I agree that ABC may just be using this as pretext, but its constitutionally invalid pretext that is extremely troublesome.
Discussion
The pretext *was* flimsy, but he was not a “comedian” exercising free speech, but an operative, a paid propagandist whose ratings did not justify his salary. Good argument ABC violated the terms of the FCC over the public airwaves, but ideally FCC shouldn’t have been involved, just the affiliates whose audiences he had alienated.
Either way, big win for humanity, wouldn’t sweat this one at all, even if the admin has definitely overreached in other areas.
Do you have a link to the FCC document, Id like to see it. Between this and Pam Bondi's recent "hate speech" comments, it all seems very unsettling to me.
The letter they sent? I haven't seen it, but I saw the terms of the broadcasting license somewhere. Bondi’s comments were atrocious, but she was forced by her own base to walk them back a few hours later.
I’m confused about some bits of detail because it’s nexstar that opened up about firing him and not ABC. Nexstar is not all of ABC stations either. So when does what could be a valid business decision become unconstitutional.
It's similar to Chokepoint 1.0 and 2.0, when the government exerts undue influence on private parties to get them to do things the government, because of the constitution, could not do. ABC or whatever entity is probably within its rights to do what they do, subject to Kimmels contract, etc., but the look is a government willing to use its monopoly on violence to coerce or stifle free speech, which is big bad and sad.
I see what you mean. I do think this administration is trying to undo the propaganda and bias in the current media by exerting their own powers.