loading . . . What FCC Chair Carr has said and where he said it SMACKS of Quid Pro Quo! This is text book 1st amendment violation stuff right here: “Carr called Kimmel's remarks "truly sick" and "the sickest conduct possible," arguing they violated broadcasters' "public interest" obligations. He suggested ABC/Disney could face "additional work for the FCC ahead" (implying investigations, fines, or license reviews for affiliates) and urged stations to preempt the show, stating, "We can do this the easy way or the hard way" by changing conduct on Kimmel.” Verification of FCC Chair Brendan Carr's Statements on Jimmy Kimmel The user's query references specific statements attributed to FCC Chairman Brendan Carr regarding comedian Jimmy Kimmel's monologue comments about the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk (co-founder of Turning Point USA). These comments, made on the September 16, 2025, episode of Jimmy Kimmel Live!, suggested that the MAGA movement was attempting to portray the alleged shooter, Tyler Robinson, as "anything other than one of them" to score political points. Official reports indicate Robinson held "leftist ideology," though his voter registration was unaffiliated, and no motive has been confirmed. Kimmel's remarks sparked backlash from conservative media, leading to Carr's public response. Based on a review of recent reports, Carr's statements do align closely with the provided text, though they were made in multiple venues over a short period (primarily September 17, 2025). They appear to have contributed to ABC's decision to suspend Jimmy Kimmel Live! indefinitely later that day, following preemption announcements from major ABC affiliates like Nexstar (32 stations) and Sinclair. Carr's rhetoric has drawn widespread criticism for potentially pressuring broadcasters, especially as Nexstar awaits FCC approval for a $6.2 billion merger with Tegna, which could be scrutinized under ownership rules. Key Statements by Carr and Their Contexts Carr's remarks emphasize broadcasters' "public interest" obligations under FCC rules, which require licensed stations to serve communities without "news distortion" or hoaxes (e.g., 47 U.S.C. § 315 and related precedents like the 1969 FCC ruling on fabricated news). He framed Kimmel's comments as a potential violation, suggesting affiliates could face investigations, fines, or license reviews if they continued airing the show. Below is a breakdown of the verified quotes, sourced from direct interviews and social media: | Statement/Quote | Context and Source | Date and Platform | | --- | --- | --- | | "Truly sick" and "the sickest conduct possible" | Carr described Kimmel's remarks as part of a "concerted effort to lie to the American people" about the shooter's ideology, calling them "truly sick" and "the sickest conduct possible." He argued they violated public interest obligations by misleading viewers on a sensitive political event. This was in response to a question about the FCC's stance on the monologue. | September 17, 2025; Interview on right-wing podcaster Benny Johnson's podcast (as reported by Variety, CNN, Deadline, and AP News). | | ABC/Disney could face "additional work for the FCC ahead" (implying investigations, fines, or license reviews for affiliates) | Carr warned that Disney (ABC's parent company) and affiliates like Nexstar could face "additional work for the FCC ahead" if they did not address the content, potentially including news distortion probes or license revocations. He noted this as part of reinvigorating FCC enforcement on partisan programming. Affiliates preempting the show would avoid such scrutiny. | September 17, 2025; Benny Johnson podcast interview (as reported by Variety, The New York Times, Deadline, and CNN). Also echoed on Fox News' Hannity later that evening, where Carr praised affiliates for "standing up" and said, "We're not done yet" on broader enforcement. | | Urged stations to preempt the show, stating, "We can do this the easy way or the hard way" by changing conduct on Kimmel | Carr explicitly urged local broadcasters to "push back" on Disney by preempting Jimmy Kimmel Live! until the issue was resolved, saying, "We can do this the easy way or the hard way" – implying self-correction by networks or escalated FCC action. He suggested affiliates tell Disney, "We're not going to run Kimmel anymore until you straighten this out," to avoid "license revocation" risks. On X (formerly Twitter), he later defended this by calling Kimmel's conduct "outrageous" and praising Nexstar's preemption as serving "community values." | September 17, 2025; Benny Johnson podcast (primary source for the "easy way or hard way" phrasing, as reported by CNN, AP News, The Hollywood Reporter, and The New York Times). Follow-up on Fox News' Hannity (defending preemption as "unprecedented" but necessary). X post: "Jimmy ‘Blackface’ Kimmel’s apparently outrageous conduct is the problem here, not the calling of it out" (referencing a past Kimmel controversy). Another X post thanked Nexstar and hoped "other broadcasters follow." | These statements were made amid a fast-moving