POPULARITY
9 episodes with Communications Act
5 episodes with Communications Act
2 episodes with Communications Act
3 episodes with Communications Act
3 episodes with Communications Act
3 episodes with Communications Act
2 episodes with Communications Act
2 episodes with Communications Act
2 episodes with Communications Act
In this case, the court considered this issue: Did Congress violate the Constitution in the way it delegated power to the FCC to collect Universal Service Fund money, and did the FCC violate the Constitution by letting a private, industry-controlled company make those collection decisions?The case was decided on June 27, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the statutory scheme that allows the FCC to collect “sufficient” contributions to fund universal-service programs does not violate the nondelegation doctrine. Justice Elena Kagan authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court.The Communications Act directs the FCC to collect contributions that are “sufficient” to support universal-service programs, which sets both a floor and a ceiling on the agency's authority. The FCC cannot raise less than what is adequate to finance the programs, but also cannot raise more than that amount. Congress provided adequate guidance by specifying whom the programs must serve (rural and high-cost areas, low-income consumers, schools, and libraries) and defining which services qualify for subsidies. To receive funding, services must be subscribed to by a substantial majority of residential customers, be available at affordable rates, and be essential to education, public health, or safety. These conditions create determinate standards that meaningfully constrain the FCC's discretion.The FCC's use of the Universal Service Administrative Company to help calculate contribution amounts also passes constitutional muster. The Administrator operates subordinately to the Commission, which appoints its Board of Directors, approves its budget, and retains final decision-making authority. While the Administrator produces initial projections of carrier revenues and Fund expenses, the Commission reviews, revises if needed, and approves these figures before setting the contribution factor. The arrangement mirrors the permissible structure approved in Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins, where private parties could make recommendations to a government agency that retained ultimate authority.Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored a concurring opinion, agreeing with the outcome but emphasizing concerns about delegations to independent agencies.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a concurring opinion, expressing skepticism about the viability of the private nondelegation doctrine as an independent constitutional principle.Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, arguing that Section 254 impermissibly delegates Congress's taxing power by failing to set a tax rate or meaningful cap on collections.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.
Today was the first episode of our “At The Beach” series for 2025, recorded live from the shores of Western Beach. This year we decided to reverse the order, starting with the beach which rounded up the series last year.It's been a busy week in Parliament, with yesterday focusing on changes to the Communications Act, namely changes in satellite television and the use of mobile phones in schools. Our News Editor Christine Vasquez explained the impact of these changes. Audrey Hanglin chose to celebrate her birthday today on Western Beach and has been going there for over 30 years – even in the days when the only way to get to the beach was through a hole in the fence!Kevin Salmon enjoys wing foiling at Western – he told us more about this relatively new sport and how it's the best beach on the Rock for it. He comes out all year round to practice, with good weather conditions for the sport year-round.Naiala has been coming to Western Beach since childhood, and highlighted some of the advantages of this beach including how much sun it gets as well as being disability friendly.And Daphne Alecio invited everyone to come down to Western, especially when there's a strong levante like today. She did say though that she's concerned about the safety of the beach when the frontier fence comes down as outlined in the Treaty agreement. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
(AURN News) — Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah has formally introduced legislation aimed at redefining how “obscenity” is treated under federal law — potentially laying the groundwork for banning pornography nationwide. The Interstate Obscenity Definition Act, amends the Communications Act of 1934 to create a uniform legal definition of “obscenity” across state lines. According to Lee's office, the goal is to make it easier to prosecute the transmission of obscene material both between states and from abroad. “Obscenity isn't protected by the First Amendment, but hazy and unenforceable legal definitions have allowed extreme pornography to saturate American society and reach countless children,” Lee said in a statement. “Our bill updates the legal definition of obscenity for the internet age so this content can be taken down and its peddlers prosecuted.” The bill defines “obscene” content as visual material that: “taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion”; “depicts, describes, or represents an actual or simulated sexual act… with the objective intent to arouse, titillate, or gratify the sexual desires of a person”; and “taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” The legislation would also strike the phrase “with intent to abuse, threaten, or harass another person” from a section of the Communications Act dealing with obscene or harassing phone calls and transmissions. According to The Daily Caller, the bill “would pave the way for the prosecution of obscene content disseminated across state lines or from foreign countries and open the door to federal restrictions or bans regarding online porn.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
"IPS Morning D Program" on May 6th, 2025, focusing on the idea that many widely reported events and prominent alternative theories are actually government psychological operations (psyops). The speaker discusses how events like the Austin Metcalf and Shiloh Hendricks incident might be engineered for the purpose of implementing stricter speech restrictions, potentially leading to an "internet lockdown" as a "mind virus." They also challenge the views of commentators like Matt Walsh who dismiss the idea that "everything is an op," arguing that psyops are prevalent in media and even history.The discussion branches into criticizing various conspiracy theories, such as the Epstein files, UFO sightings (linked to an alleged disinfo agent), chemtrails, and the moon landing hoax, suggesting these are also government-created "guardrails" or "truther bait" to control dissenting views and mislead those questioning the mainstream. The speaker also explores the notion of underground cities, the potential for automated disinformation through AI, and expresses concern about the "Mandela Effect" being a form of deliberate psychological manipulation and indoctrination, particularly of children.Here is a summary of the "IPS Morning D Program" drawing on the provided sources:The program, dated May 6th, 2025, begins by mentioning the Communications Act of 1996 and setting the stage for discussing current events and topics through the host's feed.
"IPS Morning D Program" on May 6th, 2025, focusing on the idea that many widely reported events and prominent alternative theories are actually government psychological operations (psyops). The speaker discusses how events like the Austin Metcalf and Shiloh Hendricks incident might be engineered for the purpose of implementing stricter speech restrictions, potentially leading to an "internet lockdown" as a "mind virus." They also challenge the views of commentators like Matt Walsh who dismiss the idea that "everything is an op," arguing that psyops are prevalent in media and even history.The discussion branches into criticizing various conspiracy theories, such as the Epstein files, UFO sightings (linked to an alleged disinfo agent), chemtrails, and the moon landing hoax, suggesting these are also government-created "guardrails" or "truther bait" to control dissenting views and mislead those questioning the mainstream. The speaker also explores the notion of underground cities, the potential for automated disinformation through AI, and expresses concern about the "Mandela Effect" being a form of deliberate psychological manipulation and indoctrination, particularly of children.Here is a summary of the "IPS Morning D Program" drawing on the provided sources:The program, dated May 6th, 2025, begins by mentioning the Communications Act of 1996 and setting the stage for discussing current events and topics through the host's feed.
The Communications Act of 1934 requires that licensees operate consistent with the “public interest convenience and necessity.” Broadcast licenses, held by broadcast TV and radio stations as trustees of the public’s airwaves, must use the broadcast medium to serve the public interest and their local communities. In recent years, concerns have been raised about how broadcasters are fulfilling these obligations, particularly regarding the nature of their news programming. Complaints have been filed at the FCC against all of the major broadcast networks raising concerns about the quality and reliability of their coverage. Our panel will examine these issues, the role of government in policing broadcasters and the First Amendment protections afforded to broadcasters’ speech. Featuring: Bob Corn-Revere, Chief Counsel, FIREDavid Gibber, Executive Vice President/Chief Legal Officer, Sinclair Broadcast GroupDaniel Suhr, President, Center for American RightsModerator: Patricia J. Paoletta, Partner, HWG LLP
The Supreme Court is set to hear argument this term in a case raising both the nondelegation and private nondelegation doctrines.On July 24, 2024, the en banc Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the federal Universal Service Fund (“USF”), which funds broadband service for rural areas and hospitals, schools, libraries, and low-income individuals, is an unconstitutional delegation of Congress’s legislative authority. In the Communications Act, Congress directed the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) to collect contributions, or payments, from certain providers of telecommunications. The FCC employs the private Universal Service Administrative Company (“USAC”) to administer certain aspects of USF, including calculating the contribution factor based on the needs of each program established by the FCC pursuant to the Communications Act.The Sixth and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeals, as well as a panel of the Fifth Circuit, had previously upheld the constitutionality of the delegation of authority. And the FCC defended the Act against delegation challenges. It argued that the Communication Act provides an intelligible principle by which USF is to be administered and that USAC plays only a ministerial role.But the July en banc ruling by the Fifth Circuit held this regulatory revenue-raising program unconstitutional. It acknowledged “grave” concerns that the Act may have unconstitutionally delegated the taxing power to the FCC to impose a contribution amount, or tax, on America’s telecommunications carriers, and ultimately paid by consumers. Then it similarly concluded there were serious constitutional concerns about the FCC’s subdelegation to private parties, most notably USAC’s role in determining the contribution amount that will be charged to telecommunications carriers. The Court’s ultimate holding, however, was that the combination of these delegations violated the nondelegation doctrine.A petition for certiorari was granted on November 22, 2024. This roundtable will discuss this case and the broader legal issues it raises, including (1) is there a nondelegation doctrine?, (2) if there is, what should it look like?, and (3) how should the Supreme Court decide this case in light of the above discussion on the nondelegation doctrine.Featuring:Sean Lev, Partner, HWG LLPTrent McCotter, Partner, Boyden Grey PLLCProf. Nicholas Parrillo, William K. Townsend Professor of Law and Professor of History, Yale Law SchoolProf. Alexander Volokh, Associate Professor of Law, Emory LawProf. Ilan Wurman, Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law SchoolModerator: Adam Griffin, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation--To register, click the link above.
