🧵1/3 ~ The CAUTIONARY TALE of Bendin’ Carr — as he “Bends the Knee”…and The Rules.
PDF 🔗: drive.google.com/file/d/1u1trMY…
Carr is invoking the FCC’s mandate to ensure broadcasters serve the “public interest,” which is a statutory requirement under current law.
Why Some See These as Crossing the Line
Here are the constitutional / legal concerns and the arguments critics raise:
1.Viewpoint Discrimination
•The First Amendment generally prohibits the government
from regulating speech based on viewpoint—that is,
whether someone agrees or disagrees with a certain
political perspective. If Carr is pressuring broadcasters
because their content is critical (or insufficiently favorable)
of the administration or of certain political figures, that
could be viewpoint-based regulation.
2.Coercion / Threats
•Supreme Court precedent holds that even if an official
doesn’t directly order censorship, “threats of invoking legal
sanctions and other means of coercion” to suppress
disfavored speech can violate the First Amendment. The
concern is that pressure on license renewals or mergers
amounts to coercion.
3.Chilling Effect
•Even if Carr does not formally punish someone, the
possibility of regulatory consequences may cause
broadcasters to self-censor — avoiding criticism or certain
topics out of fear. This “chilling effect” is considered
harmful under free speech doctrine.
4.Lack of Clear Standards
•What counts as “bias” or “unfairness” is subjective. If
government regulators get to decide what is “fair,” that can
lead to arbitrary or partisan enforcement. Critics argue that
the vague nature of “serving the public interest” gives too
much discretion.
5.Separation of Powers / FCC’s Statutory Authority
•The FCC has certain powers under law, but those powers
are constrained by the Constitution (including the First
Amendment). If the FCC starts acting more like a speech
regulator than a communications regulator — in ways not
clearly backed by statute — that risks going beyond its legal
authority.
#BrendanCarr @FCC #FCC #BendinCarr @BrendanCarrFCC
PDF 🔗: drive.google.com/file/d/1u1trMY…
Carr is invoking the FCC’s mandate to ensure broadcasters serve the “public interest,” which is a statutory requirement under current law.
Why Some See These as Crossing the Line
Here are the constitutional / legal concerns and the arguments critics raise:
1.Viewpoint Discrimination
•The First Amendment generally prohibits the government
from regulating speech based on viewpoint—that is,
whether someone agrees or disagrees with a certain
political perspective. If Carr is pressuring broadcasters
because their content is critical (or insufficiently favorable)
of the administration or of certain political figures, that
could be viewpoint-based regulation.
2.Coercion / Threats
•Supreme Court precedent holds that even if an official
doesn’t directly order censorship, “threats of invoking legal
sanctions and other means of coercion” to suppress
disfavored speech can violate the First Amendment. The
concern is that pressure on license renewals or mergers
amounts to coercion.
3.Chilling Effect
•Even if Carr does not formally punish someone, the
possibility of regulatory consequences may cause
broadcasters to self-censor — avoiding criticism or certain
topics out of fear. This “chilling effect” is considered
harmful under free speech doctrine.
4.Lack of Clear Standards
•What counts as “bias” or “unfairness” is subjective. If
government regulators get to decide what is “fair,” that can
lead to arbitrary or partisan enforcement. Critics argue that
the vague nature of “serving the public interest” gives too
much discretion.
5.Separation of Powers / FCC’s Statutory Authority
•The FCC has certain powers under law, but those powers
are constrained by the Constitution (including the First
Amendment). If the FCC starts acting more like a speech
regulator than a communications regulator — in ways not
clearly backed by statute — that risks going beyond its legal
authority.
#BrendanCarr @FCC #FCC #BendinCarr @BrendanCarrFCC
2/ But critics say he’s stretching or redefining what “public interest” means to justify pressure on content based on whether the content is favorable or unfavorable to certain political actors.
PDF 🔗: drive.google.com/file/d/1u1trMY…
Recent Actions That Raise Free Speech Concerns
Here are some specific actions and statements of his that critics say potentially “cross the line” of free speech protections:
1.Threatening Regulatory Action Over Speech on ABC
(“Jimmy Kimmel Live!”)
•After Jimmy Kimmel made comments about the murder of
Charlie Kirk (a conservative activist), Carr publicly warned
ABC’s parent company (Disney) that there could be
consequences if the show remained on air.
