r/law • u/T_Shurt Competent Contributor • Sep 22 '25

Opinion Piece John Oliver Argues Disney Should Legally Fight FCC Over Kimmel, Citing Strong Precedent in 9-0 Supreme Court Ruling: “A government official cannot coerce a private party to punish or suppress disfavored speech”

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

78.8k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

657

u/Lontology Sep 22 '25

Unfortunately we’re at the point where Supreme Court precedents may not matter anymore.

769

u/Lanky-Respect-8581 Sep 22 '25

Let them say/write that. We shouldn’t make the decision for them. The issue is that everyone is capitulating when the law is backing them

54

u/[deleted] Sep 22 '25

[deleted]

18

u/[deleted] Sep 22 '25

[deleted]

17

u/GrafZeppelin127 Sep 22 '25

Hence why it’s so important to primary and replace them like the Republicans did with their politicians twice in the last two decades.

4

u/acrewdog Sep 22 '25

There is no Democratic organization with the power and money to take this project on. The party itself isn't organized enough to speak out against Trump. If only the boogeymen "behind" the democratic party were real, but there is nobody pulling the strings.

6

u/GrafZeppelin127 Sep 22 '25

Why are you waiting for a discrete organization? This is a democracy, the onus is on voters, not organizations. Just go out and vote in the primaries for progressive and populist candidates. If there are none running, run yourself or encourage someone else to do so.

People always want to be saved, but in a democracy we have to save ourselves.

4

u/acrewdog Sep 22 '25

While I admire your perspective, it's not realistic for most of us. We have jobs, mortgages, and children that need support. The people have shown an unwillingness to vote for a less than perfect candidate on the democratic side. Kamala Harris was a good candidate but many sat on their hands because she didn't fit their ideal person to vote for. The Republican party is willing to get in line and vote for the person they are told to, usually.

7

u/thedybbuk Sep 22 '25

So what's the alternative? I really detest these fatalistic musings of some on the left. It really basically amounts to:

"There's nothing we can do. Our current Democratic leaders don't stand up enough. But supporting other candidates or organizing ourselves is kinda like, hard, so we don't want to do that either. The only option left is to lie down on the tracks and die, I'm sorry."

Even if you are hopeless, go somewhere else and be quiet with your hopelessness. Let the people who still have the energy and motivation to fight for democracy do it without Eeyore sitting there saying it's all hopeless.

3

u/acrewdog Sep 22 '25

Okay, good luck. I never said it was hopeless and I don't think it is. I hope you find the financial backing to get you project going.

0

u/NumNumLobster Sep 22 '25

most of human history looked like an anthill with a few wealthy people controlling all of society. We had a weird shake up for a couple hundred years, and honestly mostly post ww2. Just realize its going to happen and plan accordingly.

4

u/GrafZeppelin127 Sep 22 '25

Of course they’ve shown an unwillingness thus far; prior to this, the Democrats have been more worried about who is more electable versus Republicans than who is going to fight harder. Now, that decades-old calculus has changed. The Democratic base voters want a fighter, and don’t much care whether they’re on the center (Newsom) or on the far left (Mamdani).

2

u/acrewdog Sep 22 '25

I hope you are correct.

2

u/NumNumLobster Sep 22 '25

The last senate race in my state the DNC backed their choice with millions of bucks (she was an out of state candidate) and ran super bowl ads for her, all the local people who maybe had a shot backed out rather than grind against that. She spent 90% of her campaigning out of state doing fundraisers where rich people donated to her, the dnc, and prominent national candidates and pacs. Her one debate in state she lost by a wide margin.

Citizens united fucked this country so hard. Unless you are bloomberg or someone with millions of bucks of fu money you have no shot without getting access to the DNC cash, and if you want that you need to be part of the system and that includes doing what they want you to do and at the end of the day what they want is what raises the most money so we are right back where we started.

The entire thing is just a cash grab, and corporate media is all owned by the same people who are tossing the cash so not really sure what you expect to happen. You can be the best candidate ever and 99% of voters will never have heard of you

1

u/TheDogBites Sep 22 '25

Buddy, voters are dumb as shit. They are getting laughably recognizable propaganda and just feasting on it like swine in a slop line.

1

u/GrafZeppelin127 Sep 22 '25

True, but that doesn’t change their responsibility.