It's Hump Day! Sam and Emma speak with Lee Hepner, senior legal counsel for the American Economic Liberties Project, to discuss the recent overturning of net neutrality. Then they speak with Joshua Kaplan, reporter at ProPublica, to discuss his recent piece entitled "The Militia and the Mole." First, Sam and Emma run through updates on the DoJ's release of details related to Trump's Jan 6th- and Stolen Documents-related cases, mass evacuations amid wildfires in LA, Dem's retaining of the Virginia legislature, the North Carolina Supreme Court's anti-democratic move, the House's massive anti-immigration bill, DoJ action over the RealPage rent-fixing scheme and the prior weaponization of the department under Trump, Israel's ongoing slaughter of Gazans in supposed safe zones, and ACA expansion, before unpacking a recent report on the unsurprising misinformation around gender-affirming care for adolescents. Lee Hepner then joins, jumping right into an extensive history of Net Neutrality, stemming from the establishment of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) under FDR's New Deal to preserve open networks and fair communication, with the 1996 Communications Act expanding its coverage to the internet and contributing to the arguments to expand to full Net Neutrality building under Bush before coming to fruition under Obama, only to be killed and restored by Trump and Biden respectively, all leading to the recent 6th Circuit decision to, once again, kill it. After tackling what Net Neutrality exactly is (the mandate for providers to serve websites equally) and expanding on the particular role the overturning of the Chevron Deference Doctrine played in this decision, Hepner wraps up with tactics to push back against this decision, and whether federalism will help keep these corporations in line. Joshua Kaplan then walks Sam and Emma through his extensive reporting on the far-right militia American Patriots 3% (AP3), tackling their role within the wider extremist militia ecosystem and how they used that to distance the organization from the January 6th insurrection attempt before having a wider discussion on the initial backlash (even internally) to these organizations in the wake of 1/6 before a steady rhetorical pivot from Trump and the GOP reversed the tides completely, and why that should concern us heading into a second Trump Administration with threats of mass pardoning for violent participators and organizers of 1/6. After expanding on AP3's odd “big tent” identity amid right-wing militias, Kaplan touches on his extensive conversations with a mole from AP3 and the role Facebook played in the militia's outreach, before wrapping up with the genuine threat posed by the extensive military training of these groups, both offered by the groups themselves and aided by their extensive connections to police, military, and veteran organizations. And in the Fun Half: Sam and Emma unpack the response from Mexico's President Scheinbaum to Trump's absurd statements on the US' territorial rights, the passage of the GOP's Lincoln Riley Bill with support from myriad Congressional Dems – including John “Manchin 2.0” Fetterman – to hand over immigration enforcement to the states (alongside the right to deport without criminal conviction). Chris Hayes reflects on the short history of Facebook's moderation team, John from Montreal on Trump's antagonization of US allies, and Kowalski from Nebraska parses through the future of farming amid threats to land ownership and more. Comrade Oz from the International Party of Antarctica provides some insight into Trump and Musk, plus, your calls and IMs! Follow Lee on Twitter here: https://x.com/leehepner Check out the American Economic Liberties Project here: https://www.economicliberties.us/ Follow Josh on Twitter here: https://x.com/js_kaplan Check out Josh's piece here: https://www.propublica.org/article/ap3-oath-keepers-militia-mole Check out Josh's previous piece "Armed And Underground" here: https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-secret-ap3-militia-american-patriots-three-percent Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Follow us on TikTok here!: https://www.tiktok.com/@majorityreportfm Check us out on Twitch here!: https://www.twitch.tv/themajorityreport Find our Rumble stream here!: https://rumble.com/user/majorityreport Check out our alt YouTube channel here!: https://www.youtube.com/majorityreportlive Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! https://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: https://majority.fm/app Go to https://JustCoffee.coop and use coupon code majority to get 10% off your purchase! Check out today's sponsors: Nutrafol: Start your hair growth journey with Nutrafol. For a limited time, Nutrafol is offering our listeners ten dollars off your first month's subscription and free shipping when you go to https://Nutrafol.com and enter the promo code TMR. Find out why over 4,500 healthcare professionals and stylists recommend Nutrafol for healthier hair. That's https://Nutrafol.com, promo code TMR. Trust & Will: Check one of your goals off early this year with Trust and Will. Protect what matters most in minutes at https://trustandwill.com/MAJORITY and get 10% off plus free shipping. That's 10% off and free shipping at https://trustandwill.com/MAJORITY. Remi Mouthguards: Remi is for anyone dealing with nighttime grinding, clenching, or jaw pain who wants an affordable solution to protect their smile and say good night to jaw pain and headaches. Head to https://shopremi.com/majority and use code MAJORITY to save up to 50%. That's 50% off at https://shopremi.com/majority with code MAJORITY. Give your teeth a break without breaking the bank with Remi. Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech @BradKAlsop Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder - https://majorityreportradio.com/
Understanding the Federal Universal Service Fund, Podcast ,Three Methods for Determining FUSF Contribution “It's not a tax. It's a fee,” Jeff Lytle, of Sandy Beaches Software. “And it's assessed on telecommunications companies.” According to the FCC, “Prior to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Universal Service Fund (USF) operated as a mechanism by which interstate long-distance carriers were assessed to subsidize telephone service to low-income households and high-cost areas. The Communications Act of 1934 stated that all people in the United States shall have access to rapid, efficient, nationwide communications service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 expanded the traditional definition of universal service - affordable, nationwide telephone service to include among other things rural health care providers and eligible schools and libraries.” In this podcast, Jeff, whose company and career have been dedicated to helping organizations stay in compliance with the FUSF, brings us up to date on what that challenge looks like today. “Every telecom company in the United States, VoIP or otherwise, contributes to the Universal Service Fund, and this funds the libraries, and hospitals. It funds the phones for poor people or the undeserved and allows them to have communication services. the fund was created in 2000 and at that time the rate was 5.7 percent and now it's grown to where it's 35.8 percent of the build revenue. Now, when the FCC created this back in 2000, they gave three different methods for calculating your contribution rate. It's called a contribution. It's not a tax, dog It's a contribution you're making to fund these services. The government's But if you don't pay it, you do get heavy fines.” When a tax is not a tax, and fee might not be a fee As we learn in this podcast, the FUSF is not so cut and dry. As a specialist on this matter, Jeff outlines how companies can be looking at a less steep fee. But you will need a deep understanding of this matter, and likely, specialized help. Jeff and his team at Sandy Beaches Software are headquartered in Oklahoma City, a city noted for sunshine, but often beaches. We learn that their made (and supported) in the USA offer, also represents an advantage. “If you were working in all 50 states and had to file for every single jurisdiction, you'd have 48,000 returns per year that you would be filing. You need a compliance company at that point. When you're only working in one, two states, a lot of times you can do it on your own and you don't need that third party. But your billing company works in between all of these folks to make that happen. You need a solid billing company that's experienced with the tax piece to get it right.” Visit www.sandybeachessoftware.com
On the show today with Stefan Borge:The office of the Public Services Ombudsman marks 25 years. The current Ombudsman, Wendy Cumming and former ombudsman Mario Hook join us in the studioNews reporter Iain Triay Clarence updates about GibFibre reaction to bill passed in Parliament relating to the Communications Act: no more communications' licences to be issued.Petra Boddington is a certified Menopause Champion with extensive experience in women's health. She describes recent workshops, awareness raising campaigns and menopause support. Theatre Makers present six spooky stories to get us in the mood for Halloween this Wednesday and Thursday. Andrew Dark is directing the Halloween fundraiser, joining us with Sylvana Felice and Harry Kumar Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Read the full transcript here. What's the reality of how politicians get elected in the US? How much of a role does gerrymandering play? Are Democrats and Republicans equally guilty of gerrymandering? Do the parties secretly collaborate on gerrymandering? Is gerrymandering legal? What determines who wins a primary election? What percent of all government positions are actually contested? What are the five main types of politicians? We use our phones to manage our bank accounts, medical records, and other sensitive information; so why can't we vote from our phones yet? Should prediction markets be allowed to bet on elections? What makes a regulation too lax or too restrictive? When should government provide goods, and when should it provide services? Should today's big tech companies be broken up? Should Section 230 is a section of the Communications Act of 1934 be repealed? How can AI be used to make government more effective?Bradley Tusk is a venture capitalist, political strategist, philanthropist, and writer. He is the CEO and co-founder of Tusk Ventures, the world's first venture capital fund that invests solely in early stage startups in highly regulated industries, and the founder of political consulting firm Tusk Strategies. Bradley's family foundation is funding and leading the national campaign to bring mobile voting to U.S. elections and also has run anti-hunger campaigns in 24 different states, helping to feed over 13 million people. He is also an adjunct professor at Columbia Business School. Before Vote With Your Phone, Bradley authored The Fixer: My Adventures Saving Startups From Death by Politics and Obvious in Hindsight. He hosts a podcast called Firewall about the intersection of tech and politics, and recently opened an independent bookstore, P&T Knitwear, on Manhattan's Lower East Side. In his earlier career, Bradley served as campaign manager for Mike Bloomberg's 2009 mayoral race, as Deputy Governor of Illinois, overseeing the state's budget, operations, legislation, policy, and communications, as communications director for US Senator Chuck Schumer, and as Uber's first political advisor. Connect with Bradley on Substack and LinkedIn.Further reading:Vote With Your Phone: Why Mobile Voting Is Our Final Shot at Saving Democracy, by Bradley TuskThe Fixer: My Adventures Saving Startups from Death by Politics, by Bradley Tusk"Wisconsin's Legislative Maps Are Bizarre, but Are They Illegal?", by Megan O'Matz (gerrymandering examples) StaffSpencer Greenberg — Host / DirectorJosh Castle — ProducerRyan Kessler — Audio EngineerUri Bram — FactotumWeAmplify — TranscriptionistsMusicBroke for FreeJosh WoodwardLee RosevereQuiet Music for Tiny Robotswowamusiczapsplat.comAffiliatesClearer ThinkingGuidedTrackMind EasePositlyUpLift[Read more]
The law in question is the Communications Act.
Net Neutrality Insights: Consequences & Predictions with Dan McVaugh In this episode of 5G Guys, Dan McVaugh revisits the topic of net neutrality. Dan shares personal stories from his telecom career, highlighting potential unintended consequences if the FCC reinstates net neutrality by classifying telecom providers under Title II of the Communications Act. He explores the impacts on network performance, advanced 5G features, and critical services like FirstNet for first responders, ending with cautious predictions on the future judicial outcomes and their implications. __________________________ Link to Episode 63 with Nathan Leamer __________________________ Nathan Leamer on 5G Guys Podcast ➡︎ https://5gguys.com/podcast/63-net-neutrality-with-nathan-leamer/ __________________________ Connect With Our Sponsor __________________________ Vertex Innovations ➡︎ https://vertex-us.com/ __________________________ Connect With Us __________________________ 5G Guys Website ➡︎ https://5gguys.com Social: · Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/5Gguys · LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/groups/12515882 · X: https://twitter.com/5gGuys _______________________________ Submit Your Ideas or Feedback ➡︎ https://5gguys.com/contact-2 _______________________________ Subscribe to the 5G Guys Weekly Newsletter ➡︎ https://mailchi.mp/5gguys/subscribe-to-the-5g-guys _______________________________ ⏰Episode Minute-by-Minute⏰ 00:00 Introduction to Net Neutrality Discussion 00:46 Understanding Net Neutrality 01:34 Real-World Experiences and Stories 04:59 Potential Consequences of Net Neutrality 06:13 Current Status and Predictions 07:59 Conclusion and Final Thoughts
On this episode of Full Spectrum, we discuss the FCC's decision at its May 2024 Open Meeting to reclassify broadband Internet access service (“BIAS”) from a lightly regulated information service to a telecommunications service regulated under Title II of the Communications Act, as well as adopt bright line net neutrality rules for BIAS providers. During the episode, you'll hear from partners Tom Cohen, Chip Yorkgitis, and Hank Kelly, special counsel Mike Dover, and senior associates Jenny Wainwright and Winafred Brantl.
