FCC chair threatens ABC O&O's over Jimmy Kimmel’s remarks

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

We live in disturbing times. The head of the FCC - nominally a non-partisan agency - goes on a podcast hosted by the wife of one of the President's top advisors, and threatens to (essentially) censor a whole raft of stations because apparently making a joke at the expense of the President (and/or First Lady) means they don't "have value" or serve "in the public interest."

I'd be surprised if the courts would side with the administration if the House of Mouse decided to bring their very competent legal team to bear on this clear First Amendment issue, but that's not the point of this exercise. They are trying to bully ABC to fire a comic that hurt the President's widdle fee fees.

The reason is this the Chairman thinks he can shut down the entire Disney company via license threats in the same way in other countries TV Networks are licensed. (Note only local TV affiliates are licensed by the FCC in the United States).

The last time a network had their licenses revoked was in 2020 in the Philippines when the then Duterte administration was against ABS-CBN News for investigating human rights abuses via the country’s drug war killings. But that didn’t stop ABS-CBN from airing newscasts or podcasts. This group moved their content to YouTube and podcasts when they were removed from OTA and Cable in the Philippines. Once the Philippines changed presidents (as of 2026 Bong Bong Marcos) then the network went on to air two high profile political scandals involving the Duterte family. Their trials are in two places in both the Philippine Congress and in the International Criminal Court.

I hope Disney wins this fight against them over this feud the White House started on Jimmy Kimmel.

Lawmakers vote to shut down Philippines' largest TV network

Philippine lawmakers have voted to reject the license renewal of the country’s largest TV network, shutting down a major news provider that had been repeatedly threatened by the president over its critical coverage.

apnews.com

Watchdogs accuse Duterte and his government of muzzling independent media such as ABS-CBN that have reported critically on issues including his anti-drug crackdown, which has left thousands of mostly poor drug suspects dead. Duterte has accused the network of not airing his paid campaign ads and favoring a rival candidate in the 2016 election, allegations the company denied.
Other critical media, including leading newspaper the Philippine Daily Inquirer and Rappler, an online news site, have also come under attack from the president.

https://www.abs-cbn.com/news/nation/2026/4/29/house-panel-set-for-crucial-vote-on-vp-sara-duterte-impeachment-0805

https://www.abs-cbn.com/news/nation/2026/4/28/icc-constitutes-trial-chamber-for-rodrigo-duterte-case-1621

 

[TheBigA]

The reason is this the Chairman thinks he can shut down the entire Disney company via license threats in the same way in other countries TV Networks are licensed. (Note only local TV affiliates are licensed by the FCC in the United States).

I think this will push Disney to get completely out of broadcasting. Sell the stations, sell the network, get out of linear regulated real time broadcasting. It's what Bob Iger talked about doing 3 years ago. I think they're heading in that direction. They just need a buyer with enough money. It may come from Saudi Arabia or some other foreign country. But they already tipped that they want out. There's even less of a reason now to stay.

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

I think this will push Disney to get completely out of broadcasting. Sell the stations, sell the network, get out of linear regulated real time broadcasting. It's what Bob Iger talked about doing 3 years ago. I think they're heading in that direction. They just need a buyer with enough money. It may come from Saudi Arabia or some other foreign country. But they already tipped that they want out. There's even less of a reason now to stay.

Yes its about Disney protecting their apps. I see this during NBA games via ESPN and ABC they are putting out lots of promos for Hulu and Disney+ its just a partial clue on who Disney says needs the most attention/protection.

 

[TheBigA]

Speaking of Disney, they will not be spinning off ESPN. That had been a rumor under Iger. But ESPN has done a lot to ensure their value to the goals of the parent company. On the other hand, there's ABC.

ESPN Reportedly Not Spinning off From the Walt Disney Company

"According to Business Insider, D'Amaro could revisit the decision down the road. But right now, a sale is off the table."

barrettmedia.com

 

[ted chittenden]

So you're saying there is no law anymore. Just what some people think? Those some people who happen to be the government?