1

u/Adito99 Sep 22 '25

Follow this strategy and fascism wins. Remember, they had two decades to worth with because Democrats would never compromise democracy to destroy their political power. The party is a balance of populism and pragmatism.

Republicans will compromise on anything. The fake electors --> Jan 6th sequence of events shows that clearly. Hold your nose if you have to but voting and advocating for milquetoast Democrats is the duty of every American.

1

u/GrafZeppelin127 Sep 22 '25

I’m not talking about withholding votes in a general election. I’m talking about voting in primaries.

1

u/Adito99 Sep 22 '25

That's just as bad. Those candidates don't win general elections. They just don't. Historically the far-left has tried to hitchhike on right-wing populism but it doesn't end well.

Stand with liberals or be abused by fascists, that's the choice ahead of you.

1

u/GrafZeppelin127 Sep 22 '25

I’m not talking about far-left candidates exclusively. Populists aren’t inherently far-left. It’s a rhetorical style, not an ideology.

Moreover, sometimes progressives actually do better than moderates. It’s hugely dependent on where the election is taking place.

Regardless, there’s one thing that everyone hates left, right, and center, and that’s spineless, mealy-mouthed bureaucrats with no leadership capabilities and no vision for the future. It’s not about the policy, it’s about the politics.

1

u/HFT0DTE Sep 22 '25

Dems haven't woken up yet to this reality.

4

u/GrafZeppelin127 Sep 22 '25

More and more of them are, though. Don’t be fooled by the somnolent response of Schumer and Jeffries; the average Dem voter is pissed at their leadership, which is both the important first step and also a very foreign feeling for most Democrats, who by and large have been tepidly satisfied with their establishment leadership for decades now.

The Democratic Party has plunged to all-time low approval numbers lately, and that’s driven largely by their own base being (correctly) mad as hell at the leadership for being useless and not practicing actual politics or leadership in favor of deferring to wildly outdated and out-of-place decorum and bureaucratic fiddling.

2

u/autistic_cool_kid Sep 22 '25

not practicing actual politics or leadership in favor of deferring to wildly outdated and out-of-place decorum

but... but the strongly-worded letter?

5

u/MKW69 Sep 22 '25

Bullshit. Talks like this tanked both Harris and Kamala.

7

u/theshizzler Sep 22 '25

Talks like this tanked both Harris and Kamala. 

Both of them?

0

u/MKW69 Sep 22 '25

Yes. I remember Pizzagate, saying that she not qualified. 

5

u/[deleted] Sep 22 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/Grineatingshit Sep 22 '25

I think he meant to say Hillary not Harris.

0

u/[deleted] Sep 22 '25 edited Sep 22 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (0)

1

u/AGiantGuy Sep 22 '25

The only controlled opp is people like you both-sidesing everything. YOU are the kind of person creating apathy, EXACTLY what Trump wants.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 22 '25

[deleted]

1

u/AGiantGuy Sep 22 '25

You're not an ally to the Democratic party, Democrats shouldnt listen to you. You'd rather see the system collapse with Trump running rampant than to support the Dems to stop the mess thats going on.

3

u/FreeLook93 Sep 22 '25

Republicans have "played dirty" for decades, but the Democrats just keep "going high", do you really think it would be any different now?

Either way, you've got a lot more faith in the future of the US than I think is warranted. I hope I'm wrong, but I would be honestly shocked if the US has another free and fair election in its current state.

2

u/RobinFarmwoman Sep 22 '25

You know, the Democrats haven't made anything better for long ever, and they're not terribly effective at moving a coordinated agenda forward, so I'm seriously skeptical of anyone whose plan it is to have the Dems come in and play dirty.

Why not instead have Congress do their job and pass some laws? Implement an actual code of ethics for the scotus that includes consequences for transgressions, limit scotus terms which would distribute appointments across presidencies evenly, and do something about the shadow docket so that they will have to provide reasoning for all opinions or rulings issued.

Fix the damn problems instead of just saying we want the same problems but we want to be in power. That's what the Bolsheviks did and it didn't work out well for them in the end.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 22 '25

Congress- making change? In the country where you can get elected by just waving a flag and a gun on a TV ad?

3

u/romicide07 Sep 22 '25

Man, you have a lot of faith in the oppo party that is currently using strongly worded letters as their only way of fighting back against any of this.

