Podcasts about Communications Act

This Day in Legal History: Rhode Island Ratifies the Constitution, 1790On this day in 1790, Rhode Island became the thirteenth and final original state to ratify the United States Constitution, doing so by a margin of 34 to 32 at a convention in Newport. Rhode Island's hesitation had been considerable: the state refused to send delegates to the Philadelphia Convention in 1787, and twice rejected ratification in popular referenda — a curiously democratic method for refusing to join a constitutional union founded in part on the premise that pure direct democracy is dangerous. The state's small-farmer and debtor classes, the same constituencies that had backed the paper-money policies that horrified Madison, were deeply suspicious of a strong federal government that would constrain state-issued currency, ban impairment of debt contracts (Article I, Section 10), and override state-level debtor protections.Ratification finally came under the gun: Congress, frustrated by the foot-dragging, was openly threatening to treat Rhode Island as a foreign nation for tariff purposes, which would have devastated the Providence merchants. The convention's narrow margin reflected a hostile deal more than a meeting of constitutional minds.Importantly, Rhode Island's ratification was conditioned on a lengthy list of proposed amendments — many of them mirroring the Bill of Rights that James Madison had already shepherded through Congress in September 1789 and that would be ratified in December 1791. With Rhode Island in, the original Union was at last complete, and the practical question of whether the new federal government could function with one stubborn holdout fell away. The episode is a useful reminder that the constitutional founding was not so much a singular moment as a slow, contested, occasionally coerced bargain — one that ended in Newport on a humid Saturday in May.The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday handed down a narrow 5-4 ruling in Pitchford v. Cain, reviving a Mississippi death row inmate's challenge to the prosecutor's race-based use of peremptory strikes at his 2006 capital trial. Justice Kavanaugh, writing for a majority that included Chief Justice Roberts plus Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, held that the Mississippi Supreme Court unreasonably applied Batson v. Kentucky's three-step framework for challenges to peremptory strikes.The Court found the trial judge accepted the prosecutor's race-neutral explanations without giving defense counsel a meaningful opportunity to argue that those reasons were pretextual, and the state appellate court compounded the error by treating that omission as a waiver. The prosecutor, Doug Evans, used four of his twelve strikes to remove four of the five Black prospective jurors, leaving a jury of eleven white jurors and one Black juror in a Mississippi county that was then roughly 40 percent Black.The Court leaned heavily on its 2019 Flowers v. Mississippi decision, which involved the same prosecutor and the same trial judge and had already found Evans's pattern of striking Black jurors discriminatory. Federal habeas relief was appropriate because the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's deferential “no fair-minded jurist could agree” standard cannot rescue a state-court ruling that simply skips Batson's third step. Justice Gorsuch dissented, joined by Justices Alito, Thomas, and Barrett, arguing the record showed counsel chose silence rather than being denied an opportunity. The case now returns to the Fifth Circuit for further proceedings.Justices Revive Mississippi Death Row Inmate's Batson Claim | Law360Caesars Entertainment agreed Thursday to be acquired by Tilman Fertitta's privately-held Fertitta Entertainment in an all-cash deal valued at roughly $17.6 billion, including the assumption of approximately $11.9 billion of Caesars' outstanding debt. Shareholders will receive $31 per share, a 49 percent premium over Caesars' unaffected share price as of February 25, and the company will be delisted from Nasdaq upon closing. The agreement includes a go-shop period running through approximately July 11 — a Delaware deal-protection mechanism that lets the target board solicit competing bids without triggering a termination fee, and that helps insulate the sale process from a Revlon-flavored fiduciary-duty challenge by signaling the board actively tested the market after signing.Latham & Watkins and Skadden are representing Caesars (the latter on antitrust), White & Case is advising Fertitta, and Freshfields is counseling the Carano family, which holds a roughly 5 percent stake and will roll part of its equity into the combined entity. The combined company would control more than 60 casino resorts and over 200 retail sports betting locations under the William Hill brand. Antitrust review will be the inflection point given the overlap on the Las Vegas Strip — where Caesars operates eight properties — and across digital betting. Funding will come from Fertitta equity and committed debt financing arranged by a syndicate of ten banks.4 Firms Steer Fertitta's $17.6B Caesars Entertainment Buy | Law360The Department of Health and Human Services on Thursday finalized a long-awaited overhaul of the federal Independent Dispute Resolution process