When the actual person who said it is "unsubstantiated," that alone ends the first amendment in this country.

Why weren't those same people offended by the calls to "hang Mike Pence?" I guess that was a joke too.

Donald Trump repeated "hang" Mike Pence chant: Cassidy Hutchinson

The former White House aide claims she heard Trump repeatedly say "hang" as the January 6 attack was unfolding.

www.newsweek.com

This is why "some people" don't trust their government anymore. Meanwhile the federal government has indicted a private citizen:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ju...-threatened-trumthrough on their p-rcna247022

Whatever happens to Mr. Comey will likely foreshadow whatever happens to the efforts to cancel the ABC local station licenses. In both cases, the Federal government has a very high hill to climb when they go to court; namely, did either Mr. Comey or Mr. Kimmel actually attempt to follow through on their "threats" (by purchasing weapons and tickets to Washington, D.C. to use those weapons). Keep in mind that because the U.S. president is a public figure, people can say a lot more about him, even threaten him, than they could about people who are not in the public eye. (The last sentence comes from the information I learned in both undergraduate communications and graduate business law classes I took back in the 1980s).

 

[TheBigA]

did either Mr. Comey or Mr. Kimmel actually attempt to follow through on their "threats"

That's not the issue in the Kimmel situation. There was no "threat" here. Carr is focusing strictly on "public interest." So was this speech that the local station received from an outside source in the public interest for the local community. In a way, that goes back to the FCC's Fox Broadcasting case in 2009. The courts at the time basically punted on the first amendment part of the discussion.

What complicates it is there are eight individual licenses covering 8 unique local areas, and the public interest aspect is unique to each of those markets. But the FCC is selecting one specific show that isn't produced by the station, and the station has little control over, to form the basis for their case. All of the local services done by the station for the community aren't being considered. It is what is called "selective enforcement." The first step is an internal FCC approval. If they don't get approved, then it goes to trial.

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

Whatever happens to Mr. Comey will likely foreshadow whatever happens to the efforts to cancel the ABC local station licenses. In both cases, the Federal government has a very high hill to climb when they go to court; namely, did either Mr. Comey or Mr. Kimmel actually attempt to follow through on their "threats" (by purchasing weapons and tickets to Washington, D.C. to use those weapons). Keep in mind that because the U.S. president is a public figure, people can say a lot more about him, even threaten him, than they could about people who are not in the public eye. (The last sentence comes from the information I learned in both undergraduate communications and graduate business law classes I took back in the 1980s).

Judge blocks DOJ's attempt to move Maurene Comey's wrongful termination suit out of court

A federal judge in New York has blocked the Justice Department's attempt to move Maurene Comey's lawsuit over her firing as a federal prosecutor out of court.

abcnews.com

Oddly enough Maurene Comey got included too just because she happens to be a family member of the former FBI director. But the issue stays the same.

Then again its all in this one big issue over the first amendment and due process. Anna Gomez is the only person in the FCC that is fighting against the current issues at the FCC and White House over how they go after Disney and Kimmel. Hope this FCC threat is overturned.

FCC Commissioner Goes Nuclear on Trump’s Attack on Kimmel Bosses

The lone Democrat on the FCC accused the White House of “silencing” a vocal critic.

www.thedailybeast.com

Speaking to MS NOW’s Chris Hayes on Tuesday night, Gomez described the probe as a politically motivated move against Kimmel, with whom Trump has regularly clashed.

“What we saw today was the White House called for the silencing of a vocal critic and the FCC answered that call,” said Gomez.
“What the FCC did today was it issued an order to renew, to start the renewal process for Disney-owned local broadcast stations, and that renewal process is years in advance of when that was supposed to happen, but this is all just as an excuse in order to retaliate against voices that this administration opposes,” Gomez continued.

“This is an outrageous assault on the freedom of speech by this FCC in order to retaliate against Disney and against the critics of this administration,” she went on, calling the effort “unprecedented… unlawful,” and “bound to fail.”

