\n
![](\"https:\/\/cdn.arstechnica.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/brendan-carr-concordia-1152x648-1758655744.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
The FCC\u2019s 2002 determination \u201chas remained unchallenged and unchanged since that time and, to this day, The View<\/em> remains fully qualified for the exemption under the applicable legal standards,\u201d ABC said.<\/p>\n Today\u2019s FCC Media Bureau public notice described the 2002 ruling as \u201ca letter from an FCC staffer.\u201d The ABC petition said the 2002 letter was \u201ca Declaratory Ruling from the Mass Media Bureau,\u201d which \u201cremains in full force and effect.\u201d<\/p>\n Besides asking for comment on whether The View<\/em> is a bona fide news show, the FCC proceeding offers an opportunity for people to comment on whether the equal-time rule itself is constitutional. ABC\u2019s petition argued that the rule \u201craises profound First Amendment concerns\u201d because of the limits it imposes on editorial decisions about what guests to feature.<\/p>\n \u201cAt a minimum, the equal opportunities rule could not survive constitutional scrutiny without the kind of robust bona fide news exemption that the Commission has applied for decades,\u201d ABC said.<\/p>\n The FCC Media Bureau notice responded to ABC\u2019s constitutional argument by asking for public comment on whether \u201cthe federal equal opportunities statute pass[es] relevant constitutional scrutiny, either as a general matter or as applied here.\u201d<\/p>\n The docket<\/a> has already received a few dozen comments today. Most are from people writing that The View<\/em> is not a real news show, but one commenter<\/a> said the FCC investigation \u201cis misguided and unfounded, especially as it apparently did not stem from any formal complaint regarding The View<\/em> violating the equal time provisions or its long-standing status as a bona fide news program.\u201d<\/p>\n The FCC set a June 22 deadline for initial comments, and a July 6 deadline for reply comments.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\nABC challenges legality of equal-time rule<\/h2>\n