The Florida Department of Health won’t pursue enforcement against TV stations for running an ad supporting a state pro-choice measure, said a DOH filing Tuesday in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. However, DOH's filing said the ad relayed dangerous false information about the availability of abortions in Florida and so the First Amendment doesn't protect it. “The Constitution does not grant individuals a right to spread false information about the availability of lifesaving medical services,” said the DOH brief. In an affidavit submitted with the filing, a DOH official says the state doesn’t plan to prosecute TV stations over the ad. “The Department is currently unaware of any harm that has arisen from the airing of the ‘Caroline’ commercial,” said the statement from Cassandra Pasley, Florida DOH chief of staff. “Therefore, the Department is not moving forward with an enforcement action under these circumstances.” The stations aren’t facing the threat of enforcement and DOH never directly targeted Floridians Protecting Freedom (FPF) -- the group behind the ad and the lawsuit against Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo -- so FPF doesn’t have standing, DOH argued. Although FPF has said DOH's letters prompted one TV station to drop the ad, FPF hasn’t proven that, DOH said. The FPF ad provides false information because in it a woman says that her doctors knew that if she didn’t end her pregnancy she would die and that Florida has banned abortion in cases like hers. “Florida law expressly permits abortion when the procedure is ‘necessary to save the pregnant woman’s life,'” the DOH filing said. The ad is “an out-and-out falsehood” that could lead vulnerable women in the state to “refrain from seeking lifesaving medical treatment or attempt to obtain such treatment in more dangerous ways because of the commercial’s lies,” the DOH filings said. FPF has presented testimony from physicians in previous court filings saying that under the narrow language of Florida’s abortion laws, the person shown in the ad wouldn't have been able to get a legal abortion. She has terminal cancer and needed treatment to prolong her life, which required termination of the pregnancy. “Because Caroline’s diagnosis was terminal, neither the cancer treatment the doctors wished to provide her, nor the abortion itself, could in fact save Caroline’s life or treat an immediately emergent issue, and thus would not qualify under the narrow existing exceptions to abortion under Florida law,” FPF said. The DOH disputed FPF’s argument and said the cancer information isn't included in the ad. “The fact that an individual will eventually succumb to some other illness does not prevent a doctor in Florida from providing lifesaving care to a pregnant woman,” the DOH filing said. The court should deny the request for a preliminary injunction, but if one is granted, it should expire on Election Day, when the ballot amendment will be decided, it added.

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump continued his calls this week for government against CBS over editing of a 60 Minutes interview with his Democratic opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris (see 2410170051). “When will CBS release their Transcript of the fraudulent Interview with Comrade Kamala Harris?” Trump posted Monday on Truth Social. “This may be the Biggest Scandal in Broadcast History!” In an interview with Fox News' Howard Kurtz Sunday, Trump said he was seeking to subpoena CBS’ records about the interview that ran earlier this month. In addition, he said that 60 Minutes should be taken off the air. When Kurtz responded that FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel has said the agency would never yank a broadcaster’s license because of a politician’s objections to an interview, Trump appeared unfamiliar with her statement. “Really?” he responded, before reiterating his objections. Trump’s accusations against 60 Minutes are “false,” the program said in a statement Sunday night. 60 Minutes “gave an excerpt of our interview to Face the Nation that used a longer section of her answer than that on 60 Minutes. Same question. Same answer. But a different portion of the response,” the statement said. Harris’ answer on 60 Minutes “was more succinct, which allows time for other subjects in a wide ranging 21-minute-long segment,” the program said. In a post on X Monday, FCC Commissioner Nathan Simington appeared to suggest that 60 Minutes' editing was unlikely to run afoul of the FCC's news distortion rules. "Broadcast news distortion is an extraordinarily narrow complaint category," Simington said. "CBS could easily remove the predicate for any further discussion by releasing the transcript." In a Fox interview last week, Simington appeared to lean the other way (see 2410180058), describing the news distortion complaint against CBS as not "facially ridiculous." He also promised to look into the matter in an online post that Trump shared.

