.

Contributor Decker Mccullogh 9/21/25 11p, MST Full Editorial, Holding Nothing Back! Be Warned!!

” I see the FCC Chair and President’s remarks as out of line—and a direct threat to First Amendment protections. To him, this isn’t oversight—it’s overreach.“

This Isn’t Oversight—It’s Overreach

Let’s not sugarcoat it. When the FCC Chair threatens broadcast licenses over late-night monologues, and the President echoes that threat like a schoolyard bully with a badge, we’re not talking about regulation. We’re talking about retaliation. And when Jimmy Kimmel gets yanked off the air for mocking MAGA spin around Charlie Kirk’s assassination, we’re not witnessing oversight—we’re witnessing overreach. I see it plain as day: this is a direct assault on the First Amendment, and it’s dressed up in the language of “public interest” like a wolf in bureaucratic clothing.

The FCC Chair, Brendan Carr, didn’t mince words. “We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” he said, sounding less like a regulator and more like a mob enforcer. The message to ABC was clear: muzzle Kimmel or face consequences. Within hours, Disney pulled the plug. Kimmel was suspended. And the chilling effect rippled outward like frostbite on the Constitution.

President Trump, never one to miss a chance to escalate, suggested that networks airing “97% negative” coverage of him should lose their licenses altogether. “They’re licensed. They’re not allowed to do that,” he said, flouting both the First Amendment and the Communications Act. This isn’t just tone-deaf—it’s tyrannical.

Let’s rewind. The First Amendment isn’t a suggestion. It’s a shield. It protects speech we love and speech we loathe. It safeguards satire, dissent, and yes—even late-night mockery. The Founders didn’t draft it to protect polite conversation. They drafted it to protect the kind of speech that makes presidents squirm.

And this isn’t the first time late-night hosts have drawn fire. Stephen Colbert famously called Trump “Putin’s c*** holster” in 2017. The FCC reviewed the segment but took no action. Fallon caught heat for tousling Trump’s hair, not for criticizing him. Kimmel, however, has become a lightning rod—his monologues increasingly political, his tone unapologetically critical. That’s his right. That’s America’s promise.

“But now, under Carr’s leadership, the FCC is being weaponized. It’s not regulating airwaves—it’s policing ideology. And that’s where I draw the line. This isn’t about decency It’s about dominance. It’s about silencing voices that challenge power.”

The irony? The FCC doesn’t even license national networks like ABC. It licenses local affiliates. But Carr’s threats—and Trump’s endorsement—blur that line. They create a climate of fear, where billion-dollar media companies bend the knee to avoid regulatory retaliation.

And it’s not just Kimmel. Carr has floated action against “The View.” Vice President JD Vance and Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller have vowed to “go after” left-leaning organizations. Attorney General Pam Bondi has hinted at prosecuting “hate speech.” The message is clear: criticize the administration, and you’ll pay.
I see this as a constitutional crisis in slow motion. “We’re watching the First Amendment get waterboarded,” he says. “And the people doing it are waving flags while they do it.”

Let’s talk precedent. In 1964, the Supreme Court ruled in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan that public officials cannot sue for defamation unless the statement was made with “actual malice.” The ruling was a bulwark against government suppression of speech. Today, Carr and Trump are trying to bulldoze that bulwark with threats and theatrics.

And the public interest standard? It’s not a cudgel. It’s a compass. It’s meant to guide broadcasters toward diverse, inclusive programming—not to punish them for political satire. Carr’s interpretation turns that compass into a weapon.

My Montana roots run deep. I know what censorship looks like when it’s dressed in patriotism. I’ve seen how “protecting the public” becomes a euphemism for silencing dissent. And I’m not buying it.

I’m also not alone. Ted Cruz, no liberal darling, called Carr’s remarks “dangerous as hell.” Tucker Carlson warned of a future where hate speech laws muzzle dissent. Even former President Obama weighed in, calling the administration’s tactics “a new and dangerous level” of cancel culture.

I’m not interested in bipartisan hand-wringing. He wants action. He wants accountability. He wants every journalist, comedian, and citizen to recognize what’s at stake.

Because if the government can silence Kimmel today, it can silence Colbert tomorrow. It can silence you. And once that line is crossed, it’s hard to uncross.

So what’s the play? I’m calling for congressional oversight. He wants the House Oversight Committee to investigate Carr’s conduct. He wants media companies to grow a spine. And he wants the public to remember: the First Amendment isn’t just ink on parchment. It’s the lifeblood of democracy.

I’m also calling out the hypocrisy. “You can’t scream about cancel culture and then cancel Kimmel,” he says. “You can’t claim to defend free speech and then threaten licenses over jokes.”

And let’s be clear: this isn’t about whether Kimmel’s joke was tasteful. It’s about whether the government gets to decide what jokes are allowed. That’s not regulation. That’s repression.

My editorial ends with a warning—and a rallying cry. “The FCC has become the Federal Censorship Commission, and if we don’t push back now, we’ll wake up in a country where satire is sedition and silence is survival.”
Because to me, the First Amendment isn’t negotiable. It’s non-negotiable. And anyone who threatens it—whether with a badge, a broadcast license, or a bully pulpit—needs to be called out, loud and clear.

You’ve heard the spin. You’ve seen the silence. But the most important voice in this fight isn’t mine—it’s yours.
The First Amendment wasn’t written to protect comfort. It was written to protect courage.
So tell your story. Take your position. Don’t wait for permission.
Because if we don’t speak up now—loudly, clearly, and unapologetically—then the next silence won’t be voluntary.
I’m Decker. I stand for truth, even when it’s inconvenient. Especially then.”