An Open Letter to FCC Chairman Brendan Carr: A Devastating Critique of His First Amendment Stance

In a scathing open letter, prominent First Amendment attorney Bob Corn-Revere has delivered a comprehensive and deeply critical assessment of Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr’s approach to free speech and broadcast regulation. The letter, published on Corn-Revere’s Substack, challenges Carr’s actions and public statements, asserting that they represent a profound betrayal of his professed commitment to First Amendment principles. This detailed critique comes at a time when Carr has faced persistent accusations of overreach and politically motivated regulatory actions, particularly concerning his criticisms of media content and his investigations into broadcasters.

The editorial framework from which this analysis emerges highlights a sustained skepticism regarding Chairman Carr’s tenure, particularly his initial appointment by former President Trump. The publication’s previous reporting has consistently flagged Carr’s actions as contradictory to the ideals of free speech, citing concerns about his "censorial ambitions." This historical context underscores the significance of Corn-Revere’s intervention, as it moves beyond general criticism to a rigorous legal and ethical examination from a respected figure within the First Amendment legal community.

A Legacy of First Amendment Defense Confronts Current Regulatory Tactics

Bob Corn-Revere is not a casual observer of First Amendment law; his career is a testament to decades of high-stakes litigation defending free expression, even in its most controversial and unpopular forms. His extensive legal resume includes representing Larry Flynt’s Hustler Magazine in the landmark Supreme Court case Hustler v. Falwell, defending the rap group 2 Live Crew against obscenity charges for their album As Nasty As They Wanna Be, and serving as counsel in FCC v. Fox Television Stations, a pivotal Supreme Court case that significantly curtailed the FCC’s authority over broadcast indecency. This deep and practical engagement with the nuances of free speech, particularly in challenging legal landscapes, lends considerable weight to his critique of Chairman Carr.

Furthermore, Corn-Revere’s experience extends to the internal workings of the FCC, having previously served as Chief Counsel to former FCC Chairman James Quello. This dual perspective—as a seasoned litigator of First Amendment cases and as an insider to the FCC’s operational structure—positions him to offer a uniquely informed and authoritative analysis of Chairman Carr’s conduct.

The open letter directly addresses Chairman Carr, asserting that his recent actions and pronouncements have abandoned the principles he once espoused. Corn-Revere notes that while Carr has often responded to criticism with dismissive gestures on social media, such as emojis and memes, a critique from an individual of his standing and historical involvement in First Amendment defense carries a different gravity.

A Stark Warning: The Perils of Political Patronage Over Legal Principles

Corn-Revere opens his letter with a pointed analogy, drawing a parallel between Chairman Carr’s current trajectory and the cautionary tale of former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi. Bondi’s tenure, as described by Corn-Revere, ended abruptly and ignominiously after she allegedly "over-promised in order to curry favor" with the then-President but ultimately "under-performed because of the limits of their authority." The letter states, "Bondi promised the President she would prosecute his political enemies and failed miserably. The President rewarded her misplaced loyalty by denying her the graceful exit she sought, and instead fired her during a cross-town limo ride to watch a Supreme Court argument."

This narrative serves as a stark warning to Carr, suggesting that a similar fate may await him if he continues to prioritize political expediency over legal realities. Corn-Revere directly connects this to Carr’s actions, stating, "You have recently threatened to revoke the licenses of broadcasters who air what you call ‘fake news,’ which apparently includes any skeptical reporting about the war in Iran—something you know you cannot do legally." The letter’s stark conclusion on this point is unsparing: "My advice? Don’t get into a car with the president anytime soon." This opening salvo immediately establishes the letter’s critical tone and its central thesis: that Carr’s actions are driven by a misguided attempt to appease political figures, leading him to disregard legal constraints and his own prior commitments.

The Betrayal of Professed Values: A Bizarro World Transformation

Corn-Revere meticulously traces Carr’s evolution, contrasting his current behavior with past statements and positions. The letter recalls Corn-Revere’s own prior "unsolicited advice" to Carr upon his appointment as FCC Chairman, an open letter titled "A Plea for Institutional Modesty." In that missive, Corn-Revere had cautioned Carr to be circumspect in asserting power over broadcasters, noting that "you don’t have as much power as you may think," and that "flexing your regulatory muscles would conflict with both the Communications Act and the Constitution."

The current letter argues that Carr has not only ignored this advice but has fundamentally reversed his stance. Corn-Revere quotes Carr’s earlier declarations as a commissioner, such as, "a newsroom’s decision about what stories to cover and how to frame them should be beyond the reach of any government official, not targeted by them," and that "injecting partisan politics into our licensing process is a deeply troubling transgression of free speech and the FCC’s status as an independent agency."

The letter then starkly contrasts these past statements with Carr’s present actions: "Instead, you emerged as a Bizarro World caricature of yourself, threatening owners of broadcast networks with summer stock Don Corleone impressions and devoting much of your social media activity to jawboning. It is as if you set out to prove that the real mental health crisis in America isn’t about teens on Instagram, but public officials on X." This characterization suggests that Carr’s engagement with regulatory issues has devolved into performative posturing, divorced from substantive legal or ethical considerations.

The Phantom Limb of Regulation: "News Distortion" Policy Under Scrutiny

A significant portion of Corn-Revere’s critique focuses on Chairman Carr’s reliance on the "news distortion" policy, a regulatory concept that has largely lain dormant since the FCC eliminated the Fairness Doctrine decades ago. Corn-Revere describes this policy as akin to a "phantom limb," explaining, "it is not really there in substance, but you still seem to feel you can walk on it."

