So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast

Episode 254—What is Going on with the FCC?

Date: September 30, 2025
Host: Nico Perrino (FIRE)
Guests: Anna Gomez (FCC Commissioner), Ronnie London (FIRE General Counsel), Bob Corn-Revere (FIRE Chief Counsel, former FCC Advisor)

Main Theme & Purpose

This episode responds to recent controversies surrounding the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and its perceived role in regulating broadcast content in the wake of high-profile political events, including the assassination of Charlie Kirk, heated late-night monologues (specifically Jimmy Kimmel), and escalating calls from political figures for content regulation and possible license revocation of broadcasters.

The panel takes a step back from the current headlines, providing a detailed, accessible explainer about the FCC’s legal authority, history, and limitations—particularly as it relates to free speech, the First Amendment, broadcast versus cable/online, and concepts like the public interest standard, the Fairness Doctrine, indecency regulations, and “news distortion.”

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Recent Events Prompting FCC Scrutiny (00:40–04:10)

• The assassination of Charlie Kirk triggered public outcry and government interest in penalizing "insensitive" speech.
• Attorney General Pam Bondi and President Trump publicly advocated for investigations of broadcasters ("hate speech" on ABC, Kimmel monologue).
• FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr seemed to urge FCC action or broadcaster self-censorship, leading Nexstar and Sinclair to preempt Kimmel’s broadcast and Disney to pull his show temporarily.
  • Quote:
    “Frankly, when you see stuff like this...these companies can find ways to change conduct…or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”
    — Brendan Carr on Benny Johnson’s show (02:05)

2. What Is the FCC and What Does It Actually Regulate? (04:46–06:47)

• Anna Gomez: The FCC regulates how communications are transmitted—issues like access to broadcast spectrum, satellite, technical rules, and fraud—but not content on most platforms.
  • “We regulate… the spectrum that they need to broadcast and have some rules around that. …We also ensure everyone is connected... We do not regulate the content of cable television.” (04:51–06:47)

3. The “Public Interest” Standard: Reality vs. Myth (07:33–09:40; 12:19–14:16)

• Legal Mandate: Broadcasters must serve the “public interest” as per the Communications Act, but this is a general umbrella, not a license to control content.
  • Only certain types of speech—like indecency or obscenity in narrow circumstances—are regulated on broadcast, and even those are uniquely limited.
  • Misconception: The FCC is not America’s “speech police.”
    • “The public interest standard isn’t this blank check that regulators can use to go after content they don’t like.” — Bob Corn-Revere (07:33)
  • Anna Gomez: “The misuse of the public interest standard is really kind of a misdirection and an excuse to be able to stop certain types of content.” (12:19)
  • There is no broad First Amendment “exception” for FCC regulation—any content-based rules must meet Constitutional scrutiny.

4. Indecency, Scarcity, Equal Time, and the Fairness Doctrine (09:40–19:44)

• Indecency: Only applies in a very limited way to broadcast (not cable, internet, or phone). The rationale was originally tied to scarcity of spectrum, but does not justify wide censorship.
  • “Indecency is fully protected speech ... Only in broadcast, and very narrowly, can there be any time-channeling.” — Ronnie London (10:16)
• Fairness Doctrine (repudiated in 1987): Once required balanced coverage of controversial issues—abolished on First Amendment grounds.
• Equal Time Rule: Still exists, but applies only to actual candidates appearing on air, and is riddled with exceptions for news, commentary, etc.
  • “If a station allows a use by a candidate, then it’s required to allow the opportunity for equivalent time...” — Bob Corn-Revere (18:10)

5. Debunking Common Myths and Recent FCC Rhetoric (21:30–24:11)

• FCC regulations apply to local affiliates, not networks (e.g., ABC, NBC). The “news distortion” rule is highly limited—a licensee must be shown to intentionally distort the news.
• The recent argument that jokes or opinions by Kimmel constitute “news distortion” or require “equal time” is deeply wrong.
  • “There’s nothing about what [Brad Todd] said that was right... Even the punctuation is wrong. ...Late night monologues have nothing to do with news distortion...” — Bob Corn-Revere (23:20)

6. Broadcast Hoax Rule and the “News Distortion Policy” (25:14–34:55)

• Broadcast Hoax Rule: Applies only to knowing broadcast of false information about crimes/catastrophes that cause immediate, actual public harm. It is not remotely relevant to comedy or political commentary.
  • “This has absolutely nothing to do with a late-night monologue... It’s maybe been applied once or twice. It’s kind of like a Bigfoot sighting…” — Bob Corn-Revere (26:38)
• News Distortion Policy: Not a “rule,” highly circumscribed, rooted in ancient Fairness Doctrine practices, all but obsolete.
  • “No government agency can authenticate the news or should it try to. We will therefore eschew the censor’s role…” — (FCC policy, quoted by Ronnie London, 34:02)