The history of public media is the history of fidelity to an idea: access to public education is “not only a service but a right.” On this episode we're joined by Dr. Josh Shepperd, Assistant Professor of Media Studies at the University of Colorado Boulder and author of Shadow of the New Deal: The Victory of Public Broadcasting (University of Illinois Press, 2023). Josh describes how this democratic ideal evolved, clumsily, into the material and institutional practices we've come to associate with NPR, PBS, and other public media. We discuss how the Communications Act of 1934 fundamentally changed the trajectory of this movement, the impact of the Rockefeller Foundation and early communications research, and the pioneering role of Midwestern and Western university stations. We also chat about Josh's work as director of the Library of Congress Sound Submissions Project. Make sure to tune in to catch a special cameo by Theodor Adorno…
In recent months, the U.S. Senate confirmed a third Democratic Commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission, putting the agency in full force for the first time since January 2021. This panel will focus on the FCC’s likely agenda as we look to 2024. It will also explore the bounds of the Communications Act of 1934, as updated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, when applied to modern technology, areas for possible legislative reform, and how the existing regulatory authority provided by Congress impacts the Commission's initiatives in the year ahead.Featuring:Hon. Jonathan Adelstein, President & CEO, The Wireless Infrastructure Association; Former Commissioner, Federal Communications CommissionHon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, Federal Communications CommissionHon. Mignon Clyburn, Principal, MLC Strategies, LLC; Former Commissioner, Federal Communications CommissionHon. Nathan Simington, Commissioner, Federal Communications CommissionModerator: Hon. Michael H. Park, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
In episode 2, host Josh Bercu, vice president of policy and advocacy at USTelecom, sits down with Loyaan Egal, Bureau Chief of the Federal Communications Commission Enforcement Bureau. The two talk all things illegal robocalls, including how they impact the lives of consumers and businesses, new tools and strategies the FCC is using to combat them, and how the bureau is staying ahead of future challenges. Show notes Loyaan A. Egal is the Bureau Chief of the Enforcement Bureau. He leads the FCC unit (including regional and field offices in 13 locations across the country) responsible for enforcing violations of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and FCC regulations under Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Mr. Egal previously served as a Deputy Chief in the Foreign Investment Review Section (FIRS) of the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) National Security Division (NSD). In his capacity as Deputy Chief, he directly oversaw FIRS's and NSD's roles in representing the Attorney General as the Chair of the “Committee for the Assessment of Foreign Participation in the United States Telecommunications Services Sector,” which is also known as “Team Telecom,” pursuant to Executive Order 13913. In addition, he supervised the coordination of parallel reviews involving Team Telecom and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), as well as DOJ's referrals to the Department of Commerce, pursuant to Executive Order 13873, involving foreign ownership, control, or investment in the U.S. telecommunications and information and communications technology services (ICTS) networks and infrastructure supply chains. Mr. Egal worked closely with the FCC, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National Security Council, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Intelligence Community, the U.S. Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce, State, and the Treasury, and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, among others, to reach consensus on policies and actions that impacted U.S. national security, law enforcement, diplomatic, economic, and trade equities in the telecommunications and ICTS sectors. Bytes & Bandwidth is produced by Association Briefings.
On this episode of Full Spectrum partners Tom Cohen and Chip Yorkgitis discuss the Notice of Proposed Rule Making adopted by the Commission at its October 19 Open Meeting in its newly-commenced Open Internet (or Net Neutrality) proceeding proposing to reclassify broadband Internet access service (“BIAS”) from a lightly regulated information service to a telecommunications service regulated under Title II of the Communications Act (01:19). The Commission's Notice proposes to adopt Open Internet rules that are very similar to those previously imposed in 2015 and largely rescinded in 2017. Additionally, Chip discusses a Second Report and Order adopted at the Open Meeting (but only released on November 1) that expands unlicensed use in the 6 GHz Band in the face of opposition from licensed incumbents by permitting very low power devices to operate in two sub-bands both indoors and outdoors, and both fixed and mobile (15:30). He also explains that the Commission continues to consider other proposals to expand unlicensed power and flexibility – both from a 2020 Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and a Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that accompanies the Second Report and Order. Finally, Tom and Chip give a brief preview of the Digital Discrimination item that is on the Commission's tentative agenda for its November 15 Open Meeting (35:25).
This week Senator Kevin Cramer joins The Ask Noah Show and we discuss net neutrality! It's a more complicated and nuanced issue than most people give it credit for. Our access to the internet these days is like running water. -- During The Show -- 01:50 Senator Kevin Cramer Interview Common Carrier - treat all traffic equally Net Neutrality - ISPs must treat all traffic equally History 1934 Title 2 1980 Computer 2 Policy 2002 Cable Broadband gets an exemption 2005 All ISPs ARE NOT common carrier 2015 ISPs ARE Common Carrier (Gov Take Over) 2017 Ajit Pai repeals net neutrality If the infrastructure has been subsidized by tax dollars, should that infrastructure be common carrier? Would it make more sense for this to be under the FTC rather than the FCC? What would you say to people who only have one good choice for internet? Ma Bell Sweet Heart deal Chevron doctrine Openness principles throttling blocking price discrimination Blocking World of War Craft ISP deals with apartment complexes to block other providers Digital divide Universal Service Funds ISPs are independent businesses What stops companies from putting smaller players in the "slow lane" Bot Question - Also, aren't the ISP's notorious for promising expanding broadband in the past, but they deem arbitrary numbers as "enough" for consumers, yet countries like Sweden & South Korea are thriving with broadband putting the US to shame. What impact if any do you believe net neutrality would have on ISP competition? Do you think the Communications Act needs a complete overhaul to bring it in line with today's technology? Should the federal or state government step in to break up local monopolies that are not serving their customers well? 42:00 Expand pfSense VLAN? - John PFSense "automatic fix" Subnet masking check for a /24 reboot networking devices 47:38 Virtual pfSense? - Rhett This works! Steve did this for years VHost goes down, internet goes down 49:26 Thoughts on Emergency Alerts - Chris Third party service Gov Regulated Service There is no other option 51:20 News Wire Samba 4.19.2 - Samba.org (https://www.samba.org/samba/history/samba-4.19.2.html) Geany 2.0 - Geany (https://www.geany.org/news/geany-20-is-out/) Peazip 9.5 - Peazip (https://peazip.github.io/changelog.html) Ardour 8.1 - Ardour (https://ardour.org/whatsnew.html) Virtualbox 7.0.12 - OMG Ubuntu (https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2023/10/virtualbox-7-0-12-released) Firefox 119 - Mozilla (https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/119.0/releasenotes/) Moonlight 5.0 - GitHub (https://github.com/moonlight-stream/moonlight-qt/releases/tag/v5.0.0) Real Time LInux RISC-V - Phoronix (https://www.phoronix.com/news/RISC-V-Linux-RT-Support-Patches) Removing Qlogic 10GBE Support - Phoronix (https://www.phoronix.com/news/QLogic-10Gb-QLGE-Driver-Dropped) Blackcat using Munchkin Linux VM - Bleeping Computer (https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/blackcat-ransomware-uses-new-munchkin-linux-vm-in-stealthy-attacks/) TensorRT-LLM - EE Times (https://www.eetimes.com/nvidia-boosts-llm-inference-with-open-source-library/) LLEMMA a LLM for Math - Venture Beat (https://venturebeat.com/ai/meet-llemma-the-math-focused-open-source-ai-that-outperforms-rivals/) -- The Extra Credit Section -- For links to the articles and material referenced in this week's episode check out this week's page from our podcast dashboard! This Episode's Podcast Dashboard (http://podcast.asknoahshow.com/360) Phone Systems for Ask Noah provided by Voxtelesys (http://www.voxtelesys.com/asknoah) Join us in our dedicated chatroom #GeekLab:linuxdelta.com on Matrix (https://element.linuxdelta.com/#/room/#geeklab:linuxdelta.com) -- Stay In Touch -- Find all the resources for this show on the Ask Noah Dashboard Ask Noah Dashboard (http://www.asknoahshow.com) Need more help than a radio show can offer? Altispeed provides commercial IT services and they're excited to offer you a great deal for listening to the Ask Noah Show. Call today and ask about the discount for listeners of the Ask Noah Show! Altispeed Technologies (http://www.altispeed.com/) Contact Noah live [at] asknoahshow.com -- Twitter -- Noah - Kernellinux (https://twitter.com/kernellinux) Ask Noah Show (https://twitter.com/asknoahshow) Altispeed Technologies (https://twitter.com/altispeed) Special Guest: Senator Kevin Cramer.
Travis King, the American soldier who crossed into North Korea two months ago, is back on U.S. soil. The Federal Communications Commission plans to reinstate net neutrality protections that were nixed in 2018 during the Trump administration. The proposal aims to reclassify both fixed and mobile broadband as an essential communications service under Title II of the Communications Act, akin to water, power and phone services. Thursday - 9/28/2023 - Hour 3See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Liz Hyman President and the CEO of the XR Association (XRA), which is a non-profit, industry trade association representing 47 XR companies including major players like Meta, Google, Microsoft, HTC, Sony Interactive Entertainment, Unity, and HTC. XRA has been collaborating with XR Access from the beginning, and they collaborated on Chapter 3 of their an XR Developer's Guide Series focusing on Accessibility & Inclusive Design in Immersive Experiences. At the XR Access Symposium, Hyman moderated a breakout session focused on public policy. I had a chance to unpack the three major points from the group discussion that included educating policy makers about accessibility, brainstorming bluesky legislation to lift up accessibility tech, and identify gaps in public policy so that they can be addressed. A common theme that I heard at the XR Access Symposium again and again is that accessibility hardly ever is prioritized with emerging technology platforms. XR Access co-founder Shiri Azenkot told me "But it was always a retroactive thing. So that's a pattern that we've seen with technology a lot, many times -- every time there's a new technology." There are laws on the books like the American Disabilities Act and Section 508, but this doesn't always apply to XR technologies. "Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act requires federal agencies to ensure that their information and communication technology (ICT) is accessible to people with disabilities." Section 508 would only apply to XR experiences produced by the federal government. And Hyman told me, "I will say the thing is that I notice is [that XR] is an emerging technology. And I think even within a program like 508, there's an acknowledgment of the emerging nature of technology that should not be something that is a permanent barrier. We need to make steady progress." She is likely referencing some recent rulings about Section 508 to bring it more up to date since it was originally passed in 1998 and 2000. I was able to find a couple of relevant passages that support Hyman's interpretation on the Section 508 website which says, "The U.S. Access Board is responsible for developing Information and Communication Technology (ICT) accessibility standards to incorporate into regulations that govern Federal procurement practices. On January 18, 2017, the Access Board issued a final rule that updated accessibility requirements covered by Section 508, and refreshed guidelines for telecommunications equipment subject to Section 255 of the Communications Act. The final rule went into effect on January 18, 2018." I found a copy of the final rule from the Access Board ICT in the Federal Register from January 18th, 2017 and there is a mention of virtual reality that says, "The Board expects that an agency that decides to use a conforming alternate version of a Web page as opposed to making the main page accessible will typically do so when, as the W3C® explains, certain limited circumstances warrant or mandate their use. For example, W3C® has noted that a conforming alternate version may be necessary: (1) When a new emerging technology is used on a Web page, but the new technology cannot be designed in a way that allows assistive technologies to access all the information needed to present the content to the user (e.g., virtual reality or computer-simulated reality); (2) when it is not possible to modify some content on a Web page because the Web site owner is legally prohibited from modifying the Web content; or (3) to provide the best experience for users with certain types of disabilities by tailoring a Web page specifically to accommodate those disabilities." The bottom line is that the 2D web is a mature platform relative to paradigm shift into VR, 3D, and spatial computing, which means that the US government can more heavily lean upon established guidelines from organizations like the W3C that has produced a number of different Web Content Accessibility Guideline...