He argues that Carr’s invocation of this policy, particularly in instances where he perceives content to be critical of the current administration, is a disingenuous application of a policy with questionable legal standing. Corn-Revere criticizes Carr’s social media pronouncements that broadcasters will be held to their public interest obligations "on your watch," suggesting that Carr is exploiting this obscure policy to exert pressure. The letter states that Carr’s claim that "the opposition to holding broadcasters accountable to the public interest comes increasingly from those unfamiliar with longstanding FCC precedent" is "even worse, because you know it is a bald-faced lie." This assertion implies that Carr is deliberately misrepresenting the historical context and legal viability of such policies for political gain.

Tactical Blunders and Unintended Consequences: The Backfire Effect of Carr’s Actions

Corn-Revere meticulously details how Chairman Carr’s aggressive tactics have repeatedly backfired, leading to outcomes contrary to his stated objectives. The letter highlights two prominent examples: the suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live! and the FCC’s reinterpretation of equal opportunity rules regarding candidate interviews.

Regarding the Jimmy Kimmel Live! incident, the letter recounts how Carr’s intervention, which led Disney to suspend the show, resulted in significant negative repercussions for the involved parties. "Protesters picketed outside the gates of the Magic Kingdom, and an estimated 7.1 million people cancelled subscriptions to Disney-owned streaming services Disney+ and Hulu over the controversy—at about twice the usual churn rate." Furthermore, ABC affiliate group owners Sinclair Broadcasting and Nexstar Media Group, who had business before the Commission and complied with Carr’s demands, also experienced financial losses. The letter notes that "advertisers will not pay as much for spots during reruns of Celebrity Family Feud as during Jimmy Kimmel Live!, and Sinclair revenue dropped a reported 16 percent for the quarter."

The ultimate outcome of this pressure campaign was a swift reversal. "The result? The suspension ended a little more than a week after it began and Kimmel triumphantly returned to the air to his highest viewership in over a decade." The letter points out that Kimmel’s comeback garnered "6.3 million broadcast viewers and roughly 20 – 26 million views on social media within 24 hours," underscoring how Carr’s actions inadvertently amplified the very content he sought to suppress.

The attempt to manipulate equal opportunity rules to target Stephen Colbert also proved to be a strategic misstep. In January, Carr prompted FCC staff to re-examine whether candidate interviews on certain talk shows were exempt from the equal opportunities rule, a departure from decades of precedent. The letter highlights the apparent partisan nature of this reinterpretation, noting that "mysteriously, you said there was no need to apply your reinterpretation to conservative talk radio interviews."

However, Colbert outmaneuvered this regulatory challenge. "He ridiculed your reinterpretation of the equal opportunities rule on air, and gleefully transmitted his interview with Texas Senate candidate James Talarico on The Late Show’s YouTube channel, which is beyond the FCC’s jurisdiction." The interview achieved viral success, garnering "over seven million views overnight," leading to "Talarico immediately received $2.5 million in campaign contributions, and won his primary." These instances serve as compelling evidence, as presented by Corn-Revere, that Carr’s tactics are not only constitutionally dubious but also tactically inept, consistently generating the opposite of the intended effect.

The Unassailable Knowledge of Legal Precedent

Perhaps the most damning aspect of Corn-Revere’s letter is his assertion that Chairman Carr possesses a clear understanding of the legal limitations he is attempting to circumvent. Corn-Revere lays out the extensive Supreme Court precedent that has progressively curbed the FCC’s assumed authority over broadcast content. The letter directly confronts Carr with this knowledge: "But you know all this. Just as you know the FCC eliminated the fairness doctrine four decades ago, which is the regulatory progenitor of the ‘news distortion policy’ you now love to cite (but only against broadcasts you perceive as critical of this administration)."

This point is critical because it eliminates the defense of ignorance. Carr, having served as an FCC commissioner for nearly a decade and having practiced communications law, is presumed to be well-versed in the legal framework governing the FCC. Corn-Revere argues that Carr’s public pronouncements, such as "the law is clear," are, in fact, "a bald-faced lie." This implies a deliberate disregard for legal precedent, driven by partisan motivations rather than genuine misunderstanding. The implication is that Carr is actively choosing to push the boundaries of his authority, fully aware of the legal challenges his actions would face.

Legacy of Destruction vs. Legacy of Construction

The letter concludes by reflecting on the long-term implications of Carr’s conduct for his own legacy. Corn-Revere points to Carr’s appearance at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), where he reportedly celebrated "winning" against the media by listing personalities who had left their jobs, including "sleepy eyed Chuck Todd." Corn-Revere unequivocally condemns this metric of success, stating, "It is a poor and pathetic leader who measures ‘winning’ by what he thinks he has destroyed rather than by what he has managed to build."

The final assessment is a somber prediction of how history will likely remember Chairman Carr. Drawing on his previous letter, Corn-Revere reiterates his earlier advice: "officials who have tried to muzzle the press for short-term political gain have not been treated well by history." He concludes with a poignant and brutal observation: "Now, to the extent you will be remembered at all, it will most likely be mainly as a South Park character." The closing sentiment, "I wish you had listened," underscores a sense of regret that Carr has chosen a path that, in Corn-Revere’s view, leads to professional disgrace and historical obscurity, rather than to a genuine contribution to public discourse and the protection of fundamental rights.

While Chairman Carr is expected to dismiss this critique, as he has with previous criticisms and legal warnings, the record of Corn-Revere’s assessment stands as a significant indictment. The letter, penned by a figure with unparalleled expertise and a distinguished history of defending free speech, provides a robust and well-documented counter-narrative to Carr’s public persona and regulatory actions. Unlike the ephemeral nature of social media posts, this comprehensive legal analysis is poised to endure, offering a stark and critical perspective on a consequential period of FCC leadership. The full text of the letter is available for those seeking a deeper understanding of the intricate legal and ethical challenges posed by Chairman Carr’s tenure and his approach to the vital principles of free expression.