under the No Surprises Act of 2021, the statute that pulls most out-of-network billing fights out of the patient's hands and into a baseball-style arbitration between provider and payer. The headline change slashes the per-party administrative fee from $115 to $15 per case, undoing a sharp 2023 hike that providers had successfully challenged in the Eastern District of Texas as having been adopted without notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act.The rule also expands batching, so economically similar items and services can be bundled into a single arbitration, which the agency says will cut transaction costs and ease the chronic IDR backlog. HHS is also rolling out a centralized federal dispute portal and a payer registry intended to fix the persistent problem of providers being unable to identify which entity is actually on the hook in any given case. Reactions from physician and radiology groups have been mixed, with broad support for the fee cut but lingering concern that the qualifying payment amount methodology — the benchmark arbitrators must consider — still tilts the field toward insurers. APA Section 706 challenges to portions of the earlier IDR framework remain pending in the Fifth Circuit.US HHS finalizes rule to streamline dispute resolution under No Surprises Act | ReutersABC's New York affiliate WABC-TV filed an objection with the FCC on Thursday, calling Chairman Brendan Carr's April order requiring early license renewals for all eight ABC-owned stations an “unconstitutional” act of viewpoint-based retaliation barred by the First Amendment. WABC submitted its renewal under protest, arguing the agency has not demanded simultaneous early renewals from a commonly owned station group in more than fifty years and that the Media Bureau's stated rationale — possible violations of the Communications Act of 1934 and the FCC's nondiscrimination rules — is pretext for punishing disfavored editorial speech.The doctrinal hook is the Bantam Books line of cases through last term's NRA v. Vullo, which holds that government officials cannot use the implicit threat of regulatory sanction to coerce private intermediaries into suppressing protected expression. The order followed a separate FCC inquiry into whether “The View” has been violating the agency's equal-time rule for political candidates, and came against the backdrop of repeated White House demands that Disney fire Jimmy Kimmel. Democratic Commissioner Anna Gomez has openly urged Disney not to “flinch.”On the same day, the FCC issued a broader notice warning all broadcasters that licenses could be reviewed early if stations are deemed to be failing their statutory public-interest obligation — a posture that drops the question of broadcast licensing back into Red Lion-era First Amendment territory.FCC Targeting ABC Licenses To Punish Speech, Station Says | Law360 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Yaël Eisenstat discusses the impact of online platforms on public health, safety and democracy. She is currently[1] the Director of Policy and Impact at Cybersecurity for Democracy (C4D),[2] working on policy solutions for how to hold social media and other online platforms accountable for their effects on public safety and democracy. Previously, she was Vice President at the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Center for Technology & Society (CTS). She was a Facebook election integrity head in 2018 and later became a whistleblower, speaking publicly about the dangers to democracy stemming from the company's decisions and products. She has held other other positions protecting democracy including as an intelligence officer, diplomat, and White House advisor. C4D contributed to the recent March 24, 2026, jury verdict in a civil case against Internet companies in New Mexico.[3] Eisenstat is interviewed by Spencer Graves.[4] Eisenstat's work Eisenstat's work includes a TED Talk and an SXSW panel in 2020 and a 2024  research report on tech platforms and political violence. 2020 TED talk In Eisenstat's (2020) TED talk, she said that around 2015 she began to notice that she was losing the ability to engage with others who were thought differently. Conversations with others in the US were becoming more difficult than conversations she had had as a CIA officer and diplomat drinking tea and talking with outspoken anti-Western clerics and suspected terrorists in Africa. Many of those engagements began with mutual suspicion but none degenerated into shouting or insults. In some cases she built collaboration on areas of mutual interest. Her most powerful tools were to listen, learn and build empathy. Most of her contacts wanted to feel heard, validated and respected. But social media companies like Facebook incentivize inflammatory content contributing to a culture of political polarization and mistrust. This generates revenue for Facebook and similar companies that make money from clicks, "because the shortest path to a click is anger or hate", in the words of Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen, interviewed 2024-08-19 for this Media & Democracy series. When Facebook asked Eisenstat in 2018 to lead their work to support global elections integrity for political ads, she agreed. She left six months later, speaking openly about Facebook's inability to meet its responsibility to secure elections, subsequently documented, e.g., in the thousands of internal Facebook documents that Haugen released to the Securities and Exchange Commission and The Wall Street Journal in 2021. 