This also happened, I’m forgetting the court case, where the government revoked a driver’s license for reasons other than the driving.

They argued, well, it’s a “privilege.” The court, thankfully, shredded them and said that driving is basically a right that anyone may have access to if they meet the same standards set for public safety.

So, at least from that court’s view, it’s a “privilege” that people have an equal right to try to obtain and hold. Or something to that effect.

There's a substantive case to be made here, but you're not even close to making it. It's extremely well-known that the FCC regulates and prohibits, for example, "indecent and profane" content, such as nudity and swearing, which are both obviously first amendment protected. The FCC has been regulating speech like this for nearly 100 years.

I think there are examples of FCC censorship (regulating speech that they do not have the right to regulate, or doing so with obvious political bias), maybe even the one under discussion, but it is incredibly lazy to make these simple sarcastic comments that betray a lack of basic understanding or argumentation. You can make the case for getting rid of all the FCC's speech restrictions if you want, or for resolving what you might consider political enforcement action that is effectively political censorship. But sarcasm about how other people must be mad to tolerate something that has been going on for about 90 years, is pathetic.