Section 230 of the communications act in America, has proven to be a seminal piece of legislation when it comes to social media giants. That's because it offers protections to the likes of Google, Twitter, and Facebook when it comes to the dissemination or spread of controversial content. But now there are two cases before the US Supreme Court, which could amend or even tear up section 230 and in the process, transform social media companies as we know them. To discuss this further Joe spoke to Eoin O'Dell an Associate Professor of Law at Trinity College, Dublin.
Joe spoke with Kurt Volker, Former-United States Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations and Former-US Ambassador to NATO on President Biden's trip to Kyiv and Vladimir Putin's announcement to pull out of the New START treaty. As well as Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg Stohr on looming Supreme Court decision concerning Section 230 of Communications Act of 1996. Plus, our politics panel, Bloomberg Politics Contributors Jeanne Sheehan Zaino & Rick Davis on Biden's trip to Kyiv, China and Russia's strategic relationship, SCOTUS tech lawsuits, and the fight between Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
This week Andrew spoke to YouTuber Mark Meechan, who vlogs under the name Count Dankula. He was prosecuted four years ago under the Communications Act for posting a controversial video online. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
With the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791, freedom of the press would be guaranteed by the First Amendment. Originally a tool for criticism, investigation, and the spread of information to the populace, reportage became a rapidly growing medium with increasing popularity. In 1934, The Communications Act ensured that the "airways are public property", with the main condition of use being whether the broadcaster served "the public interest, convenience, and necessity". Media consolidation has been a huge issue, and over the last few decades, it turns out that a total of 6 major corporations, and 15 billionaires, own most of the media within the United States. Isn't that a problem, especially when most of those organizations wear their bias "on their sleeves"? By definition, "fake news" is "untruthful-on-purpose stories... which have a purpose of misleading the reader to think one way." Join us in episode 52 as we discuss the history of the mainstream media, the current state of decay that it's in today, and what the future may hold for journalism as it applies to American society. New episodes are released every week! --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/wolf-and-the-bull-podcast/support
With the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791, freedom of the press would be guaranteed by the First Amendment. Originally a tool for criticism, investigation, and the spread of information to the populace, reportage became a rapidly growing medium with increasing popularity. In 1934, The Communications Act ensured that the "airways are public property", with the main condition of use being whether the broadcaster served "the public interest, convenience, and necessity". Media consolidation has been a huge issue, and over the last few decades, it turns out that a total of 6 major corporations, and 15 billionaires, own most of the media within the United States. Isn't that a problem, especially when most of those organizations wear their bias "on their sleeves"? By definition, "fake news" is "untruthful-on-purpose stories... which have a purpose of misleading the reader to think one way." Join us in episode 52 as we discuss the history of the mainstream media, the current state of decay that it's in today, and what the future may hold for journalism as it applies to American society. New episodes are released every week! --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/wolf-and-the-bull-podcast/support
WERU 89.9 FM Blue Hill, Maine Local News and Public Affairs Archives
Producer/Host: Jim Campbell Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1996 continues to be a hot potato as far as Congress – and lots of others – is concerned. But why? Why do both Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden, who agree about very little, both say that the law needs to go, or at least change significantly? Here’s why. About the host: Jim Campbell has a longstanding interest in the intersection of digital technology, law, and public policy and how they affect our daily lives in our increasingly digital world. He has banged around non-commercial radio for decades and, in the little known facts department (that should probably stay that way), he was one of the readers voicing Richard Nixon's words when NPR broadcast the entire transcript of the Watergate tapes. Like several other current WERU volunteers, he was at the station's sign-on party on May 1, 1988 and has been a volunteer ever since doing an early stint as a Morning Maine host, and later producing WERU program series including Northern Lights, Conversations on Science and Society, Sound Portrait of the Artist, Selections from the Camden Conference, others that will probably come to him after this is is posted, and, of course, Notes from the Electronic Cottage. The post Notes from the Electronic Cottage 3/3/22: Section 230 first appeared on WERU 89.9 FM Blue Hill, Maine Local News and Public Affairs Archives.
Producer/Host: Jim Campbell Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1996 continues to be a hot potato as far as Congress – and lots of others – is concerned. But why? Why do both Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden, who agree about very little, both say that the law needs to go, or at least change significantly? Here’s why. About the host: Jim Campbell has a longstanding interest in the intersection of digital technology, law, and public policy and how they affect our daily lives in our increasingly digital world. He has banged around non-commercial radio for decades and, in the little known facts department (that should probably stay that way), he was one of the readers voicing Richard Nixon's words when NPR broadcast the entire transcript of the Watergate tapes. Like several other current WERU volunteers, he was at the station's sign-on party on May 1, 1988 and has been a volunteer ever since doing an early stint as a Morning Maine host, and later producing WERU program series including Northern Lights, Conversations on Science and Society, Sound Portrait of the Artist, Selections from the Camden Conference, others that will probably come to him after this is is posted, and, of course, Notes from the Electronic Cottage. The post Notes from the Electronic Cottage 3/3/22: Section 230 first appeared on WERU 89.9 FM Blue Hill, Maine Local News and Public Affairs Archives.
Josh Shepperd joins Money on the Left to discuss the research and activism that hastened the rise of public media in the United States. Assistant Professor of media studies at the University of Colorado-Boulder, Shepperd shows how public-interest broadcasting platforms like NPR and PBS exist in the U.S. today in large part as a consequence of hard-fought battles by committed scholars and advocates throughout the inter- and post-war periods. In particular, Shepperd traces the untold aftermath of the Communications Act of 1934 which, in addition to creating the Federal Communications Commission, gave overwhelming legal support to private for-profit networks, while stripping radio licenses from public and educational broadcasters committed to serving the common good. Deepening this narrative, Shepperd draws special attention to the Princeton Radio Research Project, spearheaded by noted sociologist and communication studies scholar Paul Lazarsfeld. Through the Project, Lazarsfeld developed influential quantitative research methods that fundamentally shaped the discipline of communication studies. Fascinatingly, however, Lazarsfeld hired then-immigré critical theorist Theodor Adorno to assist in the research program. As Shepperd tells it, Lazardfeld welcomed and even incorporated the critical theorist's incisive contributions into the Project. Yet, Adorno ultimately repudiated the Project's efforts to build a robust U.S. public radio system, unfortunately divorcing the developing tradition of Critical Theory from the domain of public media research and advocacy. Fast-forwarding to the present, we ask Shepperd about his argument that contemporary humanities research ought to be politically constructive. We then conclude by exploring his important archival work for the Radio Preservation Task Force at the Library of Congress.See here for Shepperd's article, “Theodor Adorno, Paul Lazarsfeld, and the Public Interest Mandate of Early Communications Research, 1935–1941,” published by the journal Communication Theory in August 2021.Visit our Patreon page here: https://www.patreon.com/MoLsuperstructureMusic by Nahneen Kula: www.nahneenkula.com
With the Senate now adjourned for the holidays and Joe Biden's “Build Back Better” social and climate package stalled if not dead (Senator Joe Manchin went on Fox News yesterday to announce he won't support it)*, Biden's remaining agenda is now at the mercy of the 2022 midterm election year — a perilous time to get anything enacted. So what should be Biden's and the Democrat's first priority when the Senate returns in January? I'm sure Biden still wants his Build Back Better package passed. But it's more important that the Senate now make voting rights its priority.Republican state legislatures will soon begin drawing partisan congressional maps that federal legislation could outlaw. Several states have already changed election laws in ways making it harder for people in minority communities to vote and giving Republican legislatures greater power over election outcomes.To be sure, any new national voting rights legislation depends on altering the senate filibuster so that the fifty Democratic senators (plus the Vice President) can pass it. (Senate Republicans have made it clear they won't support any voting rights legislation.) Hence the necessity of senate Democrats agreeing to carve out voting rights from the filibuster (back to Manchin again). I want to emphasize the urgency of this. Since the 2020 election, the foundations of our democracy have been gravely weakened. Just last Saturday, three top retired generals warned of a potential civil war in 2024 unless action is taken soon. Saving American democracy requires stopping three powerful forces on the way to destroying it.The first is Trump's big lie that the 2020 election was stolen from him. It's now believed by some 60 percent of Republican voters. The lie conveniently fits with the Republican Party's insight that demographic trends work against it unless it shrinks the electorate.The second is big anger spread by the media, especially Fox News and Facebook. It's boosting their ratings and revenues by inciting divisiveness, racism, panic, and paranoia. As a result, it's undermining the trust that democracy depends on. The third is big money from large corporations and wealthy individuals. It's inundating political campaigns, supporting one-sided issue ads, and bribing lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to support measures that will further enrich corporations and the wealthy and block measures that will cost them.The big lie, big anger, and big money reinforce each other because they all depend on Americans believing that democracy is rigged against them. And, to a shameful extent, it is. Urgent steps must be taken to counter all three.The first step is to set national voting-rights standards in light of Trump's Big Lie. Senate Democrats must enact the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act as soon as possible in January, when they have a chance to prevent even more Republican state efforts to suppress votes and take over electoral machinery. If they fail to do this, they will be complicit with the Republican Party in using Trump's big lie to shrink the electorate.Trump and his Republican co-conspirators must also be held accountable for their attempted coup in the months after the 2020 election, leading to the January 6 attack on the Capitol. Hopefully, the House committee now investigating it (with the crucial and courageous participation of Republican Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger) will report its findings early in the new year. Timing is essential. Republicans must not be allowed to delay the committee's work. If they take control of the House next year they surely will shut the committee down. Armed with the committee's findings, the Justice Department must take legal action against Trump and all lawmakers implicated in the attempted coup. Even before the committee reports, the Justice Department should impanel grand juries to weigh the evidence in its possession. The second step is to constrain big anger instigated by social media, Fox News, and other outlets. There are two ways to do this without undermining freedom of speech: Revoke Section 230 of the Communications Act, which now protects digital media providers from liability for the content posted by their users even if that content is harmful, hateful, or misleading. There is no continuing justification for this legal protection, particularly at a time when the largest of these providers have become vast monopolies. Create a new “fairness doctrine” requiring that all broadcasters, including cable, cover issues of public importance in ways that present opposing perspectives. This will be difficult to enforce, to be sure, but it would at least affirm the nation's commitment to holding broadcasters to a higher standard than merely making money. The third step is to get big money out of politics. The current Supreme Court won't reverse the Court's shameful decision in Citizens United vs. FEC and related cases. A constitutional amendment allowing the government to limit money spent on campaigns is extremely unlikely. But campaign finance reform is possible by matching small donations with public dollars. This was in the original For the People Act and should be added to the Freedom to Vote Act.These are the minimal essentials for containing the big lie, big anger, and big money. All three steps are urgently needed. There is no time to waste. Biden, Democrats, and any remaining principled Republicans – along with the leaders of nonprofits, universities, labor unions, major foundations, grassroots organizations, racial-justice and environmental advocates, and business – must wage a war to save American democracy. This war must start immediately. Nothing else we do for America is as important. Nothing else that needs doing in America is possible unless we do this. What do you think?