PT1st Tells the FCC – You’re Not the Political Speech Police

FCC Chairman, Brendan Carr

​When government officials scrutinize media outlets because they dislike the viewpoints being expressed, Americans of every political persuasion should pay attention.

That is the core message of a new comment filed by Protect The 1st with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding the agency’s unusual decision to revisit a decades-old determination that ABC’s The View qualifies as a “bona fide news interview” program. 

As we noted in an earlier post, the FCC has raised questions about whether The View should continue to enjoy an exemption from federal “equal opportunity” requirements that apply to broadcast candidates. The trigger for this inquiry was The View’s hosting of James Talarico, a liberal Democrat and his party’s nominee for a Texas Senate seat.

In our public comment, PT1st tells the FCC that when it withdraws regulatory approvals over disagreements with a show’s hosts or guests, it crosses a dangerous constitutional line. The Commission would move from regulating technical aspects of broadcasting to becoming an arbiter of acceptable political speech. 

That should worry conservatives as much as liberals.

Today, the target may be a left-leaning daytime talk show. Tomorrow, a progressive administration could use the same precedent against conservative broadcasters, podcasters, or commentators. Once government acquires the power to punish or pressure speakers because of their viewpoints, no ideological camp remains safe for long.

PT1st’s comment emphasizes a simple principle: the First Amendment exists precisely to protect speech that many people dislike. Government officials do not get to decide which viewpoints are sufficiently balanced, neutral, or acceptable to deserve protection. 

Worse, if broadcasters conclude that politically controversial interviews could trigger regulatory scrutiny, many may choose to avoid such programming altogether. The result would be less debate, fewer interviews, and fewer opportunities for voters to hear competing perspectives. Even the threat of government retaliation can chill speech before it occurs. 

Our filing also notes that the media landscape of 2026 bears little resemblance to the one that existed when equal-time rules were first developed. Americans now receive news, commentary, and political information from thousands of sources, including podcasts, streaming platforms, social media, newsletters, and online publications. The View competes in a marketplace crowded with voices from every point on the political spectrum. Consider:
​

• The View, the most popular daytime television show, attracts about 2.5 million viewers.

 

• But more than 16 million people follow podcaster Joe Rogan, whose show on Spotify is not (and should never be) subject to FCC regulation.

While The View featured Senate candidate Talarico, Joe Rogan – with an audience more than six-and-a-half times greater – featured presidential candidate Donald Trump just before the 2024 election. This comparison shows how antiquated New Deal-era laws are, harking back to a time when access to the airwaves had to be rationed because of scarce spectrum.

While broadcast television may lean left, the national cafeteria menu offers plenty of options on the right. The notion that government officials must supervise editorial choices to ensure citizens hear competing viewpoints in this new age of information abundance is risible.

Reasonable people can disagree about The View. Some find it informative. Others find it partisan. Still others may simply change the channel.
​
But in a free society, those decisions belong to viewers holding their remotes, not regulators.

DONATE & HELP US DEFEND YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS