

 

ABC can fire Kimmel, whether or not Trump said anything about it. It is the actions of the government that are inappropriate, not the actions of ABC. I am not confused at all, you just attribute positions to people that they do not hold.

 

No. The company went along with the coercion from the gov't. If the argue that they had no choice - tricky because they don't want to admit that they just followed gov't orders - then sure, only Trump and his cronies are liable. But if they voluntarily went along with it, then they are equally liable.

It's not so cut and dry as you make it seem. Fact is that yall screamed bloody murder with Biden tried to clear anti-Vaccine and misinformation from social media - but seem to be unbothered by what is happening now. It's a painfully obvious double standard that you are trying to run away from.

 

Carr said it could be done the easy way or the hard way and then threatened that if the 'easy way' wasn't chosen, the FCC which is federal government agency in charge of enforcing regulation of networks, would then have more work to do regarding criticism of his boss.

Why are you excusing that?