Hacker News Reader

Comment by Cheer2171 | Hacker News Reader

FCC chair literally said "We can do this the easy way or the hard way" the easy way being ABC cancelling it, the hard way being pulling the license.

And if you wait for the license to be pulled as your red line, you misunderstand how this works. This is an actual threat, the kind of thing that mobsters get RICO charges for. The threat has done its work and served the purposes of the administration. The crime has already taken place. The mobster says "but he agreed to pay the protection money and nobody ever actually broke his kneecaps"

"These companies can find ways to change conduct and take actions on Kimmel,” said Carr, a Trump appointee, “or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/article/jimmy-kimmel-liv...

View on HN

Anyone can say anything. Follow through and abc can just ignore the order and tell everyone watching what is happening. They have the power of the pen and will get people running to their congressman.

they blinked so we will never know.

Saying that they blinked seems to be an admission that it was a threat with impact, no?

What is there to blink about if it was not a threat?

If I walk up to someone with a gun and wave the gun around and demand they give me their money or I'll shoot them, it does not matter if I was "serious" or not about the threat. If I tell a jury that I wouldn't have actually ever have shot the person, and that they just decided to give me their money because they didn't really need it so much, I'm not sure any jury would agree, unless I was a hell of a salesman.

> Anyone can say anything.

Not as the federal government, because it explicitly lacks the freedom of speech citizens are ensured by the Constitution.

And absent a first amendment claim, the best defense they can come up with would be 'We were joking.'

Which, given the well-cited history of coercion by this administration (both in verbalized plans and actions), would be a hard defense to make.

You seem to be saying that what happened is fine because it never actually got to a truly unconstitutional or get-in-the-streets worthy level of censorship. You seem to be saying if they actually revoked the license, that would be the red line. But because they never did, no harm, no foul.

What we are saying is that just by making the threat, the censorship has full and complete effect. They don't need to revoke the license to use the power of the government to influence constitutionalally protected speech. They just need to threaten.

It is not fine. I'm saying they should have had the guts to fight

> It is not fine. I'm saying they should have had the guts to fight

Yes they should have. But ideally we should live in a society that guts aren't necessary because threats are not made, especially from the government.

It's the second part that's the everyone is really worried about.

> Anyone can say anything.

This is illegal: "Nice business you've got here," the police officer says. "Shame that crime is on the rise. And we don't have as many officers to patrol. But give a donation and we'll take care of you. Don't and we'll stop answering your 911 calls."

Now replace with "We heard what you said about the mayor. Apologize or we'll stop answering your 911 calls."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com