Category: News

A group of former FCC chairs and top agency officials of both parties are calling on current chairman Brendan Carr to end the early review of broadcast licenses for ABC stations, characterizing it as “an assault on free speech disguised as regulatory process.”

In a filing with the FCC on Tuesday, the officials wrote, “The Commission initiated the early renewal process of all eight ABC-owned-and-operated stations one day after the President and First Lady criticized ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel for a joke he made about them.”

They added: “Public reporting and the notice establishing the procedures for this proceeding also suggest that the Chairman has prejudged the outcome of this proceeding and that the Commission may assert the power to terminate the stations’ licenses early. All this betrays that this proceeding is pretext for the Chairman’s continued campaign of suppressing disfavored speech.”

Among those signing on to the filing were Mark Fowler and Dennis Patrick, chairmen of the FCC under Ronald Reagan; Alfred Sikes, chairman under President George W. Bush; and Thomas Wheeler, chairman under Barack Obama.

RELATED: After Trump Threat, FCC Chairman Says ABC’s Decision Not To Carry POTUS Speech Likely To Be Raised In Early Review Of Broadcast Licenses

The FCC under Carr ordered ABC to file renewal applications for its eight owned stations at the end of May, even though the first of the licenses wasn’t set to expire until 2028. Carr has said that the action was as part of an ongoing investigation into Disney’s diversity, equity and inclusion policies.

ABC filed for renewal, but characterized the action as “an extraordinary demonstration of power and coercion directed at disfavored editorial voices which sends a clear warning to every broadcaster in America.”

As part of the process, the FCC opened up a public comment proceeding.

RELATED: ABC Says “Broad And Cross-Ideological Consensus” Backs ‘The View’ Amid FCC Investigation

In their filing, the former FCC officials noted that two groups, the Center for American Rights and the Media Research Center, had called for the agency to deny the stations’ renewal applications.

The FCC officials said that the groups “ask the Commission to interfere with the stations’ First Amendment-protected editorial discretion: word choices, fact-checks, time covering certain topics, personnel, and the licensees’ perceived viewpoints. These are not legitimate subjects of FCC regulation. Indeed, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government may not ‘un-bias’ what it thinks is biased.”

So far, more than 141,000 comments have been received in the station renewal proceeding. The deadline for ABC to reply to the responses is Wednesday.

RELATED: FCC Chairman Proposes Repeal Of National Ownership Cap, Sets August Vote

An FCC spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In its petition to deny the licenses, the Center for American Rights cited broadcasters’ public interest obligations. Among other things, they argued that ABC does not provide “a balanced presentation of information on issues of public importance.”

The group wrote: “It is likely lots of ink will be spilled in this proceeding focused on the First Amendment rights of Disney. ABC and its allies will ‘attempt to drape the mantle of First Amendment protection solely around those in the broadcast industry. This approach ignores the rest of the citizens of this country.’ … ABC’s rights are important, but they are not preeminent. It is the right of viewers of ABC stations which must feature first and foremost in this Commission’s considerations.”

In the filing, the former FCC officials called the agency’s early renewal action “virtually unprecedented.” The FCC also launched an investigation and separate proceeding into ABC’s The View and whether it qualifies as a bona fide news program and therefore is exempt from equal-time rules. The network has pushed back on that action as well, also characterizing it as a retaliatory effort to chill free speech.

RELATED: How The FCC Plans To Weigh A Flood Of Public Comments As It Investigates ABC’s ‘The View’

The former FCC officials were represented in the filing by the Protect Democracy Project, Andrew Jay Schwartzman, Gigi Sohn of G Squared Strategies and Berin Szóka of Tech Freedom. They also represented a group of former FCC officials to petition the agency to rescind its news distortion policy, arguing that Carr has used it to launch investigations into news coverage that is protected by the First Amendment.

Other former FCC officials signing on to the filing include Kathryn C. Brown, chief of staff to FCC Chairman William Kennard from 1998-2001; Rachelle B. Chong, a Republican commissioner who served from 1994-97; Jerald Fritz, legal adviser and chief of staff to Fowler from 1981-87; Rosemary Harold, enforcement bureau chief from 2017-22; William T. Lake, media bureau chief from 2009-17; Ruth Milkman, chief of staff to Wheeler from 2013-17; Peter Pitsch, chief of staff to Patrick from 1987-89; Gloria Tristani, Democratic commissioner from 1997-2001; and Christopher J. Wright, general counsel from 1997-2001.

RELATED: GLAAD, HRC, PFLAG Among 40+ Orgs Denouncing FCC’s Attempt To Require “Warning Label” On LGBTQ Programming

A federal judge will allow Donald Trump to again amend his defamation lawsuit against The New York Times, as the publication has moved to dismiss the litigation.