A news distortion complaint filed at the FCC against CBS isn’t “facially ridiculous,” said Commissioner Nathan Simington in a Fox News segment Thursday, though he also vowed not to “prejudge” the matter. The complaint argues that editing of an interview with Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris changed her answer to a question on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, making it sound more favorable. Although the complaint was brought against CBS’ owned and operated station WCBS New York, the content it focuses on was from network programs Face the Nation and 60 Minutes. For the FCC to find that news distortion occurred, the conduct would have had to occur at the level of the licensee rather than the network, Simington said. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump on Thursday had reposted on Truth Social Simington's early posting about the complaint in which the commissioner wrote, “Interesting. Big if true. Will look into it.” Trump appointed Simington to the FCC in 2020, after the then-president withdrew his renomination of former Commissioner Mike O’Rielly in the wake of an O'Rielly speech critical of social media content regulation that the executive branch proposed.

The FCC should limit the scope of its lowest unit rate (LUR), applying only to political ads that are at least 50% candidate funded, said a joint letter Wednesday to FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel from campaign finance groups, including End Citizens United Action Fund and Campaign Legal Center. Under LUR, candidates buying broadcast advertisements can be charged only the lowest rate that commercial advertisers paid for the same class of time. LUR applies to federal, state and local candidates but not PACs or issue advertisers. However, some campaign finance groups say Republican joint finance committees are benefiting from LUR and running TV ads where the National Republican Senatorial Committee provides the majority of funds, not the individual candidates. That's “a blatant attempt to bypass contribution limits and undermine our campaign finance system,” said a news release from the groups, which also include Public Citizen and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. The NRSC didn’t comment. Rosenworcel should “publicly confirm” that LUR applies only to ads that candidates pay for, and that a candidate must pay for at least 50% of an ad to trigger the lower rates and other FCC political ad rules, the letter said. The FCC lacks a policy on how much of an ad a candidate must fund before triggering LUR, said Wilkinson Barker broadcast attorney David Oxenford in an interview. The agency’s long-standing stance is “even though a spot was bought by the party on a national basis, if the candidate authorized it, it would be entitled to lowest unit charge,” Oxenford said. Changing that would likely require notice and comment periods rather than a simple clarification, he said. That makes it unlikely LUR policy would change in time for the November election. There are some indications broadcasters might support such clarifications, Oxenford said. In 2023, the Florida Association of Broadcasters filed a petition for a declaratory ruling calling for a clarification on when LUR applies, but that petition was later withdrawn. The matter of when an ad should enjoy the lowest unit charge “is really a question that ... needs to [be] resolve[d],” Oxenford said. NAB didn’t comment.

A Florida group behind a ballot initiative seeking to limit the state’s interference in abortions has sued Florida Department of Health officials for threatening TV stations airing the group’s campaign ads (see 241008056). “The state of Florida’s crusade against Amendment 4 is unconstitutional government interference – full stop,” said Lauren Brenzel, Campaign Director for Floridians Defending Freedom’s campaign in favor of Amendment 4, which would bar the state from restricting abortions. Ads for Amendment 4 were the focus of recent letters from the Florida Department of Health threatening legal actions against the stations airing them, including prosecution as a public health nuisance. “The State cannot coerce television stations into removing political speech from the airwaves in an attempt to keep their abortion ban in place,” said Brenzel in a news release. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida against Florida DOH head Joseph Lapado and former Florida DOH General Counsel John Wilson, seeks an injunction barring the state from threats or coercion against broadcasters. It also seeks injunctions barring enforcement action against Floridians Defending Freedom, punitive and monetary damages, and attorneys fees. The Florida DOH and NAB didn’t comment.