•Local stations that carry ABC programming (Nexstar,
Sinclair) subsequently chose to preempt (not broadcast)
Jimmy Kimmel Live! after Carr’s remarks.
2.Using “Public Interest” as a Lever
•Carr is invoking the FCC’s mandate to ensure broadcasters
serve the “public interest,” which is a statutory requirement
under current law. But critics say he’s stretching or
redefining what “public interest” means to justify pressure
on content based on whether the content is favorable or
unfavorable to certain political actors.
3.Licenses as a Threat
•Carr and the administration have made remarks about
possibly revoking or re-examining broadcast licenses for
companies that run content it dislikes.
•Because broadcast licenses are government-granted, using
them as leverage arguably raises coercion risks.
4.Investigations and Regulatory Pressure
•Opening investigations into networks (e.g. ABC, CBS, NBC)
over alleged bias or unfair coverage.
•Carr has also used his public statements (podcasts,
interviews) to signal that the FCC may take further
regulatory action unless broadcasters change behavior.
#BendinCarr #BrendanCarr @FCC #FCC @BrendanCarrFCC
PDF 🔗: drive.google.com/file/d/1u1trMY…
Recent Actions That Raise Free Speech Concerns
Here are some specific actions and statements of his that critics say potentially “cross the line” of free speech protections:
1.Threatening Regulatory Action Over Speech on ABC
(“Jimmy Kimmel Live!”)
•After Jimmy Kimmel made comments about the murder of
Charlie Kirk (a conservative activist), Carr publicly warned
ABC’s parent company (Disney) that there could be
consequences if the show remained on air.
•Local stations that carry ABC programming (Nexstar,
Sinclair) subsequently chose to preempt (not broadcast)
Jimmy Kimmel Live! after Carr’s remarks.
2.Using “Public Interest” as a Lever
•Carr is invoking the FCC’s mandate to ensure broadcasters
serve the “public interest,” which is a statutory requirement
under current law. But critics say he’s stretching or
redefining what “public interest” means to justify pressure
on content based on whether the content is favorable or
unfavorable to certain political actors.
3.Licenses as a Threat
•Carr and the administration have made remarks about
possibly revoking or re-examining broadcast licenses for
companies that run content it dislikes.
•Because broadcast licenses are government-granted, using
them as leverage arguably raises coercion risks.
4.Investigations and Regulatory Pressure
•Opening investigations into networks (e.g. ABC, CBS, NBC)
over alleged bias or unfair coverage.
•Carr has also used his public statements (podcasts,
interviews) to signal that the FCC may take further
regulatory action unless broadcasters change behavior.
#BendinCarr #BrendanCarr @FCC #FCC @BrendanCarrFCC
3/ Carr and the administration have made remarks about possibly revoking or re-examining broadcast licenses for companies that run content it dislikes.
PDF 🔗: drive.google.com/file/d/1u1trMY…
Bottom Line: Where the Line Might Be
Putting it together, the “line” that may be crossed is when:
1.Government officials use regulatory or licensing power (or
hint at doing so) because they dislike or disapprove of
specific viewpoints or criticism.
2.Such threats are made in contexts where the regulated
parties have to comply (or fear losing something valuable,
like license renewal), creating a coercive atmosphere.
3.There is no clear legal standard or statute that authorizes
the regulator to punish content based on viewpoint or
political content.
4.The effect is that broadcasters or media entities alter or
censor their content to avoid regulatory repercussions (self-
censorship).
#BendinCarr #BrendanCarr @FCC #FCC @BrendanCarrFCC
PDF 🔗: drive.google.com/file/d/1u1trMY…
Bottom Line: Where the Line Might Be
Putting it together, the “line” that may be crossed is when:
1.Government officials use regulatory or licensing power (or
hint at doing so) because they dislike or disapprove of
specific viewpoints or criticism.
2.Such threats are made in contexts where the regulated
parties have to comply (or fear losing something valuable,
like license renewal), creating a coercive atmosphere.
3.There is no clear legal standard or statute that authorizes
the regulator to punish content based on viewpoint or
political content.
4.The effect is that broadcasters or media entities alter or
censor their content to avoid regulatory repercussions (self-
censorship).
#BendinCarr #BrendanCarr @FCC #FCC @BrendanCarrFCC
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
