Jimmy Kimmel has a First Amendment claim against Trump's FCC -- Sabrina Haake

[erronis]

https://sabrinahaake.substack.com/p/brett-kavanaughs-swiss-cheese-excuse

This is not a private employer matter; Carr's threats against ABC's license are an admission of liability

If Trump’s skin gets any thinner the US will have its first translucent president.

Trump, who relishes belittling people with unpresidential insults, like calling democrats ‘scum’ and ‘the enemy within,’ can’t take it when his slurs boomerang back at him.

Instead of accepting that jokes, jabs and insults come with the territory—satirizing presidents is an American tradition— Trump reacts like an enraged teenager when anyone insults him. Whenever the media fail to fawn, or worse, accurately report Trump’s unprecedented corruption or ineptitude, his first instinct is to use federal resources to seek retribution against them.

Strongmen can’t handle ridicule

While Trump works to silence media outlets that cover him truthfully, comedic ridicule seems to sting him most acutely.

As authoritarian expert Ruth Ben-Ghiat points out, “humor has long been one of the most effective weapons of anti-authoritarian politics. Behind the facade of their omnipotence, most strongmen are brittle and insecure personalities. They don’t mind being called evil, but being ridiculed is a different matter.”

. . .

Sabrina Haake is a columnist and 25+ year federal trial attorney specializing in 1st and 14th A defense. Her Substack, The Haake Take, is free.

[bucolic_frolic]

1. She has an interesting perspective

an admission of liability.

someone's actions caused some harm, basically.

[UTUSN]

2. From the OP's link, re: government threatening using government authority

**********QUOTE**********

.... The First Amendment prohibits the government from censoring or threatening private media outlets for political speech, because threats of government sanction, retribution or punishment has a direct chilling effect on that speech. Just last year the Supreme Court ruled in National Rifle Association v. Vullo that government officials cannot use coercive tactics to suppress disfavored speech, stressing that government officials cannot achieve indirect censorship by threatening private companies (like ABC) to punish certain viewpoints (like Kimmel’s).

The FCC cannot punish broadcasters that disparage Trump, or use its authority to pressure private employers to suppress objectionable opinions. The Supreme Court has ruled consistently that using coercive tactics to suppress disfavored views is unconstitutional censorship, even if the government doesn't directly target the speaker, but, as here, targets his employer by threatening their FCC license.

Here's hoping Kimmel sues. If Carr is going to run the FCC like his personal fiefdom, he ought to learn some First Amendment basics; answering Kimmel’s complaint will serve him as a nice tutorial. ....

*********UNQUOTE*******