In a significant move during her final days as Chair of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Jessica Rosenworcel rejected multiple complaints that sought to penalize news stations for their coverage related to former President Donald Trump. Her decision marks a firm stance against the notion of utilizing FCC licensing authority in ways that could threaten First Amendment rights.
“The facts and legal circumstances in each of these cases are different,” Rosenworcel stated. “But what they share is that they seek to weaponize the licensing authority of the FCC in a way that is fundamentally at odds with the First Amendment. To do so would set a dangerous precedent. That is why we reject it here.” More details about the decision are available on Ars Technica.
The dismissals, however, might not conclude the issue. Legal expert Jeffrey Westling from the conservative American Action Forum cautioned that these complaints could be challenged in court. Drawing on the DC Circuit Court’s precedent in cases like Serafyn vs FCC, he noted the FCC’s obligation to consider news distortion complaints rather than dismissing them outright.
Criticism arose from various quarters. The Center for American Rights decried Rosenworcel’s decision as “political and self-serving,” arguing that actions by major networks aimed to support Vice President Harris politically, while not protected by the First Amendment. Meanwhile, the Republican FCC Commissioner Nathan Simington previously encouraged FCC leadership to consider such complaints from the group seriously, details of which were publicized.
Controversy also surrounds the dismissal of a complaint against a Fox station. The Media and Democracy Project expressed disappointment and pledged to appeal, citing court decisions questioning the character qualifications of the Murdochs and Fox as licensees. They emphasized, quoting Floyd Abrams, a renowned First Amendment scholar, that the Amendment does not bar FCC action given the case’s circumstances.