2020 SXSW panel Eisenstat was part of a "panel about the Future of Tech Responsibility" for the 2020 South by Southwest festival. The festival was cancelled due to COVID-19, but the panel was held virtually. This panel included a discussion of Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Communications Decency Act of 1996.[5] It was "written before platforms such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter existed" -- written while Google was a research project by Stanford PhD students Larry Page and Sergey Brin. Section 230 includes, "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."[6] Eisenstat says that it's time to revisit Section 230, to demand accountability where Internet companies promote or suppress information based on the content while protecting web freedom otherwise. This is similar to the recommendations of Dean Baker that when Internet companies make money by promoting information differentially based on content, they should be liable as are legacy media under the US Supreme Court decision in NYT v. Sullivan (1964). In other cases, they should be treated as common carriers like telephone companies. 2024: Tech platforms and political violence More recently, Eisenstat et al. (2024a, b) are insisting that, "Tech Platforms Must Do More to Avoid Contributing to Potential Political Violence". The New York Times had reported that, "a steady undercurrent of violence and physical risk has become a new normal," particularly targeting public officials and democratic institutions. A survey from the Brennan Center found that 38% of election officials have experienced violent threats. They attributed these threats primarily to tech platforms and gave seven recommendations in four themes "congruent with any number of papers that academics and civil society leaders have published over the years." They said that platforms must develop robust standards for threat assessment and engage in scenario planning, crisis training, and engagement with external stakeholders, with as much transparency as possible. should enforce clear and actionable content moderation policies that address election integrity. should enforce their rules uniformly, not exempting politicians and other political influencers. must clearly explain important content moderation decisions, ensuring transparency especially when it comes to high profile accounts. They hope that increasing demands for accountability will prompt platforms to act more responsibly and prioritize the risk of political violence both in the United States and abroad. More on Wikiversity More on this including a moderated discussion of the issues raised is available in the companion article on Wikiversity on "Online platforms' effects on public health, safety and democracy". Notes Yael Eisenstat, Wikidata Q82046593 Cybersecurity for Democracy, Wikidata Q139568543 McQue (2026), "C4D and the Courts: Meta Guilty Verdicts". Cybersecurity for Democracy. Wikidata Q139572464. Spencer Graves, Wikidata Q56452480 Reid (2020). 47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material, 1996, Wikidata Q139570261 Bibliography Bobby Allyn (25 March 2026). "Jury finds Meta and Google negligent in social media harms trial". NPR. Wikidata Q139572103. Yael Eisenstat (August 2020) Dear Facebook, this is how you're breaking democracy, TED, Wikidata Q138844363 Yael Eisenstat (2021). "Section 230 Revisited: Web Freedom vs Accountability". Cornell Tech. 13 May 2020. Wikidata Q139568755. Yael Eisenstat; Justin Hendrix; Daniel Kreiss (2024a). "Preventing Tech-Fueled Political Violence: What online platforms can do to ensure that they do not contribute to election-related violence". The Bulletin of Technology & Public Life. 22 May 2024. Wikidata Q139571027. Yael Eisenstat; Justin Hendrix; Daniel Kreiss (2024B). "Tech Platforms Must Do More to Avoid Contributing to Potential Political Violence". Tech Policy Press. Wikidata Q139571163. Katie McQue (24 March 2026). "Meta ordered to pay $375m after being found liable in child exploitation case". The Guardian. Wikidata Q139572337. ISSN 0261-3077. Blake E. Reid (4 September 2020), Section 230 of… what?, Wikidata Q139570229

Scoot talks about the FCC investigating whether ABC TV stations are guilty of violating the Communications Act of 1934 and FCC rules that prohibit discrimination with Jimmy Kimmel's joke about First Lady Melania Trump.

This hour, Scoot talks about the FCC investigating whether ABC TV stations are guilty of violating the Communications Act of 1934 and FCC rules that prohibit discrimination with Jimmy Kimmel's joke about First Lady Melania Trump.

On today's show, Scoot talks about the swarms of gnats, fruit flies, caterpillars, love bugs, and other pests emerging in large numbers this year. The WWL listeners give tips on how to get rid of them. Then, Scoot talks about the FCC investigating whether ABC TV stations are guilty of violating the Communications Act of 1934 and FCC rules that prohibit discrimination with Jimmy Kimmel's joke about First Lady Melania Trump. Finally, Scoot talks about the number of cigarette smoking scenes in the movie "Michael."

