In general, do you side more with arguments from the FCC or from ABC in the network’s newly filed court case claiming political retaliation?

FCC arguments (20%) – "We need to have an open discussion of both sides of issues and all political opinions on free broadcast television and radio. That is the law. ABC needs to follow the law."

• "I agree with the FCC. Federally licensed agencies need to promote the public good not political party good. ALSO, and more importantly I believe, 'news' that is actually opinion needs to be stated as such (as it used to be before Reagan) or be announced as opinion rather than factual reporting. Yes, you can say what you want but, when bereft of facts, that also needs to be stated, otherwise, it's just propaganda and NOT news."

ABC arguments (74%) – "Freedom of speech is vital to maintaining a vibrant society for our constitutional republic. It appears many of our basic rights are already in jeopardy. I don't like many of the shows on most network television and other media venues, but I simply don't watch them, That's always the answer to speech a person disagrees with it. You can simply ignore it, but always allow it. The truth will determine its future."

• "A Free Press is the fourth estate. Many past presidents have welcomed criticism from the press, and in the past, the press has exposed some of the corruption in our government. This early review of ABC is clearly punitive because the current president can’t take criticism of any kind."

"Like many things this current administration does, this is clearly aimed to supress the free press and thereby the freedom of speech. Time and time again, since its inauguration the administration has gone way over the top to ensure any criticism is muted. And the FCCs early review of ABC broadcast licenses is part and parcel of its campaign to intimidate any and all dissent. My hope is that the Court sees through Carr's campaign of intimidation and prohibits this unconstitutional use of a regulatory agency's power...."

• "While I don't always believe everything that I hear or see, I want as many options for information as possible even when my beliefs are challenged by said information. To hear and experience options is growth, productivity, openness, diverse, equity, inclusive, while addressing views I may not have experienced."

"I'm a Baby Boomer who grew up watching Johnny Carson, Letterman, Leno, and others skewer politicians, including Presidents. Their comments were sharp sided but also made you think. It became public knowledge that often their comments did not go over well with the intended subjects. But I can't recall any of the intended targets responding with personal attacks or threatening words or actions. Until now. Freedom of speech gives us broad leeway in our words, even when being considered "offensive". Some words of course, are off limits, threats, etc. ABC is right to stand up for their constitutional right. The First Amendment was enshrined for the public safety, and not at the discretion of party ideology."

• "Freedom of speech is one of the core tenants of our democracy and really being challenged during the Trump Administration. I hope that the political norms that have been established by Trump don’t continue as a new political norm or our country is in real danger."

"There is no established law regarding the elimination of diversity, equity, and inclusion. The FCC treads on shaky ground as it implements the President's questionable policies (not laws). And the FCC is throwing to the wind half a century of allowing opposing voices an equal platform for discussion of today's politics."

Unsure/other (6%) – "It’s clear to me that both sides are in the wrong."