“So Disney should push back because Disney has the First Amendment on its side and it will win against this FCC action,” Gomez said.

FCC Commissioner Urges ABC To "Stand Firm" Amid Broadcast License Review

Anna Gomez, the sole Democrat on the FCC, chided the agency for launching an early review of ABC stations' broadcast licenses, calling it politically motivated

deadline.com

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

FCC’s Jimmy Kimmel-Triggered Review Of ABC Station Licenses Criticized By Top Broadcast Trade Group

The National Association of Broadcasters is criticizing FCC Chairman Brendan Carr for his scrutiny of Disney and ABC over a joke by Jimmy Kimmel.

deadline.com

Here is more this time from the NAB over the FCC’s response to the feud between Disney and the White House over Jimmy Kimmel.

The National Association of Broadcasters is criticizing Donald Trump-appointed FCC Chairman Brendan Carr for its scrutiny of Disney and ABC over a joke by Jimmy Kimmel.

In a statement Wednesday, the head of the top industry trade group said Carr’s move to initiate an early review of the ABC stations’ licenses “creates significant uncertainty” for broadcasters. Carr for more than a year has maintained that major media companies are breaching their “public interest obligations” in various ways.

 

[davideduardo]

We live in disturbing times. The head of the FCC - nominally a non-partisan agency - goes on a podcast hosted by the wife of one of the President's top advisors, and threatens to (essentially) censor a whole raft of stations because apparently making a joke at the expense of the President (and/or First Lady) means they don't "have value" or serve "in the public interest."

I'd be surprised if the courts would side with the administration if the House of Mouse decided to bring their very competent legal team to bear on this clear First Amendment issue, but that's not the point of this exercise. They are trying to bully ABC to fire a comic that hurt the President's widdle fee fees.

 

[davideduardo]

We live in disturbing times. The head of the FCC - nominally a non-partisan agency -

Since when? Newton Minnow was decidedly partisan, and that goes back over 60 years.

goes on a podcast hosted by the wife of one of the President's top advisors, and threatens to (essentially) censor a whole raft of stations because apparently making a joke at the expense of the President (and/or First Lady) means they don't "have value" or serve "in the public interest."

The issue here is that the “ joke” involved the prospects of the death of a president. Not funny.

I'd be surprised if the courts would side with the administration if the House of Mouse decided to bring their very competent legal team to bear on this clear First Amendment issue, but that's not the point of this exercise.

The issue in this case would likely be whether jokingly about the death of a president is does or does not fall under the “yelling fire in a theater” exceptions to the First Ammendment.

They are trying to bully ABC to fire a comic that hurt the President's widdle fee fees.

That is your perspective. Others find it to be beyond First Ammendment rights…which do, indeed, have limits.

 

[davideduardo]

The reason is this the Chairman thinks he can shut down the entire Disney company via license threats in the same way in other countries TV Networks are licensed. (Note only local TV affiliates are licensed by the FCC in the United States).

The last time a network had their licenses revoked was in 2020 in the Philippines when the then Duterte administration was against ABS-CBN News for investigating human rights abuses via the country’s drug war killings. But that didn’t stop ABS-CBN from airing newscasts or podcasts. This group moved their content to YouTube and podcasts when they were removed from OTA and Cable in the Philippines. Once the Philippines changed presidents (as of 2026 Bong Bong Marcos) then the network went on to air two high profile political scandals involving the Duterte family. Their trials are in two places in both the Philippine Congress and in the International Criminal Court.

The difference is not whether other countries license networks… it is that networks in most other nations own all their own stations. So cancelling the stations effectively cancels the network..

 

[TheBigA]

The issue in this case would likely be whether jokingly about the death of a president is does or does not fall under the “yelling fire in a theater” exceptions to the First Amendment.

That's a huge stretch. Yelling fire in a theater is a call to action. Kimmel wasn't telling anyone to kill a president. He was just noting that his wife will outlive him. Which is a fact that even he admitted in a speech a couple of days ago.