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange Commission, (April 20) - Corporations & Securities; Issue(s): Whether the SEC may seek equitable disgorgement under 15 U.S.C. 78u(d)(5) and (d)(7) without showing investors suffered pecuniary harm.T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp., (April 20) - Federalism & Separation of Powers, Standing; Issue(s): Whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prevents parties who lose in state courts from challenging injuries caused by state-court judgments, can be triggered by a state-court decision that remains subject to further review in state court.Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T, Inc.,(April 21) - Communications & Technology; Issue(s): Whether the Communications Act of 1934 provisions that govern the Federal Communications Commission’s assessment and enforcement of monetary forfeitures are consistent with the Seventh Amendment and Article III.Bondi v. Lau, (April 22) - Immigration Law; Issue(s): Whether, to remove a lawful permanent resident who committed an offense listed in Section 1182(a)(2) and was subsequently paroled into the United States, the government must prove that it possessed clear and convincing evidence of the offense at the time of the lawful permanent resident's last reentry into the United States.Chatrie v. United States, (April 27) - Criminal Law; Issue(s): Whether the execution of a geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment.Monsanto Company v. Durnell, (April 27) - Energy & Environmental Law; Issue(s): Whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts a label-based failure-to-warn claim where EPA has not required the warning.Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe I, (April 28) - International Law & Human Rights; Issue(s): (1) Whether the Alien Tort Statute allows a judicially-implied private right of action for aiding and abetting; and (2) whether the Torture Victim Protection Act allows a judicially-implied private right of action for aiding and abetting.Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., (April 29) - Patent Law / Intellectual Property Law; Issue(s): (1) Whether, when a generic drug label fully carves out a patented use, allegations that the generic drugmaker calls its product a “generic version” and cites public information about the branded drug (e.g., sales) are enough to plead induced infringement of the patented use; and (2) whether a complaint states a claim for induced infringement of a patented method if it does not allege any instruction or other statement by the defendant that encourages, or even mentions, the patented use.Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot, (April 29) - Immigration Law; Issue(s): Whether the Trump administration can end the Temporary Protected Status program for Syrian and Haitian nationals.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Communications Act of 1934 provisions that govern the Federal Communications Commission's assessment and enforcement of monetary forfeitures are consistent with the Seventh Amendment and Article III.

FCC v. AT&T | 04/21/26 | Docket #: 25-406 25-406 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION V. AT&T DECISION BELOW: 149 F.4th 491 CONSOLIDATED WITH 25-567 FOR ONE HOUR ORAL ARGUMENT. CERT. GRANTED 1/9/2026 QUESTION PRESENTED: The Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq ., empowers the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to assess monetary forfeiture penalties for certain violations of the Act or the FCC's regulations by issuing a notice of apparent liability, giving the regulated party an opportunity to respond in writing, and then issuing a final decision. If the regulated party declines to pay and the government sues to collect the penalties, the regulated party is entitled to a de novo jury trial in a federal district court. Alternatively, the subject of an FCC forfeiture order may pay the monetary penalty and file a petition for review in a court of appeals, thereby triggering a judicial-review proceeding in which no jury is available. The question presented is as follows: Whether the Communications Act provisions that govern the FCC's assessment and enforcement of monetary forfeitures are consistent with the Seventh Amendment and Article III. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 24-60223

Welcome to your weekly UAS News Update. We have three stories for you this week, a major confirms nobody is replacing DJI in the consumer market, the FCC opens public comments on drone spectrum reforms, and Oregon tells the FCC to build drone test sites in the mountains.First up this week, a major report from The Verge confirms what we have been saying for months: nobody is coming to save the consumer drone market. According to the report, massive defense contracts have absorbed almost every American company that might have built affordable consumer drones. For example, Skydio confirmed they will not return to the consumer market, and the U.S. Army recently ordered $52 million worth of their X10D tactical drones. Why build a $500 consumer drone when the Pentagon is spending millions? We did see the Antigravity A1 hit the market recently, which is an 8K 360-degree drone that sold 