7. Jawboning: Government Pressure and First Amendment Concerns (42:52–44:10)

• When a government official threatens action (“We can do this the easy way or the hard way…”) if broadcasters don’t self-censor, this likely constitutes unconstitutional “jawboning”—recently addressed in the Supreme Court’s NRA v. Vullo decision.
  • “I mean, this is almost a direct recasting of that… You’ve got Brendan Carr in the Vullo role, you’ve got ABC in the insurer’s role, and you’ve got Jimmy Kimmel in the NRA’s role.” — Ronnie London (43:20)

8. Networks vs. Affiliates; Preemption and Corporate Pressures (31:56–41:15)

• Affiliate contracts with networks usually limit how often programming can be preempted for cause (like news emergencies)—not for indefinite, ideological reasons.
• Consolidation of affiliates (e.g., Nexstar, Sinclair) raises concerns about a single corporate owner imposing viewpoint uniformity nationwide, threatening diversity of opinion.
  • “What you are seeing is they’re imposing their values on these local broadcasters, which is their right. But that is why diversity of viewpoints is one of our goals.” — Anna Gomez (38:50)
• Ongoing preemption of Kimmel could violate these contracts and ultimately hurt affiliates financially.

9. Is Broadcast TV Obsolete? Should Spectrum Be Auctioned? (44:30–46:55)

• Host (Nico): Raises arguments for simply auctioning the public airwaves rather than maintaining outdated broadcast regulations.
• Anna Gomez: Pushes back—broadcast still serves rural, under-connected communities and plays a vital emergency communication role.
  • “Over-the-air broadcasting still serves a very important public interest... particularly during times of emergencies… A lot of people rely on public broadcasting.” (45:16)
• Bob Corn-Revere: The foundational aim should still be universal access to free information, not regulator preferences for content.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “The public interest standard isn’t this blank check that regulators can use to go after content they don’t like.”
  — Bob Corn-Revere, 07:33

• “This misuse of the public interest standard is really kind of a misdirection and an excuse to be able to stop certain types of content.”
  — Anna Gomez, 12:19

• “Let’s not pretend that [the FCC] can’t censor at all—let’s not pretend they can’t, at least based on current case law and some of these rules we’re discussing. Right. It’s just, how do you draw those lines and why are they so unique to broadcast?”
  — Nico Perrino, 16:16

• “There’s nothing about what [Brad Todd] said that was right… Even the punctuation is wrong.”
  — Bob Corn-Revere, 23:20

• “It’s maybe been applied once or twice. It’s kind of like a Bigfoot sighting…”
  — Bob Corn-Revere, on the broadcast hoax rule, 26:38

• “No government agency can authenticate the news or should it try to. We will therefore eschew the censor’s role…”
  — FCC policy, quoted by Ronnie London, 34:02

• “This is almost a direct recasting of that [NRA v. Vullo]... I don’t know if it could be clearer.”
  — Ronnie London, on jawboning by government officials, 43:20

• “Over-the-air broadcasting still serves a very important public interest... and it’s really important during times of emergencies…”
  — Anna Gomez, 45:16

• "We're losing newspapers. Everyone's getting their news through TikTok. And by the way, a lot of the news they get through TikTok was originated by journalists from broadcasting stations, so it's important that we continue that."
  — Anna Gomez, 46:55

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:40 — Political context, government response, and the Kimmel/ABC incident
• 04:51 — What the FCC regulates (Anna Gomez)
• 07:33 — The “public interest” standard explained (Bob Corn-Revere)
• 09:40 — Indecency and broadcast, the scarcity rationale (Ronnie London)
• 14:16 — The equal time rule and its limits (Bob Corn-Revere, Ronnie London)
• 21:30 — FCC’s authority over affiliates, not networks; “news distortion” explained (Anna Gomez)
• 25:14 — Broadcast hoax rule debunked (Bob Corn-Revere)
• 34:02 — FCC’s historical position on news distortion and press freedom (Ronnie London)
• 42:52 — Jawboning and First Amendment implications (Ronnie London)
• 44:30 — Is broadcast TV obsolete? (Panel)
• 46:55 — The continued value of local broadcasting (Anna Gomez)

Conclusion

The episode methodically demystifies the oft-misunderstood regulatory powers of the FCC, pushing back against recent calls (from both left and right) to use administrative clout to silence broadcast content for political purposes. The panel's consensus is clear: the FCC’s role in regulating content is narrow and uniquely constrained by the First Amendment, regardless of contemporary political pressures. Misusing vague concepts like “public interest” or “news distortion” for ideological ends runs counter to Constitutional values and regulatory tradition.

For listeners looking to understand both the legal and practical limits of FCC authority in a media-saturated, hyper-partisan era, this episode provides a thoughtful, spirited, and accessible explainer.