No, I am not saying that. What I am saying is that he seems to care about acting along the lines of what is constitutional. And the FCC has regulatory authority over broadcasted TV, including on the content itself to some extent. The authority of the FCC on regulating the actual content has been upheld across numerous court cases as being constitutional. The article I linked shows he is unwilling to implement censorship that is unconstitutional despite there being some calls for it on the political right.
OK, but you are ignoring other stuff he said that appears to contradict that - the remarks posted above, and also his reaction to the suspension where he calls on other companies to do the same thing (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45284746).
I get that you support the remarks he made yesterday, but I would like to know what you think of the remarks he made today.
"“This is a very, very serious issue right now for Disney. We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr said. “These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel, or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead."
It's still censorship even if the FCC has regulatory ability. Censorship is a type of action.
If the FCC bans porn before 10pm that's still censorship. You can argue whether it's justified or not
> It's still censorship even if the FCC has regulatory ability. Censorship is a type of action.
> If the FCC bans porn before 10pm that's still censorship. You can argue whether it's justified or not
I agree with both of these statements. But I don’t think that contradicts my point necessarily. I’m saying his approach is to do things that are censorship but are also legal, but to refuse to do things that are illegal even if there is political pressure to do so. I also noted in one of my other comments (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45284283) that I think it is unfortunate that the FCC has the authority to regulate content at all.