30,000 units shortly after launch. But Antigravity is still a Chinese company, so they face the exact same supply chain exposure. Meanwhile, the Zero Zero HoverAir Aqua is reportedly dead in the water after failing to get FCC certification before the December ban. When volunteer fire departments or Search and Rescue can't afford a $10,000 enterprise system, they rely on affordable consumer drones. As we've said time and time again, this isn't a problem we're going to feel right now… This will be a major problem in 2-3 years. Speaking of, the Federal Communications Commission has released Public Notice DA 26-314, asking our drone industry what needs to be fixed to help the United States lead the global drone race. The notice covers six policy areas, but spectrum access is the biggest one. Right now, most U.S. drones operate on unlicensed 2.4 and 5.8 gigahertz bands, which are the same crowded frequencies used by your home Wi-Fi router. The FCC is asking if the industry should shift to the licensed 5030 to 5091 megahertz band. They previously allocated a 10-megahertz block at 5040 to 5050 megahertz for direct frequency assignments, but this has sat dormant. The FCC also wants to speed up experimental licensing and address Counter-UAS rules. Currently, Section 333 of the Communications Act prohibits willful interference with radio communications, preventing any counter-drone system that jams a signal. Comments are due by May 1st. We will have to see if they can create a credible framework before current exemptions expire in 2027.And our third story, all interconnected this week, The Oregon Department of Aviation has drafted an eight-point response to the FCC public notice. But instead of just asking for abstract reforms, Oregon is telling the FCC exactly where to build new UAS innovation zones. They identified three specific test corridors in real terrain: one in the Cascades near Oakridge, another along the Columbia River Gorge, and a third in southeast Oregon. Oregon argues that testing drones in flat, controlled academic labs does not produce data that transfers to real-world conditions. For example, wildfire response or emergency medical delivery are dealing with mountain passes, line-of-sight obstructions, and weather. Oregon also backed the push toward the 5030 to 5091 megahertz band for command and control links, emphasizing that safety-critical operations cannot rely on unlicensed bands. They also asked the FCC for a simple waiver process for trusted deployment of foreign drones during this transition period. That's all this week, join us in Post Flight where we share our opinions that may or may not be suitable for YouTube, and we'll see you next week! https://dronexl.co/2026/04/06/fcc-da-26-314-drone-spectrum-licensing-public-notice/https://dronexl.co/2026/04/07/oregon-fcc-drone-dominance-test-sites/https://dronexl.co/2026/04/07/verge-dji-ban-nobody-replacing-consumer-drones/

Chris Cuomo breaks down why CBS and Paramount blocked Stephen Colbert from broadcasting an interview with Texas State Rep. James Talarico and why the justification being floated about the “equal time” rule doesn't hold up. Cuomo walks through the history of the 1934 Communications Act, the Mayflower Doctrine, and the Fairness Doctrine to explain what the FCC actually regulates — and what it doesn't. He argues that CBS did not have to preempt the interview to comply with the law, and questions whether this move was about legal risk or political pressure. The deeper issue, Cuomo says, isn't just one guest or one late-night show. It's how corporate media, government influence, and outdated regulations intersect — and why social media platforms operate with fewer guardrails than broadcast ever did. More speech, not less, is the answer, but only if it's applied consistently. Join The Chris Cuomo Project on YouTube for ad-free episodes, early releases, exclusive access to Chris, and more: https://www.youtube.com/@chriscuomo/join Follow and subscribe to The Chris Cuomo Project on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube for new episodes every Tuesday and Thursday: https://linktr.ee/cuomoproject Get 15% off OneSkin with code cuomo at https://www.oneskin.co/cuomo. #oneskinpod Head to https://factormeals.com/cuomo50off and use code cuomo50off to get 50 percent off and free breakfast for a year. Eat like a pro this month with Factor. Reverse hair loss with iRestore and get exclusive savings on the iRestore Elite—use code CUOMO at https://irestore.com/cuomo! #irestorepod Go to https://Leesa.com for 30% off mattresses PLUS get an extra $50 off with promo code CUOMO, exclusive for my listeners. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Click On Picture To See Larger PictureThe world is continually paying the [CB]s more and more of their hard earned labor. In Germany the people are taxed 42%, almost half of their income. Fed inflation indicator reports no inflation, Truinflation reports inflation is at 1.2%.BoA and Citibank are in talks to offer 10% credit card. Trump says US will the crypto capital of the world. Globalism/[CB] system has failed, the power will return to the people. The patriots are sending a message, DOJ 2.0 is not like DOJ 1.0, same with the FBI, you commit a crime you will be arrested. The message is clear, the protection from these agencies are gone. Bondi arrest the Church rioters. Trump’s message at DAVOS is clear, the [DS] power and agenda is no more. Trump is now in control and the world will begin to move in a different direction, either you are on board or you will be left behind. The power belongs to the people.   