[SolidSupplySide]

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

Of course that's true, but Congress isn't doing anything in this instance. ABC can show "Path to 9-11" or not. There's no censorship.

I don't like the abuse of the language some people are employing regarding this matter.

[wideawake]

The former President husband of someone whom everyone knows to be a candidate for US President trying to intimidate a national network is not quite the passage of a law by Congress - but it is more than just your average private citizen applying pressure.

If there is, God forbid, a Democratic Senate next year with Senator Clinton in a position of even greater power, there are many things she could do to use the power of the federal government to punish ABC.

And that is the real subtext here.

[xhrist]

Would threats from Goverment officials to revoke broadcasting rights of a media outlet be "attempted censorship"?

[Tokra]

but Congress isn't doing anything in this instance.

This letter from democratic Congressmen sounds like an implied threat to me:

"Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation. The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program.

Why bring up the fact that ABC's broadcast license is bestowed or withheld at the whim of the government? Any other reason than an implied threat?

I think not.

[bdfromlv]

they are talking about pulling licenses of the stations that air the program

[forty_years]

While our elected representatives are not involved, I hope that our founding charter represents most citizens' sentiments — at least that Congress represents the people, and by extension, most people oppose censorship of the free flow of ideas, Right or Left.

[AZConser]

Of course that's true, but Congress isn't doing anything in this instance. ABC can show "Path to 9-11" or not. There's no censorship.

I think a veiled threat to ABC and its affiliates by the DemonRAT leadership that their broadcast licenses maybe at risk, IS AN INDIRECT CENSORSHIP. Without their broadcast licenses, they are NOTHING. They are saying "Wait until we retake the house and senate and stuff the FCC with our guys - you will be sorry you ran this miniseries that we feel smears Clinoon."