__* I can't resist opining on West Virginia senator Joe Manchin's motive for announcing yesterday he won't support the “Build Back Better” social and environmental package. He delivered the deathblow on Fox News Sunday (after refusing to take Joe Biden's phone call presumably asking him not to make the announcement).The reasons Manchin gave are absurd on their face. He must know that.He said he's worried about inflation and the national debt. But Build Back Better would be paid for with tax increases on big corporations and the wealthy — so it won't have any bearing on inflation or the debt. More to the point, its sticker price of $1.75 trillion covers 10 years, during which the Congressional Budget Office projects $288 trillion worth of economic output. So a Build Back Better plan of $1.75 trillion would amount to roughly 0.6% of gross domestic product — or slightly more than the 0.5% of GDP Americans spent last year on tobacco. And that doesn't begin to cover all the benefits to the economy of investing in K-12 education, childcare, and so on. Manchin also claimed he's worried about the impact of the latest COVID surge on the economy. But if COVID slows the economy, that's even more justification for federal spending that strengthens social safety nets. And even more reason to support a program that could possibly stimulate the economy in the short run. He said he can't face his constituents in West Virginia without renouncing “Build Back Better.” But on a per-person basis, West Virginians would be among the biggest beneficiaries of the legislation in all America. One out of four West Virginians over 65 have no natural teeth, for example — the highest rate in the nation. Biden's original bill provided dental benefits under Medicare.So what's really motivating Manchin? Four possibilities:West Virginia is a coal state, and Manchin doesn't want to do anything that might dampen coal production (the bill has a number of environmental measures). Possibly, but Manchin must know there's no long-term future in mining coal regardless of what happens to this legislation. There are far fewer coal jobs left in West Virginia than there are jobs in health care. The legislation would, however, help West Virginians transition from coal to new and better jobs. And help them survive in the meantime.He's self-dealing. He owns stock valued at between $1 million and $5 million in Enersystems, a coal brokerage firm he founded in 1988? Last year he made half a million dollars in Enersystems dividends (roughly three times the $174,000 salary he made last year as a senator).He's takes bribes. He collects more campaign money from coal, oil, and gas companies than any other senator. (In June, Exxon lobbyist Keith McCoy told the Greenpeace investigative unit that Manchin participated in weekly meetings with company operatives.)He loves the power and attention. Who ever heard of Joe Manchin before the Biden administration? A minor-league Democratic senator from a small, poor state suddenly has the national spotlight and has become the biggest spoiler in the Democratic Party.Frankly, your guess is as good as mine. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit robertreich.substack.com/subscribe
Tomorrow begins Joe Biden's two-day “Summit for Democracy,” whose avowed goal is to rally the nations of the world against the forces of authoritarianism.Yet some of the authoritarian forces that pose the gravest threat to American democracy (and to other democracies around the world) are homegrown in the U.S. -- such as the former guy's Big Lie and refusal to concede the 2020 election, his attempted coup, his instigation of the deadly January 6 insurrection, and his open encouragement of Republican state legislatures to suppress votes and take over state electoral machinery. And then, of course, the GOP's willingness if not eagerness to go along with all this. My newsletter on power, politics, and the real economy is reader supported. Both free and paid subscriptions are available. If you'd like to support this work, please consider a paid subscription. And then there's Rupert Murdoch's Fox News and Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook — both of whose relentless and intentional promulgation of lies and paranoid fantasies have done much to poison the American mind. (Not to be outdone, the former guy is about to launch his own media company, to be headed by Devin Nunes, the crazed pro-Trump California Congressman.) American business groups have been invited to the Summit, despite their nonstop lobbying against proposed voting rights legislation in Congress and their increasing pollution of politics with corporate money.Small wonder that Freedom House's 2021 Freedom in the World report — which scores countries on a scale of 0 to 100 — has given the United States a score of 83, a major drop from America's score of 94 just a decade ago.With all this in mind, I thought today's Office Hours would offer a good opportunity for us to speculate about the future of American democracy. Please answer this question: What will American democracy be like ten years from now unless … [you fill in the blank]?Eager to have your views. As usual, I'll chime in around 10 am PT, 1 pm ET.***Your comments so far are so thoughtful that you've prompted me to jump in earlier than I'd planned. Many thanks for this wonderful forum! First, to summarize points that several of you have made, I see three existential threats to American democracy: (1) Big money, from large corporations and wealthy individuals, that goes into political campaigns and into issue ads. The money is essentially bribing lawmakers. There's almost no countervailing sources of big money. Labor union contributions don't come close. (2) Authoritarian, anti-democratic moves by Trump Republicans to rig elections in ways that suppress the votes of likely Democratic voters and give Republican legislators power over election officials – based on the Big Lie that the 2020 election was “stolen,” but really based on the Republican Party's assessment that demographic trends work against it unless it shrinks the electorate. (3) A media (especially Fox News and Facebook) that lies incessantly to spread outrage, anger, panic, and paranoia in order to boost ratings and revenues. Unless these three threats are contained and reversed, I see little hope for American democracy as we know it. Ten years from now we'll be an oligarchy. We might still call ourselves a democracy. Hopefully we'll still maintain the rule of law. But America will a democracy in name only. What can we do? Fortunately, there are four immediate things we can do. But time is wasting. Each can be accomplished now, but each will become harder to achieve in coming months and years as anti-democratic forces gain ground. 1. Get big money out of politics. The Supreme Court is unlikely to reverse its shameful decision in Citizens United vs. FEC and related cases, especially given the current makeup of the Court. And a constitutional amendment allowing government to limit amounts of money spent on campaigns is extremely unlikely. But campaign finance reform is possible, especially reforms that provide matching public dollars for every small donation. Such a reform was in the original “For the People Act.” It can and should be added to the Freedom to Vote Act, now in the Senate. Small versions of it can and should be enacted in your state. 2. Enact the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Amendment Act. Both are necessary to set national voting rights standards. Both have been passed by the House. Almost every Democrat in the Senate supports them. But because no Republican senator supports them, to be enacted the filibuster must be abolished or at least altered to carve out voting rights. This is where Manchin and Sinema come in. If they fail to join other senate Democrats in this, history will remember them as traitors to the cause of American democracy. 3. Hold Trump and his authoritarian lawmakers accountable for their anti-democratic moves, particularly those that entailed an attempted coup in the months after the 2020 election. Hopefully, the House investigation will reveal the coup in all its disgraceful detail. (When the history of this shameful period is written, lawmakers like Rep. Liz Cheney will be remembered as heroes.) The Justice Department must take action against Trump and all lawmakers implicated in the coup. 4. Constrain the divisive lies coming from social media, Fox News, and other outlets. How to do this without undermining freedom of speech? Two ways: (1) Revoke Section 230 of the Communications Act, which protects digital media providers from liability for the content posted by their users—even if that content is harmful, hateful, or misleading. There is no continuing justification for this legal protection, particularly at a time when the largest of these providers are vast monopolies. (2) Create a new “fairness doctrine,” requiring all broadcasters – including cable -- to cover issues of public importance in ways that present opposing perspectives. Obviously, this will be difficult to enforce but at least it would affirm the public's interest in knowing more than one side of a controversial issues. These four fixes are only a start. Over long term, as several of you have noted, we need an educational system that emphasizes civic virtue and citizen responsibilities; a Supreme Court more dedicated to constraining big money than suppressing votes, and which respects the critical wall between church and state rather than the weaponizing of religion; and a broad rejection of the use of racism to undermine our democracy. Hope this helps. I'll add more thoughts in response to yours, below. Thanks again for your thoughtfulness and respectfulness. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit robertreich.substack.com/subscribe
FCC v Prometheus Radio Project was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with media ownership rules that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) can set under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The case dates back to Third Circuit rulings from 2002 that have blocked FCC decisions to relax media ownership rules related to cross-ownership of newspapers with television and radio broadcast stations. In the present case, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in April 2021 that the FCC had not made arbitrary and capricious rulemaking decisions in the context of the Administrative Procedure Act, nor had the requirement to review minority ownership of stations under Congressional mandate as stated in the Third Circuit's ruling, reversing this last ruling and allowing the FCC to proceed to relax cross-media ownership rules. Background. In the United States, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had been given authority under the Communications Act of 1934 to set media ownership rules of broadcast services such as radio and television that served the same community as to manage the broadcasting spectrum. In 1975, the FCC enacted a rule restricting cross-media ownership, preventing newspapers from also owning broadcast services, as to reduce concentration of media ownership that had been occurring in the years prior. While the FCC could not regulate newspapers, they could extend their regulation on broadcast services to cover cross-ownership. The 1975 rule led to a number of debates on the cross-media ownership rules, as they were found to become barriers to entry into the market. Among other functions, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 instructed the FCC to perform a review of its rules related to media ownership every four years and repeal rules that no longer made sense in the current market as to foster competition within the communications industry. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app
Welcome back to Frown Town! This week, Vee and J talk about the Truth social network and how it exploits Section 230 of the Common Decency and Communications Act of 1996 to an extreme degree. Special thank you to FCON for loaning us their song Liquid Fury for our intro! Their bandcamp: https://fcon206.bandcamp.com/track/fcon. Relevant Links: Donald Trump Is Launching a New Social Network called Truth Social - https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/donald-trump-is-launching-a-new-social-network-called-truth-social/ 47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 Section 230 Explainer: https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app
Only Fans has become a favorite pastime for some. Well, it depends on what content you are looking for. "Certain content" will be banned after Oct 1 so find out why their main income generator is slowing down the revenue in that sector. Just like social media companies, payment processors are protected by Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934. That's the signature law that grants broad legal immunity to Facebook and Twitter for many of the content-moderation decisions they make — and the law that SESTA-FOSTA amended to create an exception for *** ads. To watch my previous video on "Apple to Scan USA iPhones and iCloud for Child Abuse" https://youtu.be/-TdCph0e_oQ Check out this and other videos on my Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCP--id6nvHQiAq2xckPPF4A Podcast on 9 platforms including Spotify, Apple, Google, and Anchor. Check out Anchor for all links https://anchor.fm/lalanews3 Business and Bookings https://form.jotform.com/212356525421146 LMFierceReview@gmail.com IG @LalaNews3 #lalanews3 #onlyfans #banned #content #vlog #paymentprocessor #visa #mastercard #mc #section230 #SESTA #FOSTA #merchant #podcast #news #entertainment #entertainmentnews --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/lalanews3/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/lalanews3/support
This episode explores what trolling is and looks at what is being done to prevent it from happening in the UK. It takes a look at the UK laws and what regulation social media companies, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram are doing to prevent online abuse. It also talks about celebrity trolling cases, such as the recent racist online abuse English football players faced in the final of the 2020 Euros football tournament. Link to socials and other places you can listen to the podcast
An amendment to the Harmful Digital Communications Act is expected to create a new offence, making it a crime to share intimate images or recordings without the person's explicit consent. Labour MP Louisa Wall's member's bill would close a loophole that means people won't be charged, if it can't be proven they intended to cause their victim harm.
