"Government Censorship Is Deeply Un-American"

Complaint by ABC et al. against FCC: 

1. Government censorship is deeply un-American.  That fundamental principle predates the Republic, with our Founders recognizing that “the freedom of the press is one of the great[est] bulwarks of liberty.”1  And it is no less true today, as the Supreme Court unanimously 1Va. Declaration of Rights § 12 (adopted unanimously by the Virginia Convention of Delegates, Williamsburg, Va., June 12, 1776). 1 Case 1:26-cv-02902     Document 1     Filed 08/18/26     Page 3 of 46 reaffirmed only two years ago: the government may not “use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.”  Nat’l Rifle Ass’n v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175, 188 (2024).   

2. This case concerns the Administration’s sustained effort to do just that.  Acting through the Federal Communications Commission, the Administration has waged a retaliatory campaign against ABC for a single reason: it disapproves of what ABC broadcasts.  

3. That campaign began in this Administration’s earliest days and has only intensified since.  Again and again, the Administration has attacked ABC’s speech—the stories its journalists report and the viewpoints its network programs air.  Over time, those attacks have escalated into express demands that ABC be stripped of its broadcast licenses because of its speech. 2   

4. In prosecuting the Administration’s campaign against free speech on network television, the Commission fights on several fronts using its expansive regulatory powers.  What has unfolded, in the words of sitting FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, is “a sustained, coordinated campaign of censorship and control, carried out through the weaponization of the FCC’s authority as a federal regulator and aimed at pressuring a free and independent press and all media into submission.”3   

5. The Administration has not been shy about openly coercing ABC into changing its programming.  For example, in response to on-air comments by ABC’s late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, the FCC’s Chairman issued an ultimatum to Plaintiffs: “We can do this the easy way or 5. The Administration has not been shy about openly coercing ABC into changing its programming.  For example, in response to on-air comments by ABC’s late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, the FCC’s Chairman issued an ultimatum to Plaintiffs: “We can do this the easy way or the hard way.  These companies can find ways . . . to take action . . . on Kimmel, or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”4   

 6. For months, the Administration has steadily increased the pressure on ABC, culminating in the present threat to the broadcasting licenses of the eight ABC Owned Stations (“the Stations”).  The day after the President objected to additional on-air comments by Mr. Kimmel, the Commission issued an unprecedented order requiring the Stations to file early applications to renew their licenses—years before any of their licenses would have come up for renewal in the ordinary course and allowing only thirty days to file applications which ordinarily take months to prepare.  Until the day before that order issued, the Commission had not called for a renewal application ahead of schedule in more than half a century.  Nor had it ever demanded simultaneous early renewal applications from a group of stations commonly owned with a single broadcast network—much less stations with the record of public service and award-winning journalism like these Stations.  In a contemporaneous interview, the Chairman did not mince words when explaining the Commission’s decision to ramp up its pressure on ABC: “If you didn’t take us seriously, now you should.”5   7. The Commission has demanded a review of the Stations’ licenses extraordinarily early.  For all but two of the Stations, this early review comes before their current license terms have even reached the halfway point, and years before the Commission is statutorily authorized to grant renewal.  That timing underscores the Commission’s true purpose: coercing and retaliating against a network that refuses to bow to the Administration’s demands.

Looking Back on The West Wing

Past posts have discussed politics and the entertainment media.

Becca Rothfeld at WP  writes about the old TV show The West Wing:

“In Bartlet’s America,” wrote the New York Times’s James Poniewozik in a thoughtful reappraisal last year, “voters reward you for fighting lies and fearmongering with facts and reason. Good intentions and great oratory win the day. Well-meaning people reach across the aisle and reason with their colleagues. Politics is an earnest battle of ideas, not a consuming war of all against all.”

But “The West Wing” is a vastly more cynical show than many of its admirers remember, which why it is also a more compelling work of art than many of its skeptics assume. It is not, in fact, a paean to good government and the dedication of White House bureaucrats, nor is it an homage to good-faith debate or a portrait of political rationality. Rather, it is an honest and often quietly wrenching exploration of the Machiavellian maneuvering that corrupts even the most well-meaning people in politics.

White House Chief of Staff Leo McGarry (John Spencer), Deputy White House Chief of Staff Josh Lyman (Bradley Whitford) and President Bartlet — spend most of the show fretting over PR disasters and comparatively little time worrying about matters of political substance. In the episode after Bartlet brushes CJ off, Sam tries to persuade an official from the Office of Management and Budget to recalibrate the poverty index — not because he believes the agency’s calculations are wrong, but because the new measure would deem an additional 4 million people impoverished, which would look bad for the administration. In another episode, Josh agrees to append a provision to a health care reform bill — not because he thinks it is a good idea (indeed, he has not researched the proposal) but because the addition will persuade a recalcitrant senator to sign on. When Bartlet’s staffers take a more active role in shaping legislation, it is almost always by negotiating with politicians on the president’s behalf and almost never by advocating for policies on their own merits.