Cool, so did the FCC apply pressure using government power in the attempt to achieve this situation?
Yes or no?
You don’t need to answer as that’s rhetorical. It’s obvious the answer is yes. Democratic governments try to avoid making public statements like that because the general public cannot tell if it was because of the government or a happy coincidence that the party being pressured just happened to comply. Because it can’t be discerned even the appearance of using government power like that degrades the rule of law
Carr is not “the FCC”. He’s the chairman, but he can’t act unilaterally to remove an affiliate broadcast license.
So “the FCC” did not apply pressure, the chairman did. He has a lot of influence and can set the agenda for the commission but he needs a majority of the commissioners to revoke a broadcast license. That is a super rare occurrence and would be unlikely.
Trump is different. He is the executive branch. He has the ability to EO change without anyone else having to agree before the fact. The FCC operates as a commission. The chairman might set the agenda, but the commission has to agree by majority. You could argue that he has great influence within the FCC, but he is not the FCC.
When you make the leap from Carr to “the FCC” it’s roughly like if Sen. John Thune said something and you attributed his words to “the senate”.
Court cases have established that you don't need actual action for a free speech violation to have occurred. The act of using your government position to pressure, coerce, or threaten people who are using speech you don't like is a violation of the Constitution, flat out.
Otherwise the protection of free speech means nothing, because politicians can merely threaten you all day but never pull the trigger on an obviously disallowed act while implying that you'll make trouble for involved actors which has a degree of separation, enough to avoid it being a direct cause and effect. And in this case Carr did exactly that by threatening to make trouble for affiliates like Nexstar -- as long as your threat has a material impact (like causing a company to adhere to the desired action to avoid further red tape in their acquisition approvals), it would be enough to quell constitutionally protected speech.
Yes the individual agents of any organization aren’t the entire organization themselves. However to argue that the agent of an organization acting under the color of their role in said organization doesn’t represent said organization, is some sort of “the card says moops” level of sophistry
Yes or no?
You don’t need to answer as that’s rhetorical. It’s obvious the answer is yes. Democratic governments try to avoid making public statements like that because the general public cannot tell if it was because of the government or a happy coincidence that the party being pressured just happened to comply. Because it can’t be discerned even the appearance of using government power like that degrades the rule of law