In Today's "Moment of Truth," Saurabh and Nick sit down with FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr to discuss China, 5G, Huawei, ZTE, Apple, Facebook, Google, and the forthcoming political realignment when it comes to section 230 reform and breaking up Big Tech. Plus, why it's bad for ZTE equipment to operate 5G towers next to our nuke silos in Montana.Commissioner Brendan Carr is the senior Republican on the Federal Communications Commission, and he served previously as the agency's General Counsel.Described by Axios as “the FCC's 5G crusader,” Carr has led the FCC's work to modernize its infrastructure rules and accelerate the buildout of high-speed networks. His reforms cut billions of dollars in red tape, enabled the private sector to construct high-speed networks in communities across the country, and extended America's global leadership in 5G.Commissioner Carr leads a groundbreaking telehealth initiative at the FCC. The Connected Care Pilot Program supports the delivery of high-quality care to low-income Americans and veterans over their smartphones, tablets, or other connected devices. The Program is helping to drive down health care costs while improving patient outcomes.Commissioner Carr brings over a dozen years of private and public sector experience in communications and tech policy to his position. Before joining the agency as a staffer back in 2012, he worked as an attorney at Wiley Rein LLP in the firm's appellate, litigation, and telecom practices. He litigated cases involving the First Amendment and the Communications Act. Previously, Commissioner Carr clerked on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for Judge Dennis Shedd. And after attending Georgetown University for his undergrad, Commissioner Carr earned his J.D. magna cum laude from the Catholic University of America's Columbus School of Law where he served as an editor of the Catholic University Law Review.Learn more about Brendan Carr's work at the FCC here: https://www.fcc.gov/about/leadership/brendan-carr––––––Follow American Moment on Social Media:Twitter – https://twitter.com/AmMomentOrgFacebook – https://www.facebook.com/AmMomentOrgInstagram – https://www.instagram.com/ammomentorg/YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4qmB5DeiFxt53ZPZiW4TcgRumble – https://rumble.com/c/c-695775BitChute – https://www.bitchute.com/channel/Xr42d9swu7O9/Check out AmCanon:https://www.americanmoment.org/amcanon/Follow Us on Twitter:Saurabh Sharma – https://twitter.com/ssharmaUSNick Solheim – https://twitter.com/NickSSolheimAmerican Moment's "Moment of Truth" Podcast is recorded at the Conservative Partnership Center in Washington DC, produced and edited by Jared Cummings. Our GDPR privacy policy was updated on August 8, 2022. Visit acast.com/privacy for more information.
Since the beginning of 2021, more than two dozen class action cases have been filed in Florida state court under Florida's Security of Communications Act. The act has, in some form, been on the books for more than 50 years. It is modeled off of the Federal Wiretap Act and has traditionally been thought of […]
Free Speech Hate Speech Counter Speech The first crossover episode between May it Displease the Court, which looks at corruption in the courts from judges through dark money anti-democratic far-Right donors, and RhetoricLee Speaking, banishing banality one speech at a time. Your co-hosts, Mary and Lee, look at censorship, free speech vs. hate speech, and counter speech. Here are the highlights: 1) as much as we may want the law to recognize hate speech sometimes when truly vile opinions (in our opinions) are being circulated, the law does not recognize a hate speech exception to the first amendment that guarantees the right to free speech and 2) if there were such an exception it would be used to suppress minoritized people and their fight for civil liberties more often than it would be to silence transphobic, racist, sexist, and other kinds of exclusionary speech. We take you through a few cases that have been instrumental in establishing the “no hate speech” exception including Snyder v. Phelps SCOTUS 2011 (Westboro Baptist Church) and Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence , 468 U. S. 288 We also look at some personal examples. Mary discusses an experience at the Anne Frank House right after 9-11 and Lee discusses a current campus event where the free speech of a racist and transphobic student is being protected. They also discuss potential alternative terms to replace hate speech, including “racist erasure” and “transphobic erasure.” Finally, Mary explains the issue of “school-sponsored speech,” in which first amendment rights come up against the purpose of educational institutions and the need for more counter-speech on the Left as the corrective for hateful-speech-that-isn’t-hate-speech by the anti-democratic far-Right funded by pro-corporate dark money donors. Check out May it Displease the Court on Apple Podcasts, Podbean, and Spotify! Resources The Dark Money Behind Campus Speech Wars First Amendment | US Constitution Harry CONNICK, Individually and in His Capacity as District Attorney, etc., Petitioner, v. Sheila MYERS. CITY OF SAN DIEGO ET AL. v. ROE William P. CLARK, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Petitioners v. COMMUNITY FOR CREATIVE NON-VIOLENCE et al. Fairness Doctrine: History and Constitutional Issues Local and Independent Television Protection Act would overturn a Trump-era rule that’s permitted… Watch Field of Vision - Do Not Split about the suppression of Hong Kong pro-democracy protests Read the blog version: https://rhetoriclee.com/free-speech-hate-speech-counter-speech/ *Learn more at https://rhetoriclee.com *Follow the show on Facebook and on Instagram @rhetoriclee *Subscribe to the show on iTunes/Apple Podcasts, on Google Podcasts, on Stitcher, on Youtube, on Spotify, or via RSS *Take 20 seconds to leave a short review and 5 star-rating (I’ll even take 4 stars, I’m not greedy). Reviews help future #rhetoricnerds find the show! *Have thoughts? Hit me up on social media or Gmail @rhetoriclee Free Speech Hate Speech Counter Speech Mary: I was flying back from France when the planes hit the Twin Towers. After US airspace was closed my plane was turned back to Amsterdam. I spent an extra week in Europe until I was able to get back home. After a few days of securing funds bc I had no money and no credit card. We decided to do a little sight seeing and went to the Ann Frank House. I had been interested in the Holocaust since I was in elementary school and had read and studied it extensively. Set the scene - First you went on a tour and saw the attic where Ann and her family and another family hid out from the Nazis. I saw her bedroom and the pictures she pasted on the walls. We saw the hidden bookcase entrance. It was really emotional to be stranded in another country, far away from family. Describe the exercise –Then you descend into a part of the House that is more like a typical museum exhibit. They have the tour group sit around a table and in front of each person were two buttons, red and green and above the table were two lines of lights. At the end was a screen and on came a film that showed footage of far right Austrian politicians saying racist, hateful things and then the moderator asked whether we thought that speech should be protected, hit the green button or censored hit the red button. We did and the vast majority supported free speech. This process was repeated several more times and each time the speech got more extreme and then they started adding in comments that made it seem as if more people were supporting these hateful politicians and the votes became 50/50 free speech and censorship and by the end the vast majority had shifted from supporting free speech to supporting censorship of speech they didn’t like. I have never been a part of anything like that type of indoctrination before or since. My reactions - I was pretty pissed because it was clearly a pro-censorship propaganda tool and it worked with the people in my group. Kind of soured my opinion of the Ann Frank House. I mean, I’m an American so the 1st Amendment; Freedom of Speech is beat into our collective identity. I was a law student at the time. I had recently taken Constitutional Law and studied this very topic. So I fully believed that the best medicine for hate speech was more speech, not censorship. Now, of course this was 2001, Fox news was 5 yrs old, it was just starting to ruin my former mother-in-law. Charles Koch and his brother were still toiling away in secret trying to remake the way American think. But I did get where the museum was coming from. Some ideas aren’t just offensive, they are dangerous and what do we do with those? What is a Hate Crime? the FBI has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity,” including skin color and national origin. Hate crimes are overt acts that can include acts of violence against persons or property, violation or deprivation of civil rights, certain "true threats," or acts of intimidation, or conspiracy to commit these crimes. The Supreme Court has upheld laws that either criminalize these acts or impose a harsher punishment when it can be proven that the defendant targeted the victim because of the victim's race, ethnicity, identity, or beliefs. A hate crime is more than than offensive speech or conduct; it is specific criminal behavior that ranges from property crimes like vandalism and arson to acts of intimidation, assault, and murder. Victims of hate crimes can include institutions, religious organizations and government entities as well as individuals. 1st Amendment - What does it say? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. What is Hate Speech? – Hate speech is subjective, meaning it means different things to different people. It’s a term that is thrown around as if it has a set definition. But, it doesn’t. Hate Speech is not a legally defined term. The 1st Amendment protects the free exchange of ideas even if the expression of those ideas is considered offensive or hateful. Matal v. Tam (2017) SCOTUS 8-0 Held that a fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that the government may not punish or suppress speech based on disapproval of the ideas or perspectives the speech conveys. It does not permit discrimination based on viewpoint and like it or not giving offense is a viewpoint. Any oft repeated idea in Sup Ct case law is "the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers. What do most people mean when they use the term hate speech? Typically it is used to describe speech designed to demean, vilify or incite hatred against a group or class of people because of their race, religion, sexual or gender identity, disability or national origin. If this speech is copacetic with the 1st Amendment, are there any legal limits on speech? Yes Speech becomes criminal when it is a specific threat of violence or incites imminent criminal activity targeted at a specific person or group. “fighting words” — face-to-face personal insults addressed to a specific person, of the sort that are likely to start an immediate fight. But this exception isn’t limited to racial or religious insults, nor does it cover all racially or religiously offensive statements. other narrow exceptions, such as for true threats of illegal conduct or incitement intended to and likely to produce imminent illegal conduct (i.e., illegal conduct in the next few hours or maybe days, as opposed to some illegal conduct some time in the future). Indeed, threatening to kill someone because he’s black (or white), or intentionally inciting someone to a likely and immediate attack on someone because he’s Muslim (or Christian or Jewish), can be made a crime. But this isn’t because it’s “hate speech”; it’s because it’s illegal to make true threats and incite imminent crimes against anyone and for any reason, for instance because they are police officers or capitalists or just someone who is sleeping with the speaker’s ex-girlfriend. For example, two years ago two students at another SUNY school posted a snapchat of the two of them just lying in bed on Halloween and the caption said “gonna lynch some ni…. tonight.” To me, given the history of lynching, given the way it was phrased, given the use of the racial slur...that should be hate speech. Problems with excluding Hate Speech from 1st Amendment protection So, eventually a Judge is going to have to decide whether specific words are hate speech or not, not a good idea to give Judges this power. Why? Speech that makes people angry, or upset is protected by the 1st Amendment – example the Westboro Baptist Church Snyder v. Phelps SCOTUS 2011 (Westboro Baptist Church) for 20 yrs this group has picketed military funerals to express their belief that God hates the US bc of it’s tolerance for homosexuality. Fred Phelps is the leader the other members are all his relatives. They traveled to Maryland and picketed 1,000 feet from the Church, on public property, in accordance with instruction from local law enforcement by silently holding up signs for 30 minutes that read “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” “Fags Doom Nations” “Priests Rape Boys” “You are Going to Hell''. The soldier’s father filed suit for intentional infliction of emotional distress. A jury awarded him millions in damages. The 4th Circuit reversed the conviction holding that the 1st Amendment shielded them from civil liability because the statements were on matters of public concern, were not provably false, and were expressed solely through hyperbolic rhetoric. “[S]peech on public issues occupies the ‘ “highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values” ’ and is entitled to special protection.” Connick v. Myers , 461 U. S. 138 . Although the boundaries of what constitutes speech on matters of public concern are not well defined, this Court has said that speech is of public concern when it can “be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community,” id., at 146, or when it “is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public,” San Diego v. Roe , 543 U. S. 77 . Court must independently examine the “ ‘content, form, and context,’ Even protected speech is “subject to reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions.” Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence , 468 U. S. 288 . Because this Nation has chosen to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that public debate is not stifled, Westboro must be shielded from tort liability for its picketing in this case. Robert’s opnion – 8-1 (Alito dissenting) Lee: and when you listen to these examples like Westboro Church of course you want to call it hate speech. I want to call it hate speech. But we always have to remember that even though the law does NOT equally apply to everyone, it pretends as if it does and so any law you want to make would apply to everyone. So you can only imagine what would happen if hate speech were enforceable and Black Lives Matter protests happened… So while I can really understand wanting the law to step in and shut down some of these vile opinions, I also realize that if hate speech were regulated then it would be used against minoritized persons WAY more often than it would against homophobic speech, racist speech, etc. How do we get social change if hate speech isn’t a crime? Punishing people for speech we don’t like – slippery slope – Watch Hong Kong Doc – Oscar Nom Don’t Split This is what happens when an authoritarian government – China, wants to stifle pro-democracy speech and to criminalize it. The GOP are authoritarian and anti-democratic as evidenced by their attempts to overthrow the government, propagate the big lie to undercut democracy and the 361 voter suppression bills currently being pushed by Republican state legislatures. What will they do to speech they don’t like if they get back in power? Counter Speech is the antidote for hate speech – examples, strategies – in the US we believe that the remedy is more speech, not stifling speech. The First Amendment protects the right to advocate and agitate for a change in 1st Amendment law. And you could argue that the law should be changed to exclude hate speech, but this advocacy needs to define what constitutes hate speech, bc it is an undefined term and highly subjective. If the law is changed then it will be up to Judges to apply the new definition of hate speech to whatever circumstances brings about an alleged violation. Eugene Volokh who teached free speech law at UCLA law school, and used to clerk for Sup Ct justice Sandra Day O’Connor and also 9th Cir Judge Alex Kozinski (side note he retired after several law clerks accused him of workplace sexual misconduct including showing them porn at work on multiple occasions) suggests advocates of this expanded area of non-protected speech “should explain just what viewpoints the government would be allowed to suppress, what viewpoints would remain protected, and how judges, juries, and prosecutors are supposed to distinguish the two.” Problems with continuing to say hate speech when it just legally isn’t defensible --keeps us trapped in a binary of free speech/hate speech. so one side says hate speech the other side says free speech and it’s so obvious a slam dunk for whatever side claims free speech. --in fact, quote-unquote “american” who protect “free speech” are hoping you’ll scream about hate speech because they know it strengthens their position. I’ll give you an example on my campus a bit later when we talk about school sponsored speech So I actually put a post on my Facebook page asking my rhetoric/communication scholar hive mind what options they suggest for navigating this binary between hate and free speech. What other options are there. Here are some of the terms they suggested. Symbolic racism. Aversive racism. Implicit racism. the step below racism “racial animus.” symbolic racial violence overt racism racist erasure The point isn’t to choose any one of these. The point is that when you’re willing to agree that the binary isn’t working and that counter speech is the only action we have THEN you start getting creative about inventing language to create arguments that short circuit the free speech logics of the opposition. Sure, it’s free speech. That isn’t the point. It’s also racism. One thing I’ve heard a lot is “hateful speech” because it’s not “hate speech” but it’s close. To me, it’s too easily perverted. The other one suggested by Judith Butler and Wendy Brown is "injurious speech”--granted they’re writing about legal theory and not public protest--but even that seems to imply that we gauge the effects of speech by how HURT or INJURED the person on the receiving end is. I think that’s also a losing battle because it’s based on a subjective experience of injury that the far Right will just deny. We’ve seen this again and again with cancel-culture. “Who could get so upset over some drawings in a Dr. Seuss book?” So I don’t use those two but I do use the earlier list and try to make the claim that I don’t care if your speech is free or not, it’s still racist, homophobic, etc. And, if necessary, I use a modifier like “symbolic racism.” Not to minimize the effects of the act but to think about what, argumentatively, I can sustain. Mary what do you think? Mary: concerns about many of the terms from a legal perspective but racist erasure is compelling and the most accurate description of what’s happening. Now we are facing new challenges with the proliferation and popularity of propaganda right wing media Fox News, Oann, Newsmax, right wing radio, podcasts facebook, the internet. Fairness Doctrine – what was it, who got rid of it. A quick google brings up some historical discussions and some negative opinion pieces about how unfair and awful the Fairness Doctrine was by the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute – Koch It was adopted in 1949 - The Fairness Doctrine required that stations provide balanced coverage of all controversial issues of public importance. The Fairness Doctrine never required “equal time” in the sense of strict equality for each side of an issue on a minute-for-minute basis. In talk programs and news coverage, a station just had to make sure that both points of view were presented in such a way that the listener would get exposure to them. How that was done was left to theon’s discretion, and the FCC intervened in only the most egregious cases. By contrast, “equal time” or “equal opportunities” stems from a different source in the Communications Act – the Section 315 provisions on the treatment by broadcast stations (and local cable systems) of candidates for public office. Essentially, equal time requires that, if a broadcast station gives one candidate free time, all other candidates can get the same amount of free time The Reagan-era FCC eliminated this rule, which was never reinstituted in subsequent decades under either party. a subsequent Trump-era 2017 FCC decision loosened ownership restrictions on stations. In combination, these two decisions not only allowed given stations to present only one view, but for many stations nationwide — now more easily owned by the same conglomerate, such as the conservative Sinclair Broadcast Group — to present the same view. Rush Limbaugh started his talk radio in 1988, Fox began in 1996 Now what? School Sponsored Speech - The test to establish first amendment protection in the context of school-sponsored speech is laid out in Vanderhurst v. Colorado Mountain College District (2000). “Whether an action restricting a plaintiff’s school-sponsored speech is reasonably related to the school’s legitimate pedagogical (educational) interests is the test for determining whether” his speech is protected by the First Amendment. Lee: Recent issue on campus, an education major--someone who is going to teach children--is posting horrible stuff on social media validating slavery and denying trans identity. Very much racist and transphobic erasure. When the student was suspended from student teaching for violating New York State law as an education major (can’t promote a bias free classroom) he lied on social media saying he was suspended from the school and then the far-Right anti-democratic dark money donor funded legal complex swooped in and miraculously, a few days later, he’s reinstated into his student teaching. Shortly thereafter, he painted over Black Lives Matter symbols on campus with USA and red and blue paint. TFP Student Action TFP Student Action, a project of “The Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property,” is the front for this operation. Describes itself as a group that was created to counter “liberal, socialist and communist trends of the times and proudly affirm the positive values of tradition, family and private property.” The petition, which has accumulated nearly 20,000 signatures, describes itself as a peaceful protest and argues that the student’s original suspension “sound[ed] like something right out of a communist gulag, not USA” and further elaborated that “What happened … is not merely an attack on truth, or on free speech, it is an attack against reality itself. It’s all part of the dark money, Koch and Mercer-funded attack on progressive values using “free speech” as their shield. Speech First Inc. claims to be and is regularly called a grassroots civil rights watchdog is actually a highly professional astro-turfing campaign, with a board of former Bush administration lawyers and longtime affiliates of the Koch family. Born in 2018, the group seems to have been enacted for the purpose of inserting itself or to put it more accurately to instigate campus culture wars: Here’s how grassroots this group is – it President Nicole Neily said no students were involved in founding the group. The $5 lifetime membership dues—a requirement for the group to take up a student’s case in court—is a “negligible part” of its funding, which mainly comes from undisclosed backers AKA Dark Money AKA Kochs and their ilk. Speech First’s board of directors includes a former head of a Koch-backed trust and two conservative attorneys from Koch-funded programs. “being branded as neutral, but having the people who know, know that you’re actually conservative, puts us in a unique position.” The board’s center of gravity is George Mason University, school recently revealed to have given the Kochs some sway over academic appointments in departments they funded – so much for academic freedom Speech First plans to “flood” the courts with similar lawsuits, starting with at least three more at other colleges this year. Speech First Inc. v. Schlissel (6th Circuit) 2019 In this case, Speech First, Inc., an organization working to protect university students’ civil rights, filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on behalf of three unnamed University of Michigan (UM) students. These three students claimed that their free speech rights were chilled by UM’s disciplinary rules and procedures which prohibited “harassment,” “bullying,” and “bias-related conduct.” Speech First also claimed that the “Bias Response Team” at UM investigated and punished students for engaging in “bias” conduct. “Harassing or bullying another