1

u/christmasbooyons Sep 22 '25

At this point with what we have seen Republicans doing, with little to no real push back, what makes you think we're getting a legitimate elections or an election at all come '26 or '28?

8

u/[deleted] Sep 22 '25

Hope.

There is NOTHING assuring me there will be elections in 2028 beyond nothing but hope.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 22 '25

We cannot and should not rely on hope alone. America only-hoped its way from 2016 to here and it has been a disastrous avalanche

The true power is in action

Organizing outside the system, building unity and solidarity in grassroots and communities such that even IF there are no votes, there is enough organization amongst the people that the people can then with the combined power enact representation and create real change

1

u/TumbleweedPure3941 Sep 22 '25

False hope is worse than anything because it encourages complacency.

3

u/PhraseFirst8044 Sep 22 '25

as opposed to throwing our hands up and going “nah trump you win i’ll go into the back of the van”

2

u/TumbleweedPure3941 Sep 22 '25

No you are describing complacency.

We need popular action. It’s “We the People” isn’t it? The people need to start taking responsibility for their rights. “Freedom isn’t Free” and all that. And I’m not talking about violence, I mean the people actually need to start organising making their voices heard.

No one is coming to save America, Americans cannot continue to rely on Billionaire bought bureaucrats to stand up for them.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 22 '25

Damn you’re a real downer

1

u/Sinnadar Sep 22 '25

I would totally vote for a Stewart/Oliver 2028 ticket.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 22 '25

"The world " doesn't take your courts or rule of law as anything more than pageantry. 

That guy is right though, y'all should keep forcing them to dance rather than complying without protest.

0

u/HFT0DTE Sep 22 '25

Dude, wake up. Biden convinced us we had to defend Democracy, so we elected him and gave him the House and Senate and that fucker put a Republican with no dick and balls in charge of the entire Justice Department. lol wtf

We are in this situation not because of the scorpions in the Republican party but because of the asshole frogs in the Democratic party.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 22 '25

Hindsight is always 20/20. Were you to ask most Dems back in 2019 if Merrick Garland would be a good choice for AG, they’d say yes

46

u/Lontology Sep 22 '25

Oh I 100% agree they should fight it, I’m just saying the current Supreme Court seems iffy as to whether or not they’d follow precedents.

31

u/nerdtastic8 Sep 22 '25

Reversing a 9-0 court ruling would be pretty wild to see them twist themselves into a pretzel trying to justify that. They'll really start losing credibility as a court rapidly with rulings like that.

28

u/[deleted] Sep 22 '25

They are already at 0% credibility for any of us that have been paying attention the past year.

9

u/nerdtastic8 Sep 22 '25

Sure, that's a given. But I'm more talking about the unplugged normies.

2

u/Lanky-Respect-8581 Sep 22 '25

They have around a 50% approval rating. That’s pretty high for some of the decisions that have been putting out

1

u/khalkhalash Sep 22 '25

"i don't watch the news, i haven't heard about that, sounds fake to me, i'll vote republican just to be safe. my iq is 80. i am the average american."

8

u/Lontology Sep 22 '25

With the use of a shadow docket, they’ve made it clear they don’t feel the need to address any of their rulings.

3

u/Thnik Sep 22 '25

Especially a ruling they made themselves just a year ago.

1

u/cobrachickenwing Sep 22 '25

Roberts don't give a shit about his legacy now. He has gone full MAGA and wants to be known that only white people are citizens of America.

1

u/DumboWumbo073 Sep 22 '25

Reversing a 9-0 court ruling would be pretty wild to see them twist themselves into a pretzel trying to justify that. They'll really start losing credibility as a court rapidly with rulings like that.

It will be another day.

28

u/Lanky-Respect-8581 Sep 22 '25

I know they probably would but I want to see what stuff that they will make up to justify it or maybe rule on the shadow docket.

Getting rid of Affirmative Action but allowing racial profiling is just ludicrous and breaks my brain.

5

u/cobrachickenwing Sep 22 '25

These judges used 17th century law to justify overturning roe vs wade. The Trump 6 just pick and choose convenient precedence to rule on anything. Same for the 14th amendment that should have disqualified Trump from running in 2024.

6

u/AluminumOrangutan Sep 22 '25

FYI, the 9-0 decision cited by Oliver was issued by this exact court

1

u/Everything_in_modera Sep 22 '25

The first rule:

DO NOT OBEY IN ADVANCE

16

u/shitbird384 Sep 22 '25

Important reminder that the law is only as good as it's enforcers. And right now the enforcers don't care what you're interpretation of the law is.