The FCC’s order allowing geotargeted radio broadcasts let broadcasters “go after new revenue streams” and is “the dawn of new possibility for radio,” said FCC Commissioner Geoffrey Starks in remarks at the National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters Black Media Summit and Power of Urban Radio Forum. The order is “a game changer,” especially for “small and singleton owners that are working hard to stay on the air,” said Starks. Both the commissioner and NABOB were vocal supporters of the radio geotargeting order before it was approved unanimously in April. REC Networks and Press Communications targeted the order with petitions for reconsideration (see 2406210054). The FCC is working to wrap up the 2022 quadrennial review “as soon as we can,” said David Strickland, media adviser to FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, in a panel discussion Thursday. Strickland declined to comment on the timing of the 2022 QR or say whether ongoing litigation over the 2018 QR could influence it.

The Media Bureau will open a filing window for applications for new noncommercial educational TV stations from Dec. 4 to Dec. 11, said a public notice in Friday’s Daily Digest. Effective Friday, the FCC won’t accept petitions to amend the Table of Allotments for new NCE channels, the PN said. Additionally, during the NCE window, there will be a freeze on petitions from full-power and Class A TV stations seeking to change channels or make minor and major changes, the PN said.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on Wednesday called for an investigation into 60 Minutes over the editing of the CBS program's interview with Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris. In a Truth Social post, Trump said that the CBS “News Division” “must be licensed.” However, the FCC doesn't license news programs. Trump, who reportedly backed out of a similar interview with 60 Minutes, said editing of the interview was intended to make Harris appear more favorable and was “possibly illegal” and “may be a major Campaign Finance Violation.” Trump's post is the latest in a string of threats and calls for government action against broadcasters over their news content (see 2409230022). “This is an open and shut case, and must be investigated, starting today!” FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel has repeatedly condemned calls for agency action against broadcasters over their content (see 2410080056). CBS didn't comment.

FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel Tuesday condemned a letter from the Florida Department of Health threatening a TV station over an advertisement. Sent to Nexstar's WFLA-TV Tampa and other Gray Television stations, the letter claimed a political ad running on the station critical of Florida's abortion policies constituted an illegal “sanitary nuisance” and threatened the station with criminal prosecution. The station's First Amendment right “does not include free rein to disseminate false advertisements which, if believed, would likely have a detrimental effect on the lives and health of pregnant women in Florida,” the DOH letter said. Rosenworcel, in a release, responded, “The right of broadcasters to speak freely is rooted in the First Amendment.” She continued, “Threats against broadcast stations for airing content that conflicts with the government's views are dangerous and undermine the fundamental principle of free speech.” The ad, the DOH letter said, characterized a Florida law that strictly limits abortions as banning them and leading to the deaths of pregnant women. The ad is “not only false, it is dangerous.” Women faced with pregnancy complications posing a serious risk of death “may and should seek medical treatment in Florida,” the letter said. Nexstar, Gray and NAB didn't comment.

Congress should remove the FCC's authority to impose content-based restrictions such as the broadcast indecency rules on broadcasters in the wake of Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump's repeated calls for action against ABC's license (see [Ref:2409120056), said American Action Forum Director-Technology and Innovation Policy Jeffrey Westling in a post Tuesday. “While many were quick to dismiss Trump's call, it is indeed possible for the federal government to revoke a broadcast license, even in response to what is essentially a political offense,” Westling said. He said Congress should do away with the news distortion rules and indecency rules, which remain on the books but are used infrequently. The news distortion rules bar broadcasters from deliberately distorting a factual news report, while the indecency rules bar egregious nudity or profanity. The FCC hypothetically could use the news distortion rules to block a license renewal for a station that aired a story the president disapproved of, Westling said. Elimination of the rules would give broadcasters more freedom and allow them to better compete with other media that aren't bound by such rules, he said. “The freedom to succeed would also entail the freedom to fail: If a station airs content that consumers do not want to see, it will simply go out of business,” he said.