Rand Paul: FCC chair had "no business" intervening in ABC/Kimmel controversy

Did the FCC “intervene”?

• Some argue the FCC didn’t formally intervene: the chair only made public comments about “looking into” the incident; actual enforcement would require a commission vote.
• Others say that’s still intervention: when a regulator hints at possible license scrutiny, it’s a meaningful attempt to alter a broadcaster’s behavior, even without formal action.
• This is likened to a mob-style veiled threat: “nice station you’ve got there…” – coercive precisely because of the latent power.

First Amendment, jawboning, and legality

• Several commenters call this unconstitutional “government-induced censorship,” citing recent Supreme Court precedent (e.g., Vullo) on officials threatening private entities over speech.
• The term “jawboning” is raised to describe informal pressure that chills speech without explicit orders.
• Others note the FCC can regulate narrow categories like obscenity/indecency on broadcast spectrum, but agree that does not extend to punishing political viewpoints.
• Disagreement emerges over whether the late-night segment could plausibly fall under “morality” enforcement; critics say it clearly doesn’t meet obscenity/indecency criteria.

Historical and partisan context

• One side claims this reflects a broader pattern of the current Supreme Court ignoring precedent to bless presidential overreach.
• Others counter with earlier examples (Fairness Doctrine abuse, presidential threats against broadcasters, social media pressure) to argue misuse of state power over speech is bipartisan and longstanding.
• Debate arises over whether past efforts to counter foreign disinformation were legitimate security measures or censorship.

Impeachment and accountability

• Some say, given Court doctrine that impeachment is the only real check, critics who decry the FCC chair’s conduct should call for impeachment rather than only rhetoric.
• Others respond that members of the “wrong” chamber have limited formal power, and impeachment has largely devolved into a partisan tool used only against the other party’s leaders.

FCC’s mission, morality, and Fairness Doctrine

• One view: the FCC historically exists partly to enforce broadcast morality; what counts as “moral” will track the ruling party’s values.
• Pushback: the FCC is legally barred from censoring viewpoints and is tightly constrained to obscenity/indecency; it is not a general morality police.
• Some wish to revive the Fairness Doctrine; others call it unworkable today (multi-sided issues, Internet dominance, cable exemption) or over-mythologized.

Federal vs. state control and the nature of broadcast

• Question raised: why must broadcast standards be federal, instead of state-level?
• Replies note that signals routinely cross state lines (e.g., multi-state metro markets), justifying interstate regulation; opponents argue neighboring states could coordinate instead.
• Broader thread: the FCC’s spectrum-based rationale is increasingly outdated given the shift to Internet distribution; some call for a “major rethink” of the agency’s charter.

Spectrum ownership and free-market arguments

• One commenter claims that in a free market, spectrum would be private property.
• Others argue this misunderstands radio physics and history: without government allocation, there’d be a chaotic “free-for-all,” with re-use driven by geography rather than exclusive property rights.

The specific Kimmel/Kirk incident

• Commenters dispute what, exactly, the host said and whether it was false or defamatory, but there’s broad agreement that criticizing a president or political figures must remain protected.
• Some emphasize the core problem is the President making clear the issue was personal criticism, turning regulatory pressure into a tool of retaliation.
• Others note that if criticizing politicians were sanctionable, basic political programming like debates could not safely air.

Effect and aftermath

• The show’s suspension is noted as temporary; it’s reported the host will return to air within days.
• Several people observe a “Streisand effect”: attempts to silence the host and the right-wing commentator made both far more visible, especially to international readers who had never heard of them.