By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Legal experts are expressing concerns that the Trump administration, through the FCC, may have pressured ABC into dropping Jimmy Kimmel’s show, potentially constituting illegal “jawboning” and censorship. The situation arose after Kimmel made critical remarks about the suspect in the Charlie Kirk killing. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr appeared to threaten legal action against the network and was thanked by Carr for the decision. This is seen as a potential First Amendment violation, with experts like Alex Abdo of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, claiming a direct link between government actions and the suppression of speech.
Read the original article here
Legal experts say pulling Jimmy Kimmel from air may amount to illegal “jawboning,” and it’s a concerning development. The situation, viewed from a legal standpoint, suggests a potential violation of fundamental rights, even if it’s done indirectly. The term “jawboning” is being used to describe the actions taken, and it paints a clear picture of undue influence and potential coercion.
This is a situation where the FCC’s involvement in corporate censorship is illegal. A coordinated effort to pressure a media outlet, even with an extra step added to the process, still violates the First Amendment. It’s a sad spectacle to see a political faction attempt to justify these actions. The shift in rhetoric, with an emphasis on what constitutes satire and the exploitation of tragedy for political ends, is notable.
The Trump administration is seemingly exploiting tragic events to justify censorship and target political opponents. This is evident in the rhetoric and actions taken following certain incidents. Some people fail to acknowledge they have been waging a war against their perceived enemies for years. They are, in reality, the primary enablers.
Earlier reports indicate that the former FCC chairman publicly threatened to pressure ABC/Disney. This sort of language hints at an effort to influence decisions regarding a television personality. The implications here are significant, and this action can’t be justified as a simple financial choice; the federal government has directly intervened, something that’s never occurred before.
This, of course, isn’t the first instance, nor will it be the last, where the FCC uses regulatory pressure on news organizations that don’t align with certain political views. Imagine the outcry if a different administration did this. This is part of a pattern of suppressing free speech. The line between democracy and autocracy is no longer clearly defined.
The hypocrisy is baffling. It’s not just hypocrisy; it’s corruption. The culture wars and conspiracy theories of the past are now being used to justify the oppression of perceived enemies. These actions suggest a belief that only certain groups are entitled to constitutional rights. They act as if they are above the law. It’s an illegal suppression of free speech, plain and simple.
Relevant legal precedents are being raised here, like *Bantam Books v. Sullivan* and *FCC v. League of Women Voters*, which establish boundaries on government’s ability to suppress speech. Additionally, *O’Hare Truck Service v. City of Northlake* protects speech from official retaliation. There is no legal backing for this kind of maneuver. This administration’s attitude towards legalities is a clear indication that they do not adhere to it.
There’s a frustration here, with people expressing a deep concern about the erosion of legal standards and the potential for repercussions. The sense of helplessness is palpable, as many feel the legal system is failing to uphold its responsibilities. This administration has shown no regard for legalities.
The use of “jawboning” to describe the situation is significant. This is a term, used in the context of government pressure, to influence the decisions of private entities. It can certainly be the case that the administration is jawboning in a way that may have broken the law. The fact that the First Amendment protects even lies makes it more complex.
The focus is not about a parent company having the ability to fire someone anymore; it’s about outside influence that makes their decision.
The conclusion is that there has been a concerted effort to undermine democratic norms, with the “jawboning” of Kimmel a stark example of this. The feeling is one of a crumbling system and a fear of where this could lead.