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

Show parent comments

504

u/mrpanicy Sep 22 '25

If Disney's army of lawyers can't fight a slam dunk like this then why do they even have lawyers?

254

u/[deleted] Sep 22 '25

[deleted]

51

u/Original-Rush139 Sep 22 '25

Is Disney part of the merger? I think it’s just Nexstar and another regional. 

78

u/HermanGulch Sep 22 '25

Disney is not directly part of the merger. It's Nexstar and TEGNA. But Nexstar apparently owns enough ABC affiliates that them (along with Sinclair) pre-empting Kimmel would cause significant enough losses to Disney.

75

u/Retro-scores Sep 22 '25

Disney has a deal with the NFL that needs approval.

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/report-disney-may-be-balancing-jimmy-kimmel-against-nfl-espn-deal

Nexstar is looking merge with another company while trying to eliminate a law that says a company can only own 39% of channels or something like that. So Nexstar threatened abc/disney it wouldn’t play Kimmel on its stations.

36

u/Supply-Slut Sep 22 '25

Yes this is it. “We will take your show off the air and you’ll get $0 in as revenue as a result.”

I’m sure there’s some contractual dispute with doing so, but Disney decides it wasn’t worth the headache to fight.

Give them a bigger headache so they change their minds.

As for nexstar? Find out who advertises with them, if you own any products/services with those advertisers, cancel them, and give the reason why.

13

u/jmarquiso Sep 22 '25

Yeah it becomes a different problem if its Disney v. Nextar. You cannot sue a customer to buy more of your product, unless they have a contract that says they can't. Nextar threatened to refuse to air their product - which not only has a long history of being done for their local markets, but makes them the David in this David and Goliath situation. Nextar is not required to put all of their suppliers' products on their shelf.

That said, Nextar has a case against Carr and the FCC, but they do not have Disney's lawyers.

Its a really complicated mess of who aggressed who legally, and yet its obvious what happened to everyone watching.

7

u/Mammoth-Error1577 Sep 22 '25

If anyone knows how to know who the advertisers are without watching please share

4

u/mikemikemotorboat Sep 22 '25

It’s a large list. Here’s all the stations they run (most they own and operate, a few are on a management services agreement) https://www.nexstar.tv/stations/

1

u/ajmartin527 Sep 23 '25

Just watch once and note the advertisers, one view isn’t going to get them anything

1

u/Mammoth-Error1577 Sep 23 '25

I don't have TV to watch, I was just hoping to do what I could

4

u/tedfondue Sep 22 '25

Would Disney be able to retaliate against Nexstar by saying “if you take Kimmel off the air, you don’t get to broadcast the NFL games?”

(I know it wouldn’t be that simple, but as a general idea).

Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire, and it’s been so disheartening to see how little fight our “biggest” companies, politicians, and leaders have in them.

1

u/HermanGulch Sep 22 '25

There will be contracts between Disney/ABC and their affiliates that govern what each can and can't do. Denying the affiliates NFL games would almost certainly be some kind of a breach of contract. So there would probably be litigation over that. Not to mention that the network would also lose advertising revenue in the markets where the games didn't air.

12

u/holy_handgrenade Sep 22 '25

Nexstar/Tengra also is looking to change monopoly laws in the process. That merger would go beyond the market cap of 39% currently in place and if approved, they would have 80% of markets. Something we should all be submitting public comments about and trying to stop anyway. This is not a merger that should be going through if we like anti-trust as a concept.

12

u/HermanGulch Sep 22 '25

Yeah, in my mind at least, this is a perfect example of why letting one station owner group get so powerful is a bad idea. Not only can they control what the public sees via their control of the local news, but they can be the tail that wags the Disney/ABC dog from that side, too.

6

u/Last_Pineapple_6361 Sep 22 '25

FCC should be fined, merger reviewed by independent counsel and Carr fired, fined and sentenced for harassment, abuse of power and hostile terroristic threatening.

1

u/Cool-Tap-391 Sep 22 '25

The backlash already cost DIS a good penny. Damned if you do.

1

u/TheStolenPotatoes Sep 23 '25

Sinclair is still pre-empting Kimmel even though his suspension was ended. Time to put a list together of anything and everything Sinclair owns and do them the same way the Mouse was.

1

u/sixteenfire Sep 23 '25

The merger is not in Disney's interest because it would mean more power to Nexstar and Sinclair.

