But I don't for a second believe that the Democratic Party would cooperate with "their" person being impeached now either, except if it was politically advantageous for them (for instance, to remove an unpopular Democrat for an embarrassing misstep when there was a popular VP ready to go). No way would they impeach for crimes of overstepping presidential authority to do something the President from The West Wing would be proud of, for instance.
If he did the thing you ask, he would just be 'grandstanding' on something he has no vote to bring forward, which your statement would appear to damn him for.
>"supports impeachment and conviction"
As it stands now, Rand has no vote on any impeachment conviction and no ability to bring one, so I don't see the point in asterisking on the "and conviction" as it doesn't change the situation beyond shoehorning a connived reason in to blame Rand for not making a public statement on the non-existent impeachment.
But a Project 2025 co-author felt he wanted to illegally use his position in government to silence those who he disagreed with.
I don't understand what you're taking from this, and I'm guessing you didn't read it.
There’s also more than two sides to an issue.
The supposed fairness doctrine was utter nonsense for many many reasons.
When everyone is given a loudspeaker, and the power to create an audience of millions; when "journalism" is equivalent to any random opinion; when anyone with the will and a negligible amount of resources can promote their agenda... No amount of oversight can bring back balanced discussion about actual facts. Reversing a post-truth society cannot happen without radical disruptions to the system that got us here in the first place.
Whatever you think it did, it almost certainly did not do that. In practice it meant that J. Random Crazypants would be allowed to give an editorial -- sometimes in the middle of the night, and sometimes as 60 second after the news. Additionally the Doctrine never applied to Cable TV for obvious First Amendment reasons.
Source: https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/the_fcc_and_freedom_...
"Last Reviewed: 12/30/19" (Trump's first term)
As I said, the FCC is allowed to enforce a certain morality. It seems clear that the morality being enforced would fall in line with the ruling power of the day.
What part of that sentence qualifies as either indecent or profane?
Please quote Jimmy to clear up what you think the lie was.
Olive Garden isn't given access to something it requires to operate at the pleasure of the government. Broadcast TV on the other hand...
All of broadcast TV is allowed because the government says it is. ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX don't own the radio spectrum they are operating on, the government does and they grant the right to use it to those companies. There's a long list of things that the government requires them to do in order to keep this pleasure. One of them used to be the Saturday morning cartoons. I miss those.
A list of words you can't say is about morality; it's a drag but at least it's objective. You either said the word or you didn't.
This is far more subjective.
His second greatest was lying about Charlie Kirk's assassin.
Why do California and Mississippi have to follow the same standards?
So the justification for federal intervention (interstate commerce) is there.
Of course, that doesn't prevent the feds from letting the states handle it, but it does create an incentive for some states to want the feds to handle it.
As a separate matter, it's long been clear the FCC was created to serve a very time, context and needs - most of which either no longer exist or have changed substantially. Most media no longer travels through the limited shared resource of "airwaves". The agency's whole charter is in need of a major rethink.
[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2025/09/22/j...
> Following a suspension of the show for host Jimmy Kimmel's comments about the death of Charlie Kirk, Disney says "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" will return to air on Tuesday, Sept 23.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon… If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
Please, all: I know it’s tempting, but let’s not turn this site into just another outrage-news discussion site.
Without commenting on the righteousness of Rand Paul’s take or the craziness of the situation under it, “Politician contributes sound-byte to current political hot topic” isn’t valuable for discussion here (in my mind).
I really don’t want to see this thoughtfully assembled and curated forum turn into Reddit/Facebook for engineers, no matter how much airtime the current hot topic is getting.
SilverElfin•1h ago
There is also some allowance for the FCC to regulate content under some circumstances, and it has been upheld as constitutional previously. Brendan Carr, the FCC chair, rejected doing anything about online content because it would be unconstitutional.
In spirit I don’t think government or large companies should be moderating or censoring speech. But Rand Paul should be focusing on the precedence of FCC being able to regulate things like “obscenity”.
eesmith•1h ago
Did FCC chair Carr use the threat of regulatory power to intervene in internal business at ABC? Getting ABC to obey in advance sure seems like the implied "easy way."
Both fit the first definition of "intervene" at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/intervene - "To become involved in a situation, so as to alter or prevent an action"
willmarch•1h ago
stretchwithme•49m ago
You have freedom of the press, when you own a press. But the spectrum is not owned by the licensees. There are rules. Limits.
I am not for government owning the spectrum. But that's the current situation.
willmarch•43m ago
Sparkle-san•1h ago
legitster•1h ago
The FCC chair's statement was a bit of an indirect threat ("Pity if someone looked into your affiliates licenses"). But the timing makes it clear they were at least aware of and complicit in the backroom dealings that led to the show being taken off the air.
potato3732842•1h ago
tw04•1h ago
Under any normally functioning government, the head of the FCC would never threaten a television station because it's both an obvious violation of the first amendment, and under literally any other administration would have resulted in immediate dismissal.
b0sk•55m ago
xnx•52m ago
anigbrowl•46m ago
llllm•25m ago