Can you really be this stupid, after supporting the cancel culture???
The right has NO INTEREST in free speech. They are trying to crush free speech. A few of the clearest examples are cases where
the FCC (under Brendan Carr) used its regulatory leverage over broadcast licenses, mergers, or funding to pressure companies that own news outlets critical of Trump.
EXAMPLES:
1. Threatening ABC/Disney’s broadcast licenses after Jimmy Kimmel criticized Trump
This is the cleanest example.
After Jimmy Kimmel mocked Trump and Melania on ABC, Trump publicly demanded ABC fire him. Within days, the FCC accelerated review of Disney’s ABC station licenses years ahead of schedule, a move critics called “nearly unprecedented.” (
Reuters)
Even FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez called it a First Amendment violation and politically motivated retaliation. (
The Washington Post)
2. Using the FCC’s Paramount–Skydance merger approval to pressure CBS /
This is the most consequential example.
The FCC had to approve the Paramount–Skydance merger, which gave the government major leverage over CBS’s parent company. At the same time:
- Trump sued CBS / 60 Minutes over its Kamala Harris interview.
- FCC Chair Carr revived and amplified “news distortion” complaints against CBS.
- Carr explicitly said the complaint could factor into the merger review. (Wikipedia)
That created a clear pressure structure: punish CBS editorially, hold up the merger, force concessions.
The fallout was hard to miss:
- 60 Minutes executive producer Bill Owens resigned, saying he had lost editorial independence. (Wikipedia)
- CBS News CEO Wendy McMahon also resigned. (Wikipedia)
- Paramount settled Trump’s lawsuit for $16 million while admitting no wrongdoing. (Wikipedia)
This is one of the starkest examples because the FCC didn’t need to win a censorship case — it only needed to make corporate ownership fear regulatory delay.
3. Reviving investigations into ABC, NBC, and CBS - but not Fox
Shortly after taking office, Carr reopened or revived complaints against ABC, NBC, and CBS over alleged bias, while notably not targeting Fox. (
Wikipedia)
That asymmetry is the point. The issue was not neutral content regulation; it was selective scrutiny aimed at outlets critical of Trump, while exempting the network most favorable to him.
That kind of selective enforcement is exactly what raises First Amendment concerns:
- not banning criticism outright,
- but making criticism expensive and legally risky for disfavored outlets.
4. Investigating Comcast (NBC parent) after criticism of Trump
Carr also opened investigations into Comcast, parent of NBC News, officially framed around DEI and public-interest obligations. (
Wikipedia)
Formally, these were not “content” cases. Practically, critics argue they functioned the same way: target the corporate parent, create regulatory exposure, pressure the newsroom downstream. That is the pattern: don’t censor the anchor directly, threaten the company that owns the microphone.
5. Threatening NPR and PBS through funding and FCC scrutiny
Carr also targeted NPR and PBS by:
- opening FCC inquiries into underwriting practices,
- urging Congress to cut funding,
- and helping build the case for later federal defunding. (Wikipedia)
Again, the mechanism matters. Not “you can’t say this,” but “we can investigate you, strip support, and make your model harder to survive.” That is still speech pressure, just through financial coercion instead of direct censorship.
6. Public threats to revoke licenses for unfavorable coverage
Carr publicly floated using the FCC to discipline broadcasters for failing to operate in the “public interest,” including suggesting CBS’s license could be at risk. (
Wikipedia)
That matters because “public interest” is broad and subjective enough to become a political weapon if used selectively.
The chilling effect is obvious. You do not need to actually revoke the license, you only need every media executive to believe you might try. That alone can change editorial behavior.
The core issue is not classic prior restraint (“you are forbidden to publish this”). It is something subtler and more dangerous:
- use FCC licensing power,
- use merger approvals,
- use investigations,
- use funding threats,
- target owners rather than reporters,
- make criticism of government costly.
That is not the government formally banning speech.
It is the government using regulatory power to make protected speech harder, riskier, and more expensive to produce. That is why critics describe it less as traditional censorship and more as
state coercion aimed at inducing self-censorship.
Impressive considering that you tards invented blowing hard and never backing up your claims with anything, yet here you are allegedly demanding more non-existent "proof" from me in just one post than I ever managed to collectively get out of every tard here put together in NINE years--- including you.
