blackleaf31

We disagree with the FCC on their interpretation of the Communications Act.

Chevron and Brand X are problems for this legal theroy. But Justice Gorsuch hates both. You could get lucky ;)

Simplifying massively, Chevron and Brand X basically say that if an agency says that the law they administer means Y, then they are automatically right, even if Y is 180 degrees reversed from what they said the law meant before.

So, "We disagree with the FCC" is a problem, because under the cases I noted, the FCC's view of what the law is with respect to the Communications Act at any given moment is automatically correct.

Super fun times for all.

Actual lawyer here. Content based restrictions are not the only kind of censorship, as anyone who has had to deal with "free speech zones" well knows. Restrictions on timing and funding can be just as powerful tools to censor speech as censoring the content outright - what is the practical difference if the speaker can speak but no one is allowed to hear?

If the government can limit money, the government can limit speech via limiting its distribution, and that is legally dangerous.

The case law, as it has developed, has tended to strongly favor agency interpretation of the laws it administers.

That's good. First amendment belongs to all. So does the second amendment according to the Supreme Court, yet they are not trying to maximize that right. That is incongruous to me.