Trump Cracks A Joke About His Marriage — And Melania Isn’t Laughing

Critics quickly compared the president's quip to another joke about the first lady that didn't go over well.

www.yahoo.com

Trump’s dark joke touches on his upcoming 80th birthday and the unlikelihood that he’ll live to see his 63rd anniversary in 2068, when he’d be 121 years old and his wife would be 97.

But that's a obviously a touchy subject for some people who hope he's going to live forever. Still it's not a crime and there's nothing a local TV station can do about a network show it is contractually required to carry. I will note that no Nexstar or Sinclair stations are pre-empting the show this time.

 

[TheBigA]

The difference is not whether other countries license networks… it is that networks in most other nations own all their own stations. So cancelling the stations effectively cancels the network..

What Carr is trying to do is revoke the licenses of local stations for carrying a network show. That's something they're contractually obligated to carry. The FCC is equating the national show with the public interest. The last time the FCC tried to punish local stations for network programming was the Fox fleeting expletive case in 2009. At the time, the FCC wasn't seeking to revoke any licenses, just impose a fine. Ultimately they weren't able to even do that.

I expect the stations will bring in reems of community service projects that the stations have done. The FCC will counter with political issues they have with two national shows the stations are contractually obligated to carry. Who do you think has the stronger case?

 

[Deus Ex Machiato]

Since when? Newton Minnow was decidedly partisan, and that goes back over 60 years.

The issue here is that the “ joke” involved the prospects of the death of a president. Not funny.

The issue in this case would likely be whether jokingly about the death of a president is does or does not fall under the “yelling fire in a theater” exceptions to the First Ammendment.

That is your perspective. Others find it to be beyond First Ammendment rights…which do, indeed, have limits.

Well let me go down the list.

Ah yes, the famous Newton Minnow. Served as FCC Chair under Kennedy. Got anyone a little more recent? Because it seems like you're saying that "decidedly partisan" people have been in that office for the entire 6 decades, and not just book-ended by Minnow and Carr.

As far as the joke (no need for quotations, it was actually a joke), it is worth noting that jokes are subjective, at least as far as whether or not they're funny. From a structural perspective (I wrote and performed stand-up for awhile) the joke is well-crafted. It was also told in the context of a fake WHCD, where the sitting President (usually sitting at the dais) is roasted by the headlining comic. As a roast joke, it is even better.

Is it funny? You obviously don't think so, but I wonder where you fall on a few other jokes. Was the meme depicting the Obamas as apes uproariously funny to you? How about another meme Trump shared that portrayed Biden hog-tied in the back of a pickup truck? Funny? More importantly, should the people who originally created those memes face punishment along with anyone who shared them? But those (although perhaps arguably the latter) didn't "involve the prospects of the death of a President," so let's talk about that.

What about MAGA influencer Jack Posobiec when he posted "86 46" on Twitter/X? That happened while Biden was still in office, and it was shared by Matt Gaetz and Pete Hegseth among others. According to the Trump administration, that is a credible threat to the President that must be prosecuted. Since you're a mod, it should be easy for you to find the posts you made on this platform condeming those Tweets. It happened January 29th of 2022, if you need help looking it up.

As far as the 1st Amendment goes, I'd say that if there were a court case attempting to pin legal consequences on Kimmel (a felony or civil charge) it would be a hard road to a conviction, indeed. As Larry Flynt taught us, mocking a public figure...even one beloved by one side of the political aisle...is protected speech.

But then, we're not really discussing a 1st Amendment issue here. The administration knows they'd lose a 1st Amendment case. That's why they're going down the "threaten the media company until they knuckle under" track. Pressure the network/parent company enough, and make it esssentially too expensive to let a joke at the expense of the President slip by the folks at Standards and Practices.

That's basically a mob tactic. "Nice TV network you've got here...be a shame if something happened to it..."

 

[TheBigA]

But then, we're not really discussing a 1st Amendment issue here. The administration knows they'd lose a 1st Amendment case.

