Kimmel suspension and self-censorship set dangerous precedent, FCC commissioner says

William Brangham:

The debate continues over Disney's sudden decision to pull the ABC show Jimmy Kimmel live off the air indefinitely after a conservative backlash to his comments about Charlie Kirk's murder.

The chairman of the FCC, Brendan Carr, first suggested that ABC affiliates should pull Kimmel's show or face action from his agency. But Carr rejected accusations that he was punishing free speech.

Brendan Carr, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission:

Our goal and our obligation here is to make sure that broadcasters are serving the public interests. And if there's local TV stations that don't think that running that programming does it, then they have every right under the law in their contracts to preempt it.

William Brangham:

We again asked Chairman Carr to come on the "News Hour," but his office did not respond.

But there is also pushback coming from within the FCC itself. Commissioner Anna Gomez has been very critical of Kimmel's suspension. And she joins us now.

Commissioner Gomez, thank you so much for being here.

What is your principal issue with how this all went down?

Anna Gomez, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission:

What concerns me is how this administration is using every lever of power in order to bring broadcasters to heel, which is contrary to the First Amendment.

These threats are leading to these corporate parents capitulating to this administration's desire to control both how the media portrays this administration and now apparently how comedians make jokes about them, no matter whether you find them distasteful or not.

William Brangham:

Just to remind our audience about the chronology here, Kimmel made his comments on Monday. Chairman Carr made his comments. Then two large owners of ABC stations, Nexstar and Sinclair, both said they would pull Kimmel's show.

Both of those companies also have major regulatory matters before the FCC. How much of a role do you think that plays in all of this, their desire to get the FCC's approval and thus maybe doing what the FCC wants?

Anna Gomez:

So this is all a part of this administration's campaign of censorship and control.

And it has really been very aggressive in going after broadcasters for, like I said, how they report on this administration. And they want them to change and count out to this administration's ideology. So corporate parents are seeing what it is that this administration wants.

And, as you note, these broadcasters own a very large number of local broadcast stations throughout the country and they are seeing what it is that this administration wants. And so this capitulation is basically self-censorship in advance of their desire to get their transactions granted once they come before the FCC and also, by the way, to have the FCC lift a lot of the regulations that would stop them from merging and consolidating our broadcasters even more than they already are.

William Brangham:

The defenders of Kimmel's suspension say this was not about government censorship, this was about private companies choosing to say, look, we don't like what we heard on our airwaves and we're taking it off, and so that is their right.

Doesn't some of the responsibility here fall on these companies, fall on Disney and its CEO, Bob Iger?

Anna Gomez:

It is absolutely true that private companies have the right to decide what programming they want to air. And the FCC does not have the authority to tell them whether or not what they are showing is something that they like, as long as it's not unlawful.

However, this pressure campaign is what's leading these companies to capitulate. And what we need is for companies to stop capitulating and to show some courage, because every time you see them self-censor, it is fraying our democracy and the underpinnings of our democracy, which includes the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press. It is a dangerous precedent for this country.

William Brangham:

Your colleague Chairman Carr has also said that Jimmy Kimmel was in fact lying about the motives of this shooter and his political affiliations and was trying to mislead the country. He called it some of the sickest conduct possible.

Others, including some on Capitol Hill, have also argued that Kimmel's comments were equivalent to hate speech, as opposed to protected speech. What do you make of that argument?

Anna Gomez:

Once again, there is no exception to the First Amendment for broadcasters simply because they are licensed by the FCC.

We do not take action against broadcasters because we find the joke distasteful. Our First Amendment jurisprudence actually has protected throughout decades and centuries really the most abhorrent speech imaginable. And, also, satire has been such an important way that we push back against people in power.

When we censor, whether broadcasts of the news or comedians, what we are doing is losing part of our civic discourse that the public should be the one determines is what they want to hear, not the government.

William Brangham:

President Trump has suggested that the FCC should consider revoking the licenses of broadcasters that put on material that is critical of him.

What is your response to that suggestion? Does he have the power to do that? Could the FCC in fact do that?

Anna Gomez:

So the FCC does not have the authority, the constitutional right, or the ability to revoke licenses simply because this administration does not want to be criticized. That is contrary to the First Amendment and it's also contrary to the law.

Our Communications Act, which is what governs what the FCC can and cannot do, prohibits us from censoring broadcasters. And that would be exactly what we were doing if we were revoking licenses simply because the broadcasters are criticizing this administration.

William Brangham:

All right, that is FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez.

Commissioner Gomez, thank you so much for being here.

Anna Gomez:

Thank you.