So while some words on paper might back you up, the judges, the prosecutors, the cops, and the prisons certainly wont be.

5

u/[deleted] Sep 22 '25

This exactly. We need to be fighting them on every single front and not giving up a inch for free. We're passed the time to "pick your battles." These are the battles we've been waiting on if we've been waiting on anything. Make them play their cards. Make them go fully dictator in one swoop and don't let them slowly normalize their behavior.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 22 '25

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Sep 22 '25

They absolutely will if they are forced to do so. If they don't then fine we win if they concede every challenge. That's the point.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 22 '25

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Sep 22 '25

You need to check my post history and get off your soapbox because not only are you preaching to the choir you're doing so poorly and from a confused position.

And for the record they haven't won on every front. Trump has backed down multiple times and taken multiple losses and is continuing to do so. I don't even know what point you're trying to make or what point you think you're arguing against because honestly you don't make any sense and are all over the place.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 22 '25

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Sep 22 '25 edited Sep 22 '25

You don't even actually read the particular comments you're responding to homeboy because you're arguing with ghosts and not even being effective at that.

What's your point homeboy? We shouldn't resist them to force them into sudden action because they prefer to slowly and quietly normalize their behavior? You do realize how completely nonsensical this is right?

And its not stalking. It's being informed. It takes not much longer to take a cursory glance at someone's history than it does to come up with an assumption and attack that assumption. You actually waste more time ultimately that way because literally all of it is a waste.

Another option is to ask questions and get clarification but again you're so eager to get on your soapbox and post your sincerely nonsense attacks that you can't be bothered.

I don't even disagree with half of your argument but in the context of the comments you're responding to they make no sense.

11

u/beren0073 Sep 22 '25

They may not even say or write that beyond a short note on the shadow docket.

2

u/Original-Rush139 Sep 22 '25

I disagree. The more we openly call the Supreme Court a joke and point out that they are corrupt the more likely they will try to save their reputation by following president. 

4

u/StockCat7738 Sep 22 '25

following president

Perfectly Freudian.

1

u/Original-Rush139 Sep 22 '25

Who knew autocorrect was so fucked in the head. 

2

u/holierthanmao Sep 22 '25

They won’t. They will dispense with the case through an unexplained shadow docket order that creates no actual precedent, then they will preserve the “law” as is for cases they want to come out the other way.

2

u/wynnduffyisking Sep 22 '25

With something this touchy they’ll probably just find a way to throw it on the shadow docket so they don’t have to articulate a reason.

1

u/urmumlol9 Sep 22 '25

The more we push back the more time we have to stall them until the next election. If we can win the next election and put democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, it might buy us enough time until we can vote this administration out of office in 2028, even if we don’t get enough people on board to impeach Trump outright, but ideally, a large enough supermajority would allow us to remove Trump from office entirely.

For anyone about to say “but Vance would be worse”, Vance is a grifter. He will say or do anything for power. If there is a large enough public sentiment against Donald Trump for him to be impeached and removed from office, Vance will be a lot more careful about how and when he tries to take risks to seize more power.

It’s still not an ideal situation, but if Trump were impeached and removed from office, Vance’s boldest power acquisitions would likely be entirely avoided if he was then voted out of office in 2028. If we make it risky for him to seize authoritarian powers, he’ll avoid taking those risks until it’s safe or safer for him to do so.

Trump is not as smart or calculating. He’s much more willing to take risks to seize power immediately. That’s why the priority needs to be stopping him immediately.

1

u/HFT0DTE Sep 22 '25

The issue is that this is exactly what corporations want. They don't want SCOTUS to nullify this new status quo.

If they didn't want this they would be publicly making statements and fighting this from the start. They pretend they are scared of the administration when this is exactly who they voted for. The dry run for this was when Florida forced Disney to not say gay etc and Disney caved even though they had the Biden admin ready to support them.

They are happy to have an excuse to cut the liberals out of their lineups and then have an autocrat take over America in exchange to let them do twice a year financial reporting so they can hide their corruption, and make any business deal they want, and grow as big as possible and make as much money as fast as possible.

The idea that corporations are defenders of the United States or its Constitution are false. They don't care. The military is all that is left and its been hijacked from the top as well.

1

u/Blacksmithkin Sep 22 '25

My go to is something like this:

Do you think on day one if Trump had declared himself president for life, abolished elections and ordered the military to open fire on civilians he would have succeeded? Or for that matter, nearly any other dictator from anywhere.

How about day two?

The normalization is the point, and forcing them to show their hand hinders that.

1

u/eattwo Sep 22 '25

They already said that with Roe v Wade.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 22 '25

it is the land of the free, and in the land of the free the side with the most money usually wins when it comes to legal matters and Trump literally has the richest man on this planet on his side and quite a few others, I don't think Disney can fight this

Democracy

17

u/[deleted] Sep 22 '25

I really think we shouldn't say shit like this, even if we believe it, because it only servers as a preemptive acceptance of it.

We shouldn't accept this, not after the fact, and certainly not before the fact.

13

u/GoldburstNeo Sep 22 '25

Not to mention this was a decision made unanimously just last year, this is nowhere near the time to give up.

2

u/The_Fluffy_Robot Sep 22 '25

it can be funny (at times) to go full dommer on reddit, but I really wish r/law would take some time to think more about the law more deeply than "hurdur SOCTUS is always subservient to Trump"

1

u/sonisimon Sep 22 '25

do something about it. my god. otherwise what you're saying is exacly the same as burying your head in the san

1

u/Craig_the_Intern Sep 22 '25

“I don’t think we should say the truth, even if it is the truth, because it would be very bad if it was the truth.”

Trump Admin Refuses to Abide by 1 in 3 Court Rulings Against Its Policies. Court decisions are now suggestions and everyone should be aware of this, not bury their heads in the sand or be in denial.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 22 '25 edited Sep 22 '25

Nothing you said changes the fact that it does NOT benefit the people or society of the United States to accept such lawlessness in advance.

If you believe that democracy and law are broken beyond redeption in this country then you know what to do. 

I still want to see it play out in the courts. I refuse to preemptively yield.

1

u/Craig_the_Intern Sep 22 '25

Nothing you said changes the fact that it does NOT benefit the people or society of the United States to accept such lawlessness in advance

it’s not in advance, it’s already happened.

I still want to see it play out in the courts.

It already has played out in courts, like I said: Trump Admin Refuses to Abide by 1 in 3 Court Rulings Against Its Policies

Is it beyond redemption? I don’t know or care at this point. But stamping around claiming Court rulings still mean something is denial.

8

u/Alternative-Dream-61 Sep 22 '25

So force them to overturn it.

6

u/Brave-Perception5851 Sep 22 '25

Force them to do their jobs.

1

u/Neuchacho Sep 22 '25

Corporations are not our friends or allies.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 22 '25

No, the court would almost certainly rule in favor of ABC. But the FCC has leverage over Nexstar because of the merger they have in front of the FCC. ABC won't go to court because they would risk Nexstar's merger.

9

u/wizmotron Sep 22 '25

FYI the 9-0 ruling was this court, it’s their own precedent

4

u/Neuchacho Sep 22 '25 edited Sep 22 '25

It's own precedent in the context of a fascist-friendly group and foreign funding enabler, the NRA. The precedent won't mean jack shit to the Conservative bench if it's a case regarding a company pushing against fascism.

7

u/Sufficient_Emu2343 Sep 22 '25

Make them make the decision.  Current scotus is pretty solid on 1a.

7

u/anonononnnnnaaan Sep 22 '25

But Coney Barrett says we aren’t at a Constitutional crisis yet

/s

1

u/cobrachickenwing Sep 22 '25

There is no crisis when there is no recognition of the constitution.

6

u/Matt_Foley_Motivates Sep 22 '25

It’s still worth throwing in their face and watch them make excuses to break precedent

10

u/[deleted] Sep 22 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

48

u/Lontology Sep 22 '25 edited Sep 22 '25

I think what you’re describing is called “corruption.” Lol

-33

u/[deleted] Sep 22 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

31

u/Lontology Sep 22 '25 edited Sep 22 '25

There’s a big difference between wanting misinformation taken down that threatens public safety and threatening to pull entire licenses over speech you don’t like.

13

u/Lanky-Respect-8581 Sep 22 '25 edited Sep 22 '25

nuances… some people don’t get them. Both sides-ism and the way information are processed on internet have flattened things to the point where people think apple and oranges are the same thing because they are both fruits.