Economy https://twitter.com/WallStreetMav/status/2014289396112011443?s=20 (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); Fed’s Favorite Inflation Indicator Refuses To Show Any Signs Of Runaway ‘Trump Tariff’ Costs The Fed’s favorite inflation indicator – Core PCE – rose 0.2% MoM (as expected), which leave it up 2.8% YoY (as expected), slightly lower than September’s +2.9%…   Bear in mind that this morning’s third look at Q3 GDP printed a +2.9% YoY for Core PCE. Under the hood, the biggest driver of Core PCE remains Services costs – not tariff-driven Goods prices…   In fact, on a MoM basis, Non-durable goods prices saw deflation for the second month in a row…   Source: zerohedge.com https://twitter.com/truflation/status/2014322072286302619?s=20 – Food – mostly Eggs – Household durables – particularly housekeeping supplies – Alcohol & tobacco – mostly alcoholic beverages Our number is derived by aggregating millions of real-time price data points every day to calculate a year-over-year CPI % rate. It is comparable but not identical to the survey-based official headline inflation released monthly by the BLS, which was 2.7% for December. Bank Of America, Citigroup May Launch Credit Cards With 10% Rate Two weeks after Trump shocked the world by demanding lenders cap credit card interest rates at 10% for one year, Bank of America and Citigroup are exploring options to do just that in an attempt to placate the president.  Bloomberg reports that both banks are mulling offering cards with a 10% rate cap as one potential solution.  Earlier this week, Trump said he would ask Congress to implement the proposal, giving the financial firms more clarity about what exact path he's pursuing. Bank executives have repeatedly decried the uniform cap, saying it'll cause lenders to have to pull credit lines for consumers.  Source: zerohedge.com Trump sues JPMorgan Chase and CEO Jamie Dimon for $5B over alleged ‘political’ debanking The lawsuit claims JPMorgan’s decision ‘came about as a result of political and social motivations’ to ‘distance itself’ Trump and his ‘conservative political views’  President Donald Trump is suing JPMorgan Chase and its CEO Jamie Dimon in a $5 billion lawsuit filed Thursday, accusing the financial institution of debanking him for political reasons. The president's attorney, Alejandro Brito, filed the lawsuit Thursday morning in Florida state court in Miami on behalf of the president and several of his hospitality companies.  “ Source: foxnews.com https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/2013984082640658888?s=20  WEF Finance/Banking Panel – If Independent National Economies Continue Rising, Global Trade Drops and We Lose Control Globalism in its economic construct is a series of dependencies. If those dependencies are severed, if each country has the ability to feed, produce and innovate independently, then the entire dependency model around globalism collapses. Within the globalism model that was historically created there was a group of people, western nations, banks, finance and various government leaders, who controlled the organization and rules of the trade dependencies.  The action being taken for self-sufficiency, in combination with the approach promoted by President Trump that each nation state should generate their own needs, then the rules-based order that has existed for global trade will collapse. If nations are no longer dependent, they become sovereign – able to exist without the need for support from other nations and systems. If nations are indeed sovereign, then globalism is no longer needed and a threat of the unknown rises. How will nations engage with each other if there is no governing body of western elites to make the rules for engagement?  The need for control is a reaction to fear, and it is the fear of self-reliance that permeates the elitist class within the control structures.   If each nation of the world is operating according to its individual best interests, the position of Donald Trump, then what happens to the governing elite who set up the system of interdependencies. This is the core of their fear. If each nation can suddenly grow tea, what happens to the East India Tea Company.  Who then sets the price for the tea, and worse still an entire distribution system (ships, ports, exchanges, banks, etc.) becomes functionally obsolescent. Source: theconservativetreehouse.com  Political/Rights TWO-TIERED JUSTICE: Conservative Journalist Kaitlin Bennett Charged and Fined for Interviewing Democrats in Public — While Don Lemon Storms Churches With Zero Consequences The United States now operates under a blatantly two-tiered justice system, where conservative journalists are criminally charged for speech in public spaces, while left-wing media figures face zero consequences for harassing Americans and disrupting religious services. Conservative journalist Kaitlin Bennett revealed this week that she was charged with a federal crime and fined by the National Park Service in St. Augustine for the so-called offense of asking Democrats questions on public property. According to Bennett, federal agents targeted her while she was conducting on-the-street interviews, a form of journalism protected by the First Amendment. Despite being on public land, Bennett says she was cited and punished simply for engaging in political speech that the Left finds inconvenient. Bennett addressed the incident directly in a post on X, writing: https://twitter.com/KaitMarieox/status/2014174254799958148?