We break down the legal case against James Comey over an alleged "true threat" and how far the government can go in prosecuting speech. Plus, we examine renewed FCC pressure on ABC and Jimmy Kimmel.

Timestamps:

00:00 Intro

00:57 Does the DOJ have a viable case against James Comey?

04:51 "True threats" and Comey's case

06:36 Threats against U.S. presidents and Watts v. United States

09:55 Was it a mistake for Comey to take down the "8647" seashell image?

11:18 Can the case be dismissed before it goes to trial?

12:38 Can Comey's case be considered a selective prosecution?

13:23 Is the process itself a punishment?

15:29 Could prosecutors face consequences for bringing this case?

18:07 Examples of true threats

20:35 "True threat" versus "incitement to imminent lawless action"

22:53 Is it still a "true threat" if charges come a year later?

24:32 Can Comey recover his legal fees?

25:34 Do threats become more real in the wake of other active threats?

26:32 Does the First Amendment differ for speech about the president?

30:06 What's going on with the FCC and ABC?

34:20 What do NRA v. Vullo and the FCC's calls to fire Jimmy Kimmel have in common?

35:17 Why does broadcast licensing exist in the internet age?

36:51 Have past presidents historically influenced broadcast licensing?

38:33 Is the Fairness Doctrine still in effect?

40:30 What can ABC do if the FCC takes away their licenses?

42:40 Will ABC fight back?

46:01 Has broadcast media regulation always been a frustration for 1A advocates?

49:20 Humphrey's Executor & content-based regulation

50:58 Is the FCC independent from the executive branch?

51:45 The past 18 months of FCC action

52:15 Outro

Joining us:

• Conor Fitzpatrick, supervising senior attorney

• Aaron Terr, director of public advocacy

• Bob Corn-Revere, chief counsel