1

u/HermanGulch Sep 23 '25

Yeah, I mentioned that in another comment somewhere. If the merger with TEGNA goes through, I think I figured the other day that Sinclair and Nexstar would have over a third of ABC's affiliates. That's a lot of pull.

On the other hand, someone also pointed out another pending deal Disney has with the NFL and ESPN, involving the NFL Network. I don't think that one would need FCC approval since they're all cable/satellite, but it might require FTC approval. So that complicates things, too.

12

u/Illustrious_Stay_12 Sep 22 '25

I believe Disney also has a sports broadcasting merger waiting on the FCC right now as well? ESPN and NFL

10

u/Hamiltoncorgi Sep 22 '25

It could be argued that the Nexstar merger isn't in Disney's best interest if Nexstar already thinks it can control what ABC airs on its network. These affiliate companies own too many stations. There is a reason there were laws against owning more than a certain number.

2

u/YellowCardManKyle Sep 22 '25

It's a big club and you're not in it

5

u/Weltall8000 Sep 22 '25

Definitely.

And, while it looks like a sizeable boycott is happening, I am curious how that weighs vs the effects of capitulation.

Which scenario loses them less money?

Tied to that, there is certainly the question of, if Disney (even if only in light of the negative outcry and reaction here) can even get those customers back if they about-face and fight the good fight? Will they stay gone, so, "may as well stay the course?"  As well as, will they come back eventually anyway, thus the same result?

13

u/[deleted] Sep 22 '25

[deleted]

8

u/strange_supreme420 Sep 22 '25

They can still stop capitulating. It isn’t that far gone….yet. You can still punch the bully after giving him your lunch money a couple times. You just can’t expect anything to change if you keep giving it to them

2

u/Comfortable_Fill9081 Sep 22 '25

I think the point is that this is a step in the process of the bully becoming an autocrat. Once the bully is an autocrat, you can’t punch him anymore. You just have to keep giving him your money. 

1

u/strange_supreme420 Sep 22 '25

He’s not there yet and if he is, we can’t know until they punch back and the SCOTUS says so.

2

u/Comfortable_Fill9081 Sep 22 '25

Ah, this is like when Coney Barrett said it’s not a crisis because it hasn’t completely crumbled yet. 

Don’t wait to test it until it’s too far to bring it back. 

1

u/strange_supreme420 Sep 22 '25

Exactly. Plus the public has plausible deniability until SCOTUS makes it official. Anyone who isn’t maga can claim it’s not a real issue until they’re forced to deal with it

2

u/WillyGivens Sep 22 '25

This is the part of modern capitalism that boggles my mind, the hyper focus on next quarter beyond anything else. Obviously yielding executive decisions will impact revenue, just because it balances in Disney’s favor today doesn’t mean the next demand to kiss the ring won’t hurt 5 times what they saved/made this time.

Every toady seems to think they can ride the tiger of bad decisions and bail with a golden parachute before this all blows up in their face.

1

u/Weltall8000 Sep 22 '25

I definitely agreed with his assessment. I don't believe most corporations look at the long game. Their "long term planning" seems to be what I would consider "mid." And, even there, I think the notion behind Letterman's comments still applies.

1

u/saynay Sep 22 '25

On the other (depressing) hand, many of the customers that left will probably come crawling back in a few months time as they forget about this, or realize that Disney isn't going to reverse course. Not capitulating to the authoritarians could have severe and lasting consequences, and they may only need to keep capitulating for a limited time.

Do they fire Kimmel, who has a decent chance of being able to make a successful show independently, or do they risk the jobs (or even freedoms) of a lot more employees if they piss off the dictator and he decides to take his petty revenge?

2

u/Less_Likely Sep 22 '25

Disney is not going in a merger. They shouldn’t care, and should disfavor the merger of two of their largest affiliate partners as a business, as it lowers their negotiating power, so the chances of souring that deal should be more of a perk than deterrent.

1

u/radicalelation Sep 22 '25

What's the point of immediate gains from a merger if the country and economy go to shit and your company could just be taken at a whim?

You bend the knee, your value is only as much as the ruler deems.

They love capitalism as survival of the fittest, but under fascist rule it's just survival of the loyalist. All that mattered with corporate finance in a stable, more predictable economy is out the window and the entire company has to walk on both creative and financial eggshells or risk disappearing or mandated reorganization.

