We break down the legal case against James Comey over an alleged
“true threat” and how far the government can go in prosecuting
speech. Plus, we examine renewed FCC pressure on ABC and Jimmy
Kimmel.
Timestamps:
00:00 Intro
00:57 Does the DOJ have a viable case against James Comey?
04:51 “True threats” and Comey’s case
06:36 Threats against U.S. presidents and Watts v. United
States
09:55 Was it a mistake for Comey to take down the “8647”
seashell image?
11:18 Can the case be dismissed before it goes to trial?
12:38 Can Comey’s case be considered a selective
prosecution?
13:23 Is the process itself a punishment?
15:29 Could prosecutors face consequences for bringing this
case?
18:07 Examples of true threats
20:35 “True threat” versus “incitement to imminent lawless
action”
22:53 Is it still a “true threat” if charges come a year
later?
24:32 Can Comey recover his legal fees?
25:34 Do threats become more real in the wake of other active
threats?
26:32 Does the First Amendment differ for speech about the
president?
30:06 What’s going on with the FCC and ABC?
34:20 What do NRA v. Vullo and the FCC’s calls to fire
Jimmy Kimmel have in common?
35:17 Why does broadcast licensing exist in the internet
age?
36:51 Have past presidents historically influenced broadcast
licensing?
38:33 Is the Fairness Doctrine still in effect?
40:30 What can ABC do if the FCC takes away their licenses?
42:40 Will ABC fight back?
46:01 Has broadcast media regulation always been a frustration
for 1A advocates?
49:20 Humphrey’s Executor & content-based regulation
50:58 Is the FCC independent from the executive branch?
51:45 The past 18 months of FCC action
52:15 Outro
Joining us:
Conor Fitzpatrick, supervising senior attorney
Aaron Terr, director of public advocacy
Bob Corn-Revere, chief counsel