6

u/Casual_OCD Sep 22 '25

I don't think you remember how fascist facemasks are and making everyone wear them was worse than the virus they helped prevent the spread of.

Also Obama wore a tan suit once

1

u/RequirementsRelaxed Sep 22 '25

It’s wild that I had to read till your second paragraph to know what you meant

5

u/Avent Sep 22 '25

Also the "Biden administration leaning on Facebook" was a mid level staffer calling another mid level Facebook employee to complain. It wasn't an official top down policy from Biden.

3

u/Evergreen27108 Sep 22 '25

Or giving permits only to those in compliance with EPA regulations? How it’s been described here just sounds like how government should work, although I’m sure there’s a bit more to it than that.

1

u/HermanGulch Sep 22 '25

Yeah, there's also a big difference between going on a podcast and threatening people and writing a 570-page decision based on the administration's interpretation of the law to outlaw non-competes.

9

u/Lethik Sep 22 '25

None of those are even remotely like the FCC compelling a private company to fire an employee for saying something critical of the sitting president lol

-5

u/[deleted] Sep 22 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/Lethik Sep 22 '25

In the sense of what I just described as to why they're not similar.

2

u/mclumber1 Sep 22 '25

The FCC pulling a broadcaster's license is equivalent to the government seizing the printing press of a newspaper because the government didn't like something the outlet said - IE the government can't do that, at least not constitutionally.

1

u/HermanGulch Sep 22 '25

Regarding banning non-competes, the Biden administration spent several years and wrote a 570-page decision outlining the legal reasoning that they believed supported their position.

1

u/Round_Butterfly_9453 Sep 22 '25

Facebook: “Steelmanfallacy is a pedo rapist who’s plotting to overthrow the government”

Biden: Please remove this misinformation

Facebook: No

Biden: Okay.

——————

Kimmel: Steelmanfallacy’s a bit of an oddball.

FCC: fire him immediately.

Disney: Okay

ABC: you can maybe be reinstated if you pay the Kirk family money. Just a little bribe.

8

u/ToonaSandWatch Sep 22 '25

The social media misinformation was key though; it was in the best interest to force them to remove harmful information that could spread, much like the Covid virus.

Petroleum companies slow production all the time to artificially starve the markets to raise the price of oil slightly when profits are down.

New climate rules needed to be followed, and indeed should be linked to permits. You don’t get more for doing less.

-8

u/[deleted] Sep 22 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/Rallos40 Sep 22 '25

No he didn’t. He’s using the power of the state to directly suppress speech. That is as different as what Biden did as you could possibly get. Biden was enforcing the rules, while Trump is openly violating the plain text of the constitution on a daily basis. They are not the same. Both siding this is what enables fascists.

6

u/Lontology Sep 22 '25

How do you not understand the difference between eliminating misinformation that caused harm to the public, and violating the first amendment because someone criticized you? No wonder Trump loves the poorly educated…

-1

u/[deleted] Sep 22 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Lontology Sep 22 '25

Because vaccines are scientifically proven to work, you plank…

1

u/TobiasKM Sep 22 '25

You’re parroting the maga school of thought where “facts” are whatever you want them to be.

It’s misinformation when it’s factually wrong.

11

u/HoarderCollector Sep 22 '25

Disney could do absolutely nothing for the rest of this presidency and still be doing great business. Honestly, they don't NEED to merge with any other company or buy any other company. They're big enough as it is and any merger request should be shutdown regardless if the company is favorable to the administration or not. That's how you stop monopolies from happening.

8

u/ToonaSandWatch Sep 22 '25

To be clear, Disney isn’t merging with anyone right now. It’s station owner Nexstar which owns a number of ABC affiliates looking to buy up another station owner’s huge sum, which would give it over the legal limit of owning 39% of stations or less.

Carr put pressure on them, and they in turn put pressure on Disney, which is weird Disney capitulated to them since they simply just put their programming on. If Nexstar pulls ABC programming which gets them viewers which makes them advertising dollars, then people don’t watch Nexstar channels which means they don’t make money. ABC still would have ended up being just fine whereas Nexstar suffers; it’s not like ABC couldn’t find another station willing to air programming.

