"Hey FCC - what about the lying on FOX?" Alter v FCC

OK, FCC, but what about the lying?

3/29/2025 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT submitted re: electioneering at Fox

Alter v FCC 1:24-cv-00745, Judge Amir H. Ali, District Court for DC

The full motion "V. CONCLUSION

Because intentionally libelous statements are not protected by the First

Amendment, this Court should grant summary judgment on the legal

issue that intentionally libelous speech is unprotected, and in this

context comprises conduct of electioneering which is impermissible

under the FCC’s public benefit mandate. Resolving this legal question

will streamline the trial and clarify the applicable standards moving

forward.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant this

Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that intentionally libelous

speech is not protected under the First Amendment as a matter of law

and is within the domain which the FCC must consider in its fitness

reviews of Fox’s licensing obligations, and that such a review does not

comprise “censorship” or a punishment for Fox’s exercise of “free

speech” as the FCC claims, but rather comprises form of fraudulent

manipulation of public opinion in the form of electioneering that is not

permissible under the FCC’s public benefit mandate for broadcasters,

and that the court has the right of review to see that these factors have

been adequately addressed by the FCC, and that there is, in fact,

sufficient evidence to support such a conclusion as to evaluating Fox’s

character as a broadcaster outside the meaning of the 1st Amendment

and freedom of speech, as it was not designed for the benefit of the

public, but a particular candidate, in a persistent pursuit of willfully

and fraudulently contesting an election result in the court of public

opinion, with reckless disregard for a fair and functioning democracy." 12/14/2024

I filed this complaint a while back, and in lieu of a reply brief, the FCC's Solicitor general posted a pre-motion preview of her case, which among other things cited sovereign immunity and standing, and other means of objection available directly at the agency.

The Judge issued an order asking if I'd like to reply, and this is where things got interesting.

PLOT TWIST!

I cite Loper Bright, to give my self all the above (standing, subject matter jurisdiction, and pierce sovereign immunity), to actively compel an agency to regulate, and the judge, rather than dismissing the whole case, as I assume the solicitor general was expecting, the judge set a briefing schedule.

In any case, Loper Bright is the recent SCOTUS decision that ended Chevron Deference and permits the court to be more involved in regulatory oversight (for the purpose of restraining regulators), and I argue that because of that decision, the courts can also become more involved in compelling regulation that the agency is not doing, if it be in the public interest.

I argue that the state (via the judiciary) has waived sovereign immunity where public interest intersects agency regulation, and that the courts may no take a more active roll in deciding whether they have fulfilled the role proscribed to them by congress, and are acting in the public interest. In this case we examine their lackluster response to FOX News's propaganda campaign, but if successful could also apply to lackluster agency responses to other crises such as climate change, water quality, environmental disaster cleanup, or FEMA disaster response (or lack therof). All of which could become vital avenues for checking the administration's attempt to politicize agency response in the coming years.

This could open up so many doors to oversight when agencies aren't regulating ENOUGH if the court accepts this argument, just the fact that they're going to entertain it, is kinda awesome. The case asks the court to revoke fox's licenses nationally until they can demonstrate to the fcc, and the fcc to the court, that they're not in the business of lying to us anymore (as per the $782M settlement with Dominion Voting systems court documents)