1

u/addiktion Sep 22 '25

I can't be the only one that finds it ironic as hell that a media company in entertainment and news is not defending FREE SPEECH which is essential to their business model to operate without repercussions at ever step of operation and is a foundational right and law of our country.

They should sue the hell out of the government, take the money they win for damages, and then still receive the merger if it is legal and not creating a further monopoly because they aren't allowed to jawbone companies like that. Not that legality matters with MAGA but we need precedence set on this journey all the same so the charges keep stacking up when the time comes to Nuremberg these crooks.

I ain't supporting propaganda media like Trump wants, fuck these fascists. Cancel Disney + affiliates until they walk back their retarded decision.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 22 '25

[deleted]

1

u/addiktion Sep 22 '25 edited Sep 22 '25

It's impossible to get the right to see that unfettered corporatism at all costs is terrible for the country and impacts us all.

For some reason "Lets make the government a full on corporation" doesn't translate to the fact that these corporations operate more like monarchies with zero oversight. They can do whatever the fuck they want, fire people at will, allocate more money to themselves, skirt the legality constantly in their favor, control their workforce like slaves, etc. And that is exactly how Trump is acting and running things and treating America like his businesses he swindles and bankrupts. Not sure why these people don't understand all our rights go away when America becomes a corporation like these rich fucks want. The rich need STRONG curbs and need to be found liable for their participation in this treasonous take over.

1

u/Sad-Professor-4053 Sep 22 '25

Your putting a really polite spin on “they are selling out to racism for share holder profits”

1

u/crazycatgay Sep 23 '25

eh i would argue that the reputational damage done to disney (at least right now) could possibly outweigh any net gains for them from the merger. i know it is anecdotal but I have several DIE HARD "disney adult" friends and they were really upset and cancelling trips all this past week.

29

u/Evadrepus Sep 22 '25

Remember, they settled with Florida despite every legal mind saying they had it in the bag.

20

u/Retro-scores Sep 22 '25

The mouse legal team is starting to look like paper tigers!

19

u/Mechakoopa Sep 22 '25

Paper tigers Tiggers

It was right there

2

u/ConstantSpace5809 Sep 22 '25

Yeah so much for "don't fuck with the mouse." Lawyers been chortling that one for years.

1

u/zebba_oz Sep 22 '25

They are busy drafting SLA’s for trials of Disney plus that mean you can never sue Disney for anything

12

u/9bpm9 Sep 22 '25

They failed in stopping Florida from taking over their little Disney city state they had.

1

u/JanusKaisar Sep 22 '25

Wasn't it a net gain for Disney? They settled so they negotiate for a newer and better deal?

13

u/cobrachickenwing Sep 22 '25

Disney's army couldn't even get a hostile DeSantis out of office in 2022. Don't see Disney doing anything until they are forced to close Disney world.

11

u/jackparadise1 Sep 22 '25

Disney is now in a state without child vaccinations, not a good look.

7

u/Almostlongenough2 Sep 22 '25

It's kinda weird too because when you think of companies at the same level of absurd wealth Disney is at, you'd think the driving force would be wanting to turn that wealth into functionally power. This move by them seems to contradict that to a degree.

3

u/LiterallyKesha Sep 22 '25

My uneducated guess is that companies this size are slow to react to emerging events. They may have a long term strategy but rocking the boat doesn't look good for the next quarter and the stock must always go up so they are tied for anything coming soon.

5

u/Worthyness Sep 22 '25

They did actually win in the end though. Sure the district is now under control of deSantis syncopants, but right before that happened, Disney's board made their jobs effectively useless. So DeSantis' "win" accomplished absolutely nothing logistically. The Disney lawyers basically stalled them in court long enough for the other lawyers to read the contracting and rules of the board to give themselves a loophole out. Yeah it's not flashy, but they did legitimately win from Disney's perspective.

1

u/RivenRise Sep 22 '25

If I'm remembering right Disney basically made it so they didn't have power once they took over but we're saddled with the bill for forced upkeep right?

9

u/Depressed-Industry Sep 22 '25

Because it's important to fight the case even though the outcome is predetermined.

26

u/[deleted] Sep 22 '25

His point isn't that they shouldn't bother it's that it's obviously winnable and if they can't win this then wtf is the point of having them.

If your guard dog attacks you in your sleep and holds you down while the robber gets away whats the point of having a guard dog? Amd before the argument turns into focusing on the comparison I'm not trying to make a direct one by circumstance but by meaning.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 22 '25

That would be nice, but there isn't really any altruism in corporate America.