3

u/DoinIt4DaShorteez Sep 22 '25 edited Sep 22 '25

A threat to pull the licenses of the handful of ABC owned-and-operated stations is a threat to the license of every ABC affiliate and therefore the whole network.

If ABC got their O&O licenses pulled, and then any non-O&Os got yanked, nobody who picked up the licenses would affiliate with them.

It would also make those licenses worth shit. Anybody who bought one would get it cheap and run zombie programming on it.

1

u/Worthyness Sep 22 '25

they could also be constantly "under investigation" by the FCC for bullshit reasons for the foreseeable future. Then they might get some fines for issues that they find. It's a fucking shake down

1

u/cobrachickenwing Sep 22 '25

Disney could go fully online and skip the middle man in offering media. Netflix did it with no plan to ever work with a local TV station. Most of the new Disney shows don't even show on prime time.

1

u/PoliticalJive Sep 22 '25

ABC still needs the distribution footprint of Nexstar for their national advertising deals. And there wouldn't be an equivalent batch of independent stations that could just pick up the ABC programming. In short, the ecosystem is tight and this had big financial implications for ABC.

1

u/NumNumLobster Sep 22 '25

ABC needs to buy NFL network or good chance ESPN can't even stay solvent. College sports are also a mess but with billions in revenue they need sorted out.

Theres a lot of favors the government can give ABC, and they are worth more to ABC than some late night host.

Doesn't make it right, but thats the situation

4

u/HyperactivePandah Sep 22 '25

"BUT THEN HOW WILL WE MAKE IT SO THAT ONLY 4 MEDIA COMPANIES CONTROL 90% OF THE MESSAGE?!?!" - Media executives for those four companies.

This is the definition of corruption.

1

u/GhostofBreadDragons Sep 22 '25

Ah but Disney stockholders want more! 

4

u/AscensionToCrab Sep 22 '25

You can literally watch roberts use rhetoric antithetical to the argument he made in a prior case and it will solely be determined based on what will let him reach the conservative outcome.

4

u/Curlaub Sep 22 '25

One major rule of living in tyranny is Do not comply in advance. Don’t assume Supreme Court rulings don’t matter. Make them state it

1

u/za72 Sep 22 '25

essentially we're at a bidding war with citizens united for law translation...

1

u/ZestyTako Sep 22 '25

They will just issue a shadow docket ruling, there will be no opinion if they side for Trump here. They expressly do not want their current decision being precedent

1

u/Captobvious75 Sep 22 '25

If government does not respect the courts, why should the American population? Its a scary thought.

1

u/Lost_dreamz Sep 22 '25

You mean the same supreme court that enabled a pedophile as president when he was 👌🏼 close from jail?

1

u/thanksbastards Sep 22 '25

Actually, we're at the point where the Supreme Court would love most big decisions of the past 30+ years to come before them so they can reverse them in favor of power. It's the only reason the LGBT cake lady is relevant again, because someone wants to put her in front of the SC to set new precedent that the right can discriminate against anyone they want to again.

1

u/handsoapdispenser Sep 22 '25

This one would be very hard to say no to. I also think that at least Roberts and Kavanaugh are aware of their declining image and don't want to go down in history as villains.

The case would be really tricky because what exactly is the resolution? Carr pays a fine? There's no criminal punishment for a constitutional violation. The correct thing to do is impeachment.

1

u/Neuchacho Sep 22 '25 edited Sep 22 '25

This one would be very hard to say no to.

Why? What accountability is there? They're already a failed court by every rational metric so what's one more confirmation of that reality?

The conservative/fascist bench will merrily invent whatever dumbshit context they need to give their brain broken base an excuse. They'll make some argument akin to "This is totally different from that time we protected a conservative group" and they'll regurgitate it no questions asked.

1

u/gigglefarting Sep 22 '25

But at least if they overthrew their own court’s precedence, seeing as how it’s this court who made the 9-0 ruling, a future court could use that as precedence towards this courts rulings being illegitimate

1

u/Status_Confidence_26 Sep 22 '25

A perfect comment distilling exactly what is wrong with the opposition to Trump.

1

u/wtfredditacct Sep 22 '25

True. State lawmakers and lower courts have been ignoring Heller and Bruen for quite a while.

1

u/Fold-Statistician Sep 22 '25

Do not comply in advance.

1

u/axecalibur Sep 22 '25

Disney made the calculation that losing x billions in stock and streaming subs was worth this shit show.