Correct. The license renewal process isn't the same as a complaint over what was said, such as the various Howard Stern indecency fight. It's not about what was said. It gets into this subjective discussion about "public interest." Traditionally, that discussion centers around the station's public file and what the station has done for its local community. Network programming has nothing to do with it. But this whole discussion about agencies interpreting vague laws such as the public interest is exactly what the Chevron case was about. The government lost that case.

What this FCC has done is use social media posts as a replacement for the traditional FCC complaint process. In the past, when people heard or saw anything they found objectionable, they had to file a formal complaint with the FCC. The complaint had to be specific, and had to include an example of the content they found objectionable. As far as we know, the only complaints made about Kimmel were made by the president and first lady on social media. I'm not aware that the commission has altered its complaint process to work that way. Because we know that Carr based his entire investigation of KCBS in San Francisco over a single social media post. That investigation led to the very quiet resignation of a newscaster. Was there a formal complaint? Or is the FCC now accepting social media posts as proper procedure? Someone needs to ask that question. Perhaps at today's public FCC meeting.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

Since when? Newton Minnow was decidedly partisan, and that goes back over 60 years.

The issue here is that the “ joke” involved the prospects of the death of a president. Not funny.

Hilarious to millions of us.

The issue in this case would likely be whether jokingly about the death of a president is does or does not fall under the “yelling fire in a theater” exceptions to the First Ammendment.

Not remotely close. Yelling fire in a theater (god this is a tedious old cliche) prompts perfectly rational people to do a perfectly rational thing: try to save themselves from what they believe to be a life-threatening situation.

At no point did Jimmy say someone should try to harm the president. And it doesn’t matter if he did. Doing so, if we assume for now that is actually what happened, does not cause a rational person to do that. The actions are undertaken by the individuals.

That is your perspective. Others find it to be beyond First Ammendment rights…which do, indeed, have limits.

This isn’t even close to being one of them.

 

[kevtronics]

Others find it to be beyond First Ammendment rights…which do, indeed, have limits.

The First Amendment begins with "Congress shall make no law..."

Which law do you think Congress (not the President or the FCC) should make to rectify this situation?

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

'The Apprentice' Reboot "Not In Active Development" At Amazon, Executive Says

'The Apprentice' Reboot "Not In Active Development" At Amazon, its Head of Unscripted and Documentary Television Jenn Levy said on May 1.

deadline.com

Amazon Eyes ‘Apprentice’ Reboot With Donald Trump Jr. at the Helm

Fourteen seasons after Donald Trump first told contestants they were fired, Amazon execs are reportedly exploring whether his eldest son can breathe new life into the franchise.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

Trump addresses rumors of 'The Apprentice' reboot hosted by Donald Jr.

President Donald Trump addressed speculation that his son, Donald Trump Jr., could host a new version of the reality TV competition series.

www.usatoday.com

Apparently this could be a factor on why we keep running into Trump and Carr wanting other TV shows cancelled. We have to consider this one. There is a proposal to reboot the Apprentice on Amazon. All that does is make the late night hosts and SNL want to do a parody on Trump and the apprentice. Not sure how the Apprentice is supposed to get Kimmel or other hosts off the air.

 

[landtuna]

Whatever you say, and whatever the FCC does, the “expectant widow” comment is about the worst I have heard in six decades of working in broadcasting.

1. Kimmel's comment was made several days before the dinner shooting. So the comment, unless Kimmel was clairvoyant, cannot be intelligently construed as pertaining to the attempted assassination of the president.

2. Kimmel has stated the comment was meant to joke about the age difference between Trump and his wife. On the surface that seems the intent. Of course, everyone must be aware of the president's poor health and terrible eating habits and that was my first personal thought however Kimmel's explanation also makes perfect sense.

To equate this comment with the constant and inflammable crap put out by the various right wing podsters (Rush etc.) over the years is extremely disingenuous. We all know about Trump's very thin skin and the fact he tries bullying his perceived enemies constantly. This is just another poorly chosen attempt.