https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/fcc-jimmy-kimme...
So yes, seems there was a middle step between Brendan Carr on a podcast, and top level ABC decision making.
https://www.poynter.org/business-work/2025/nexstar-tegna-fcc...
> “We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr said. “These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”
> Carr suggested that the FCC could pursue news distortion allegations against local licensees.
> “Frankly I think it’s past time that a lot of these licensed broadcasters themselves push back on Comcast and Disney, and say ’We are going to preempt — we are not going to run Kimmel anymore until you straighten this out,’” he said. “It’s time for them to step up and say this garbage — to the extent that that’s what comes down the pipe in the future — isn’t something that serves the needs of our local communities.”
(for those that don't know, ABC doesn't have an FCC license, broadcasting stations (affiliates) do, so that's exactly who he's using his unconstitutional leverage over)
https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/brendan-carr-abc-fcc-jimmy-...
Yes or no?
You don’t need to answer as that’s rhetorical. It’s obvious the answer is yes. Democratic governments try to avoid making public statements like that because the general public cannot tell if it was because of the government or a happy coincidence that the party being pressured just happened to comply. Because it can’t be discerned even the appearance of using government power like that degrades the rule of law
So “the FCC” did not apply pressure, the chairman did. He has a lot of influence and can set the agenda for the commission but he needs a majority of the commissioners to revoke a broadcast license. That is a super rare occurrence and would be unlikely.
And in fact, no individual politician should be capable of acting unilaterally for the government, so I guess they are all off scott free.
When you make the leap from Carr to “the FCC” it’s roughly like if Sen. John Thune said something and you attributed his words to “the senate”.
Otherwise the protection of free speech means nothing, because politicians can merely threaten you all day but never pull the trigger on an obviously disallowed act while implying that you'll make trouble for involved actors which has a degree of separation, enough to avoid it being a direct cause and effect. And in this case Carr did exactly that by threatening to make trouble for affiliates like Nexstar -- as long as your threat has a material impact (like causing a company to adhere to the desired action to avoid further red tape in their acquisition approvals), it would be enough to quell constitutionally protected speech.
Yes the individual agents of any organization aren’t the entire organization themselves. However to argue that the agent of an organization acting under the color of their role in said organization doesn’t represent said organization, is some sort of “the card says moops” level of sophistry