U.S. District Judge Steven Merryday gave Trump until August 27 to file the new complaint.

Trump sued the Times in September, taking particular issue with the premise that Trump’s celebrity fame was due to Mark Burnett and NBC’s The Apprentice. It cited an article from Susanne Craig and Ross Buettner, also named as defendants, and their book Lucky Loser. Their article was headlined, “The Star-Making Machine That Created ‘Donald Trump.’” Penguin Random House also is a defendant in the case, as is Peter Baker, who wrote a piece headlined, “For Trump, a Lifetime of Scandals Heads Toward a
Moment of Judgment.”

.Merryday tossed out Trump’s original lawsuit, but allowed the president to refile. He filed an amended complaint in October, pointing out individual passages in the book and Times articles. Among those cited: “Mark Burnett’s The Apprentice fortified Trump’s fact-free bubble, while also making it national and bankable in ways that Trump never did on his own.”

The Times and other defendants moved to dismiss the new complaint, arguing that the case was filed in an improper venue, Florida, rather than New York, and that Trump failed to “plausibly allege actual malice.” It also noted that “many of the challenged statements express the authors’ subjective interpretations of undisputed facts, which are not capable of being proven false.”

A hearing on the motion to dismiss was held last week, and the judge noted that Trump’s team asked for time to “cure any . . . deficiencies” by showing “why the Challenged Statements are not substantially true, along with additional facts and innuendo by Defendants to show why the Challenged Statements are defamatory, and additional evidence of actual malice for each Defendant.”

On Truth Social on Monday, Trump wrote that the Times “just failed again in their desperate attempt to have our powerful Defamation Lawsuit against them dropped. As we requested, the Highly Respected Judge has called for an updated complaint, which will lay out, in extreme detail, all the ways in which The Times has repeatedly and consistently acted, with actual malice in defaming me, my family, our Great MAGA Movement, and America, itself. We will continue to hold The Times and their ‘comrades’ in the Mainstream Media accountable for publishing, promoting, and dealing in Fake News.”

Charlie Stadtlander, spokesperson for The Times, said in a statement that the judge’s decision “makes no statement in support of the frivolous accusations in Mr. Trump’s earlier complaint. To the contrary, the judge simply gives him yet another chance to draft a complaint that demonstrates any legal merit. The president has had this chance twice previously and failed each time. The Times stands by our journalism, and the president’s legal pleadings will not change that or deter further reporting. We will continue to defend our reporters’ constitutionally protected rights — and the public’s right to know — and are confident in the laws that underpin them.”

A federal magistrate judge ruled that Donald Trump‘s trust will be compelled to provide financial documents from his businesses to the BBC, as the network defends itself from the president’s $10 billion defamation lawsuit.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Enjoliqué Aytch Lett granted part of the BBC’s motion to compel the production of documents from the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, but limited the scope of the network’s subpoena to records dating back to Jan. 1, 2023.

“Considering the Trust’s relationship to Plaintiff’s alleged damages, the information the Trust possesses is relevant and material to any damages analysis Defendant may elect to conduct,” the judge wrote. “Defendant’s damage analysis is especially important to Defendant where Plaintiff now alleges $10 billion in damages.”

Trump sued the BBC in December over edits that were made in a documentary about the January 6th attack on the Capitol.

The judge had already indicated her ruling at a hearing last week. Per Politico, the judge also limited the scope of information that could be sought by the BBC into January 6th. “All of the impressions that were received by President Trump’s statements on January 6 are at issue. The full relitigation of January 6 is not at issue,” the judge said, per the outlet.

In her written ruling, the judge rejected the trust’s claims that the subpoena for documents from nearly 400 different entities is outside the scope of discovery, citing Trump’s claims that his “brand, properties and businesses” were harmed.

In the documentary, Trump: A Second Chance?, a clip is shown from his January 6 speech, in which he says, “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol … and I’ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell.” In fact, the remark was an edit of different portions of the speech. The documentary aired on Oct. 28, 2024.

In the fallout from the focus on the edited speech, BBC director general Tim Davie and Deborah Turness, who led the news division, stepped down.

Last month, after the president’s legal threat, the BBC apologized to Trump, calling it an “error of judgement.” But the BBC did not offer to pay Trump any damages.

A spokesperson for Trump’s legal team said, “The BBC defamed President Trump by intentionally and deceitfully editing its documentary in order to try and interfere in the Presidential Election. President Trump will continue to hold accountable those who traffic in lies, deception, and fake news.”

Trump is seeking $5 billion in defamation damages and another $5 billion over violations of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The judge wrote that “documentation from the date of January 1, 2023, to the present should allow Defendant to determine Plaintiff’s financial position immediately before and after the documentary’s publication.”

A spokesperson for the BBC did not immediately return a request for comment.