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2014174254799958148%7Ctwgr%5Ef4a6650cd0c60d38edfea018c5665c2cc2fe5199%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2026%2F01%2Ftwo-tier-justice-conservative-journalist-kaitlin-bennett-charged%2F When asked by another local journalist exactly what “lawful order” Bennett had disobeyed, the ranger reportedly could not provide a straight answer. WATCH: Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/DHSgov/status/2014322865848406370?s=20   Alexander Conejo Arias, fled on foot—abandoning his child. For the child's safety, one of our ICE officers remained with the child while the other officers apprehended Conejo Arias.   Parents are asked if they want to be removed with their children, or ICE will place the children with a safe person the parent designates. This is consistent with past administration's immigration enforcement. Parents can take control of their departure and receive a free flight and $2,600 with the CBP Home app. By using the CBP Home app illegal aliens reserve the chance to come back the right legal way. https://twitter.com/DHSgov/status/2014049440911303019?s=20   inflicting corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant. An immigration judge issued him a final order of removal in 2019. In a dangerous attempt to evade arrest, this criminal illegal alien weaponized his vehicle and rammed law enforcement. Fearing for his life and safety, an agent fired defensive shots. The criminal illegal alien was not hit and attempted to flee on foot. He was successfully apprehended by law enforcement. The illegal alien was not injured, but a CBP officer was injured.  These dangerous attempts to evade arrest have surged since sanctuary politicians, including Governor Newsom, have encouraged illegal aliens to evade arrest and provided guides advising illegal aliens how to recognize ICE, block entry, and defy arrest. Our officers are now facing a 3,200% increase in vehicle attacks. This situation is evolving, and more information is forthcoming.   https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/2014063905413177637?s=20  CNN Panelist Issues Retraction and Apology After Going Too Far in On-Air Trump Attack    footage of CNN's “Newsnight with Abby Phillip” was posted to social media platform X featuring 25-year-old leftist activist Cameron Kasky alongside panel mainstay Scott Jennings. A moment between the two went viral when Kasky casually declared that President Donald Trump had been involved in an international sex trafficking ring. Jennings wasn't going to let that remark go unchallenged by host John Berman. The topic of conversation had been Trump's interest in Greenland and the Nobel Peace Prize, but Kasky threw in a jab at Trump with an allusion to the president's relationship with the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein — an allusion Kasky's now trying to walk back. “I would love it if he was more transparent about the human sex trafficking network that he was a part of, but you can't win 'em all,” he blurted out. https://twitter.com/overton_news/status/2013455047288377517?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2013455047288377517%7Ctwgr%5E20edbbd712c7076d1aafdac2d1e39d7eb8307263%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2026%2F01%2Fcnn-panelist-issues-retraction-apology-going-far-air%2F   Berman asked Jennings a follow-up question about Greenland, but instead of addressing that, Jennings circled back to Kasky's remark. “You're gonna let that sit?” Jennings asked Berman. “Are we going to claim here on CNN that the president is part of a global sex trafficking ring or …?” After assuring Jennings that he would do the fact-checking, Berman asked Kasky to repeat what he'd said about the global sex-trafficking ring. “That Donald Trump was … probably … very involved with it,” the arrogant young man replied, with perhaps a touch less confidence. To Berman's credit, and the CNN legal team's, he immediately said, “Donald Trump has never been charged with any crimes in relation to Jeffrey Epstein.” https://twitter.com/camkasky/status/2013760245298864477?