[claytongulick]

> but that's not what's going on here.

How?

Everything I've seen is that is specifically what's going on, do you have different information?

The only threat to pulling a license would be if they didn't comply with the FCC rule change, that we've both agreed is reasonable, correct?

Do you have specific examples of the administration threatening to pull a license due to criticism? If that's the case, I'd certainly be vehemently against such action, just as I was when the government illegally acted to suppress and censor alternate viewpoints during covid.

[SpicyLemonZest]

When the FCC chair originally announced he was pursuing this (https://time.com/7318743/abc-kimmel-the-view-brendan-carr-fc...), he was pretty clear that he was doing so in pursuit of the President's directive to punish broadcast channels that say things he doesn't like. Trump himself was pretty explicit that the ultimate goal is pulling their broadcast licenses and his subordinates should fabricate an excuse.

As you say, the FCC has declined to pursue talk radio programs over this issue, even though they're clearly subject to the rule in principle. That's not a mistake, it's because those programs push viewpoints the President favors so he doesn't want to punish them.

[claytongulick]

Thank you for the link and the concrete reference, I hadn't seen that before.

I think the article and the video summaries I've seen of that interview are a little deceptively edited, but the idea appears to be the same.

Apparently, it's illegal to knowingly broadcast false information [1] within certain guidelines, and that can indeed cause a license revocation:

"The FCC prohibits broadcasting false information about a crime or a catastrophe if the broadcaster knows the information is false and will cause substantial “public harm” if aired. FCC rules specifically say that the “public harm must begin immediately, and cause direct and actual damage to property or to the health or safety of the general public, or diversion of law enforcement or other public health and safety authorities from their duties.”

The FCC chair referenced this law in response to Jimmy Kimmel claiming that the Charlie Kirk shooter was "maga":

“We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang trying to characterize this kid who killed Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,”

While this was demonstrably untrue, and it was widely known to be untrue at the time, I agree that it doesn't appear to meet the FCC standard I quoted above.

I actually find the FCC rule itself a bit disturbing, as it seems to position the government as an arbiter of truth.

It isn't a new problem, Jefferson struggled with how to deal with it too [2]

"Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle"

What do you suggest as a solution? Should false information be ok to broadcast with a FCC license? Who gets to determine whether it's false?

[1] https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/broadcasting_false_i...

[2] https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_sp...