timeline: Kimmel's monologue aired September 16; Carr's podcast interview occurred midday September 17; Nexstar announced preemption that afternoon; ABC suspended the show that evening; and Carr appeared on Hannity that night to defend the outcome. Analysis of Quid Pro Quo Concerns The user's claim of "quid pro quo" refers to an apparent exchange where Carr's threats may have influenced ABC's actions, potentially tied to regulatory favors. This is substantiated by the context: Timing and Leverage: Carr's comments preceded ABC's suspension by hours. Nexstar, which preempted first, is seeking FCC approval for its Tegna merger, which requires relaxing ownership caps (e.g., under 47 U.S.C. § 314). Sinclair, another preempting group, faces similar scrutiny. Carr's role in reviewing such deals creates implicit pressure – act now ("easy way") or face "additional work" like delays or denials ("hard way"). Evidence from Reports: Multiple outlets (e.g., CNN, CNBC, The New York Times) describe this as "bullying" or "extortion-like," with Democrats like House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Sen. Richard Blumenthal calling for Carr's resignation over "corrupt abuse of power." FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez (the sole Democrat) criticized it on X as exploiting tragedy for "broader censorship." Nexstar's statement cited Kimmel's remarks but aligned with Carr's public interest framing. Counterarguments: Carr and supporters (e.g., Fox News, The Federalist) argue this enforces existing rules against "partisan circus" programming, not quid pro quo. They claim Kimmel's comments were a "hoax" or distortion, justifying affiliate action. President Trump praised the suspension as "Great News for America" on X. However, Carr's past opposition to FCC "policing speech in the name of the public interest" (e.g., a 2019 statement resurfaced by Newsweek and Deadline) highlights perceived hypocrisy. Broader Implications: No formal quid pro quo investigation has been announced as of September 18, 2025, but legal experts (e.g., via CNN and The Guardian) note this could test First Amendment limits, as the FCC regulates broadcast (not cable/streaming) content but cannot directly censor. Affiliates' preemption is legal, but government threats may chill speech, per precedents like FCC v. League of Women Voters (1984). First Amendment Violation Analysis The user's assertion of a "textbook 1st Amendment violation" has merit but is nuanced: Why It "Smacks" of a Violation: The First Amendment prohibits government abridgment of speech. Carr, as a Trump appointee, used his official platform to threaten regulatory action over protected political satire/commentary. Kimmel's monologue is opinion-based, not "news distortion" (a narrow FCC rule for factual hoaxes). By implying fines or license reviews, Carr may have coerced private action (ABC's suspension), creating a "chilling effect" – a classic indirect violation (e.g., Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 1963). Critics like Gov. JB Pritzker and Sen. Blumenthal argue this weaponizes the FCC against "liberal bias," echoing Carr's prior anti-censorship stance. FCC's Limited Authority: The FCC regulates over-the-air broadcasters for "public interest" but has deferred on editorial content since the 1980s (e.g., Fairness Doctrine repeal). It cannot dictate programming but can investigate complaints. Carr's threats exceed this, per his own 2019 tweet: "The FCC does not have a roving mandate to police speech in the name of the 'public interest.'" Democratic leaders called it "fascism" and an "act of cowardice" by ABC. Defenses and Precedents: Proponents say broadcasters aren't fully protected like print media (due to spectrum scarcity), and affiliates voluntarily preempted. However, government pressure on licensees for content is suspect (e.g., CBS v. Democratic National Committee, 1973). If challenged in court, this could fail under strict scrutiny, as content-based regulation of speech is presumptively unconstitutional (Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 2015). Stakeholder Views: Critics (Democrats, Free Speech Advocates): Represents authoritarian overreach; e.g., The Guardian called it "censoring you in real time." Protests outside ABC Studios on September 18 chanted against "fascism." Supporters (Conservatives, Trump Allies): Enforces accountability; e.g., podcaster Benny Johnson credited Carr for "getting Kimmel fired." Fox News framed it as ending "narrow, partisan" bias. Neutral/Legal: The FCC's website notes limited authority over political content, but Carr's actions may invite lawsuits from ABC or Kimmel. This incident highlights tensions in broadcast regulation under the Trump administration, where Carr has prioritized anti-censorship against tech but now targets traditional media. As of September 18, 2025, ABC has not commented on reinstatement, and Carr indicated on CNBC that "we're not done yet" on similar enforcement. For real-time updates, monitoring FCC filings or court challenges is recommended. https://x.com/i/grok/share/6SHQH0J9vFkbGMgsCyD5hmZ5d