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2013760245298864477%7Ctwgr%5E20edbbd712c7076d1aafdac2d1e39d7eb8307263%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2026%2F01%2Fcnn-panelist-issues-retraction-apology-going-far-air%2F Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/2014189561002291385?s=20 DOGE Geopolitical https://twitter.com/brentdsadler/status/2014311942119137584?s=20  important as these agreements cover the entirety of the Chagos group of islands/features. Critical as future third party presence in those areas proximate Diego Garcia could in practical terms render those U.S. military facilities operationally impractical (ie useless). The current deal under consideration in the UK parliament in a rushed vote as soon as 2 February is ill advised. And it likely would break the decades long understanding with the U.S. government. See: Active U.S. treaties: https://state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Treaties-in-Force-2025-FINAL.pdf 1966 Foundational Understanding: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20603/volume-603-I-8737-English.pdf 1972 Understanding regarding new facilities on Diego Garcia: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20866/volume-866-I-8737-English.pdf 1976 Understanding and concurrence on new communications facilities on Diego Garcia and references as foundational the 1966 Understanding: https://treaties.fcdo.gov.uk/data/Library2/pdf/1976-TS0019.pdf?utm_source https://twitter.com/HansMahncke/status/2014150131247874267?s=20 The EU-Mercosur deal is a major free trade agreement between the European Union and the Mercosur bloc (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay). Negotiated for over 25 years, it aims to create one of the world’s largest free trade zones, covering more than 700 million people and reducing tariffs on goods like cars, machinery, pharmaceuticals, and agricultural products.  It includes commitments on sustainability, labor rights, and environmental protections, but critics argue these are insufficient to address issues like Amazon deforestation and unfair competition for European farmers. The agreement was politically finalized in 2019 but faced delays due to environmental concerns and opposition from countries like France and Austria. It was formally signed on January 17, 2026, after EU member states (with a qualified majority, despite opposition from five countries including France) greenlit it on January 9.  The Stupidity of Davos Explained Using an Example of Their Own Creation China is manufacturing a product to create a carbon credit certificate in response to the demand for carbon credits from all the world auto-makers.  Any nation that has a penalty or fine attached to their climate goals is a customer. Those are nations with fines or quotas associated with the production of gasoline powered engines if the auto company doesn't hit the legislated target for sales of electric vehicles. In essence, EU/AU/CA/RU/ASEAN car companies buy Chinese car company carbon credits, to avoid the EU/AU/CA/RU/ASEAN fines.  The Chinese then use the carbon credit revenue to subsidize even lower priced Chinese EVs to the EU/AU/CA/RU/ASEAN car markets, thereby undercutting the EU/AU/CA/RU/ASEAN car companies that also produce EVs. China brilliantly exploits the ridiculous pontificating climate scam and has an interest in perpetuating -even emphasizing- the need for the EU/AU/RU/ASEAN countries to keep pushing their climate agenda.  China even goes so far as to fund alarmism research about climate change because they are making money selling carbon credit certificates on the back end of the scam to the western fear mongers.  This is friggin' brilliant.   The climate change alarmists are helping China's economy by pushing ever escalating fear of climate change.  You just cannot make this stuff up. What does the outcome look like? Well, in this example we see hundreds of thousands of unsold BYDs piling up in countries that emphasize climate regulations with no restrictions on the import of EVs (which most don't even manufacture), which is almost every country.  Big Panda doesn't care about the car itself; they care about generating the carbon credit certificate to sell in the various carbon exchanges. Put this context to the recent announcement by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney about his new trade deal with China to accept 49,000 EVs this year. Prime Minister Carney bragged about getting the Chinese to agree to only super low prices for the Canadian market.  Mark Carney was very proud of his accomplishment to get much lower priced vehicles for Canadian EV purchasers.   No doubt Big Panda left the room laughing as soon as Carney made his grand announcement. 1. China sells EV's in Canada, creating credits available on the carbon exchange scheme. Europe et al will purchase the carbon credits because Bussels has fines against EU car companies. 2. With a foothold already established in Europe, China will then take the money generated by the carbon credit purchases and lower the prices of the Chinese EV cars sold in Canada. It's gets funnier. 3. Carney bragged about forcing China to only sell low price EV's as part of the trade agreement. The low price of the EV's in Canada will be subsidized by Europe. China doesn't pay or lose a dime. But wait…. 4. Carney can't do anything about the scheme he has just enmeshed Canada into, because Canada has a Carbon Credit exchange in law.

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.” Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

(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

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

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.

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.