person—physically, verbally, or through 83 some other means” is listed (Speech First v. Schlissel 2018). The Statement, including the violations section, governs all actions on UM property, at UM events, and occurring in the city of Ann Arbor, MI. The BRT was solely an educational resource and a support mechanism for students; it had no disciplinary authority. The term “bias incident” was written to be broad, because the BRT wanted to support any students who needed the resource, not to punish the alleged perpetrators Speech First Inc v. Killeen (7th Circuit) 2020 - Speech First sued 29 administrators at the University on behalf of four anonymous students. These students claim that they wish to express what they describe as "political, social, and policy views that are unpopular on campus." Speech First's complaint lists examples of such viewpoints in general terms: opposition to abortion, support for President Trump, belief in traditional marriage, support for strong immigration policies, support for the "deradicalization of Islam," support for First Amendment protection of "hate speech," opposition to gun control, and support for LGBT rights. Speech First alleges that three University policies—the responsive action of the Bias Assessment and Response Team and the Bias Incident Protocol to reports of "bias-motivated incidents" on campus, the imposition of No Contact Directives, and the prior approval rule—chill their student members' speech, force these students to engage in self-censorship, and deter them from speaking openly about issues of public concern. Speech First challenges the actions of the University's Bias Assessment and Response Team ("BART"). BART "collects and responds to reports of bias-motivated incidents that occur within the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign community." In turn, BART defines "bias-motivated incidents" as "actions or expressions that are motivated, at least in part, by prejudice against or hostility toward a person (or group) because of the person's (or group's) actual or perceived age, disability/ability status, ethnicity, gender, gender identity/expression, national origin, race, religion/spirituality, sexual orientation, socioeconomic class, etc." In addition, BART "[p]rovides opportunities for educational conversation and dialogue" and "[s]upports those impacted by bias." determine whether to reach out to the involved students, if they are identified, to invite them to participate in a voluntary conversation. BART also devises a response plan, which could include "[e]ducational conversations," "[m]ediation, facilitated dialogue," "[e]ducational referrals," "[r]esolution agreements," or "[r]eferrals to other offices and/or programs." Speech First Inc. v. Fenves (5th Circuit) 2020 Conclusion - What the left needs to appreciate is excluding hate speech from the 1st Amendment means it can be suppressed and that is a dangerous proposition especially when we are facing a huge increase in Trump appointed right wing Judges. It is the same tactic Republicans are using by passing bills to suppress the right to vote. Instead of trying to win over voters, to adopt policies that the majority of people support they are just working to suppress the power of those who disagree with them. That is lazy and authoritarian. The left wants to be the opposite of that approach. We need to do the hard work of making the arguments against offensive hateful speech and to engage in the debate as much and as passionately as the right. We don't have the Koch money to create and fund faux grassroots movements. Lee: and the more popular argument AND if there’s one thing that not being bound by old traditions and outdated categories gets you, it’s the ability to think critically and creatively about new identity positions. If anyone can strategize counter-speech, it’s us. Mary: We also have the numbers. And by using our voices collectively and consistently we can defend inclusivity without trying to exclude offensive speech.
Producer/Host: Jim Campbell It’s difficult to find many things that Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump agree on, especially when it comes to policy. But they both agree that Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1996 has to go. Why? Not for the same reasons, that’s for sure. Here’s why. The post Notes from the Electronic Cottage 3/4/21: Section 230 first appeared on WERU 89.9 FM Blue Hill, Maine Local News and Public Affairs Archives.
WERU 89.9 FM Blue Hill, Maine Local News and Public Affairs Archives
Producer/Host: Jim Campbell It’s difficult to find many things that Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump agree on, especially when it comes to policy. But they both agree that Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1996 has to go. Why? Not for the same reasons, that’s for sure. Here’s why.
On February 8, 1996, President Bill Clinton signed into law the landmark Telecommunications Act of 1996, the most significant revision of the Communications Act since its enactment in 1934. In the 1996 Act’s preamble, Congress declared the statute’s purpose “to promote competition and reduce regulation.” And the conference report accompanying the law stated it was intended “to provide for a pro-competitive, deregulatory national policy framework.” At the signing ceremony, President Clinton’s rhetoric was soaring: “With the stroke of a pen, our laws will catch up with our future.”Now, a quarter century after the Telecom Act’s passage, we can celebrate the 25th anniversary and acknowledge the achievement, while – with the benefit of hindsight – also taking a critical look at what the 1996 Act actually accomplished and whether it needs updating. This program will address these fundamental questions: (1) what did the 1996 Act get right; (2) what did it get wrong; and (3) should it now be updated or substantially rewritten, and if so, in what way?The Federalist Society's Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group is pleased to host a distinguished panel to address these questions.Free State Foundation President Randolph May, a former FCC Associate General Counsel with over four decades of experience in the communications law and policy field, will moderate a discussion among experts: Harold Furthgott-Roth, a former FCC commissioner who served as a principal House Commerce Committee staff member working on the 1996 Act; Michelle Connolly, Professor of the Practice in the Economics Department at Duke University who twice served as Chief Economist at the FCC; and Chris Lewis, President and CEO of Public Knowledge who has served as Deputy Director of the FCC’s Office of Legislative Affairs.Featuring:-- Michelle Connolly, Professor of the Practice, Duke University; former Chief Economist, Federal Communications Commission-- Chris Lewis, President & CEO, Public Knowledge; former Deputy Director, FCC Office of Legislative Affairs-- Hon. Harold Furchtgott-Roth, Senior Fellow and Director, Center for the Economics of the Internet, Hudson Institute; former FCC Commissioner-- Moderator: Randolph May, President, Free State Foundation; Executive Committee Member, Federalist Society's Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group
This week, we talk about some of the continued fallout of the January 6 riot at the Capitol, including reaction from some senators, impeachment, and banning on social media. We also look at some common misconceptions of the 1st Amendment, 25th Amendment, and Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/the-moderate-podcast/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/the-moderate-podcast/support
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has announced his intention to pursue a reform of Section 230 of the Communications Act, which among other things limits the liability of internet platforms for content they host. Commissioner Rosenworcel described the timing — immediately after Conservative outrage at Twitter and Facebook limiting the reach of an article relating to […]
Peace and blessings everyone. I know everyone wants to give Beyonce credit for the Internet, but I'm here to learn ya' somethin'. Here, I break down what the Internet is, who runs it, who created it, and most importantly...I break down wifi and cellular data. Also, if you don't know who Bo Jackson is, please do a quick youtube search (if you're into sports of course). The thing I told you to Google: the 1991 High Performance Computing and Communications Act (this is what got everything litty) Email: GoodBrotherExperience@yahoo.com Instagram: Instagram.com/TheOgBlackMan Twitter: Twitter.com/TheOgBlackMan FaceBook: Bob Taylor
The objective of this Bill is to amend the Kenya Information and Communications Act to provide for regulation of use of social media platforms
5 Things to Know About Regulating Internet SpeechThe Powder Keg – YouTube recently “demonetized” hundreds of controversial channels, after an on-going spat between conservative comedian Steven Crowder and liberal Vox writer Carlos Maza. The host of Louder with Crowder repeatedly mocked Maza's flambuoyant personae (aka the “gay wonk”) and ethnicity, and Maza roused a Twitter mob to get YouTube to remove him altogether. YouTube's kept the videos up, but took Crowder's ad dollars — pleasing virtually nobody, as Reason's Robby Soave pointed out. The Legal Issue - Some kinds of speech, such as incitements to violence, are clearly not protected by the 1st amendment, while “hate speech,” or offensive speech, is not clearly defined. Under Section 230 of the Decency in Communications Act (1996), online platforms like YouTube can set their own guidelines for acceptable speech but are continuing to come under scrutiny for alleged bias against conservatives.The Proposed Remedy – Trump is talking about antitrust to break up Big Tech monopolies, but most scholars think this is impractical. Republican Senator Josh Hawley just introduced a law to essentially revive the “Fairness Doctrine,” and stop biased censorship of conservatives. This Sunday, I'll speak to Frank Buckley about his middle-ground idea for a governmental check on “woke” social media censorship.The Unintended Consequences – Elizabeth Nolan Brown points out that Hawley's bill would likely make censorship against conservatives worse. The bill would require companies to reapply with the Federal Trade Commission every two years to prove that they are operating in a politically neutral manner. Ultimately, this would mean censoring vastly more political content, Brown notes.A Quote to Ponder :“There's always someone we're laughing at, and that person is going to take offense. If it's a conservative laughing at a liberal, even a liberal who seems to be asking for it, even someone who dishes it out but can't take it, like the butt of Crowder's laughter, that's when the progressive social media censors step in.” - Frank Buckley, How to stop the 'woke' social media censors, NY Post, June 10, 2019
In this episode, I go in-depth on the history of net neutrality and the FCC beginning in 2002 and ending with the 2017 decision to repeal net neutrality. We discuss the different ways broadband providers and internet service providers have been classified under the Communications Act of 1934 as well as how courts have ruled on net neutrality in recent years. … More Ep. 22: An In-Depth History of Net Neutrality
This time last year, the FCC voted 3-2 to reclassify broadband under Title II of the 1934 Communications Act, utility rules designed for railroads and telephone monopolies — all in the name of “net neutrality.” Special guest FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, who voted against the Open Internet Order, joins us to give his one-year progress report for the FCC's Internet regulations. Has the Order protected consumers from harm? Or, as critics warned, has it stifled competition, innovation and investment? Did “reclassification” open Pandora's Box?
Justice Scalia's death sparked a flurry of speculation about who will replace him. Sri Srinivasan tops most lists of potential successors. But he's also one of three appellate judges set to rule on the FCC's Internet regulations. How might that decision affect his nomination, and the president's decision about whether to pick him? Might the intersection of the looming court decision and his nomination make “net neutrality” a major election issue? And does Scalia's death change how the courts might rule on the FCC's reclassification of broadband under Title II of the 1934 Communications Act? See our op-ed in Real Clear Technology for more.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