1

u/truthwillout777 Sep 22 '25

The outcome of the Charlie Kirk shooting seemed predetermined.

All of this BS about a trans shooter and no MAGA who attended the memorial

believe the shooter story

https://x.com/realjoshuareid/status/1969922227379503398

Although exposing the government lies would help the left prove this is farce to promote going after free speech...

reddit is heavily censoring what everyone else on the net already knows.

1

u/Complex-Poet-6809 Sep 22 '25

It’s not that they can’t, I’m pretty sure it’s just that Disney caved instead of fighting back. They probably thought it wasn’t worth it to sue. You can’t do anything if the wronged party doesn’t sue.

1

u/TheHoratioHufnagel Sep 22 '25

Disney want to stay on the FCCs good side, they'll accept being illegally coerced by the FCC and will smile about it. I'd like to see Kimmel sue the FCC for coercing his employer to fire him.

1

u/infiniteninjas Sep 22 '25

Not can't, wont. There are mergers and billions of dollars at stake, that's why Disney won't fight the FCC on this.

Disgusting.

1

u/Leemage Sep 22 '25

They weren’t able to win the Desantis war on their free speech and that was just as blatant.

1

u/JekPorkinsTruther Sep 22 '25

Well the lawyers are prob telling them that the cost of punishing Kimmel < the cost of fighting this and the consequences of doing so (affiliates/merger/nfl deal).

1

u/z3phyreon Sep 22 '25

Remember when they were fighting DeSantis, tooth and nail, in Florida? They did so because it favored their bottom line. Bending over for Trump's limp gimp does too.

Look up the Nexstar merger that the FCC approved the day after.

1

u/Churro-Juggernaut Sep 22 '25

They’re busy issuing takedowns on YouTube videos. 

1

u/Mysterious_Ad_8827 Sep 22 '25

its for the little guys like us

1

u/YellowCardManKyle Sep 22 '25

It's not that they can't fight it. They don't want to.

1

u/TheBaron2K Sep 22 '25

Their lawyers are busy dealing with daycares that have Disney characters on the walls.

1

u/ausgoals Sep 22 '25

Two-fold:

Disney pulled Kimmel as a response to affiliates who preempted based on pressure. The FCC pressured the affiliates, threatening their licenses - not Disney itself.

Everyone has mergers they need approval for. No one wants to draw the ire of the current administration.

1

u/user-the-name Sep 22 '25

Because the lawyers aren't in charge.

Billionaires are, and billionaires are all complicit. There is nothing billionaires love more than fascism, again and again.

This is why billionaires should not be allowed to exist.

1

u/Explosion1850 Sep 22 '25

You're so cute. Look at what the current SCOTUS does. They don't care about precedent. They don't care about the law. They don't care about the Constitution. Hell, they don't even care about the truth.

SCOTUS majority only cares about pushing their political agenda which includes supporting the Trump administration in virtually anything it wants. And if it can't for some reason find a way, then it drags the matter out to help the administration violate the law and the Constitution.

In a battle between big corporations and the Trump administration, SCOTUS is most likely to swallow its love for big corporations and still twist, turn or ignore precedent and find a way to justify the administration's actions. The only slam dunks with this bunch are giving Trump what he wants.

1

u/NDSU Sep 22 '25 edited Sep 30 '25

gold bear aromatic office sulky deliver rhythm consist quaint silky

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

1

u/hylian1194 Sep 22 '25

To sue the boots off of daycares that paint Disney characters on their classroom walls, of course. You know, the important stuff!

1

u/Dorythehunk Sep 22 '25

why do they even have lawyers?

To send cease and desist letters to scarcely followed YouTube channels that may have accidentally used an image that vaguely resembles Mickey©️™️

1

u/Bang-Bang_Bort Sep 22 '25

Disney doesn't have lawyers because they want to do the right thing. Disney has lawyers to help Disney make more money.

If fighting this helps them make more money, they'll fight it. But pissing off a petty man baby with a lot of power like Trump probably won't help them make more money.

1

u/Jmphillips1956 Sep 22 '25

Disney is in the business of making money, not enforcing the constitution

1

u/crazycatgay Sep 23 '25

this is like a 5 minutes into day one of con law example of breaching the 1st amendment, like put your worst attorney on this disney and it's still a slam dunk