SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
federal communications commission
Trump Taps Project 2025 Co-Author Who Cozied Up to Musk to Lead FCC
"For more than a year now Carr has been auditioning for this job," said one critic. "His groveling is now being rewarded with a promotion, and it's the American public who will pay a heavy price."
Nov 18, 2024
U.S. President-elect Donald Trump claimed on Sunday that his nomination of Brendan Carr to chair the Federal Communications Commission would elevate "a warrior for free speech," but one veteran journalist warned the selection of Carr is a "key step in Trump's assault on the free press," while others expressed concerns about the future of net neutrality and censorship on social media platforms.
A portion of Project 2025—the far-right policy document that Trump repeatedly said he had nothing to do with—was authored by Carr, who has been an FCC commissioner since 2017.
Carr wrote in Project 2025 about "reining in Big Tech" and called for Section 230 of the Communication Act to be limited in order to stop what conservatives have called discrimination against right-wing views by Facebook, Google, and other Silicon Valley giants. Carr was the only current government official to co-author Project 2025.
Section 230 affirms that online platforms are not the "publishers" of users' content and are permitted to use content moderation "in good faith" as they see fit, to limit content that is violent, bigoted, or otherwise objectionable.
The U.S. Supreme Court this year affirmed in Netchoice v. Paxton that content moderation is protected by the First Amendment, but both Carr and Trump have decried Section 230 as censoring conservative views.
"When people tell you what they plan to do, you should believe them. Brendan Carr has clearly stated that he plans to attack Section 230 and force online platforms to carry sludge," said Adam Kovacevich, founder and CEO of progressive tech coaltion Chamber of Progress. "That's why Democrats need to defend Section 230, which protects content moderation and keeps the Internet from becoming a cesspool."
Last week, Carr wrote to tech companies including Google, Meta, Microsoft, and Apple, accusing them of silencing conservatives by partnering with NewsGuard, which rates the credibility of news websites, and calling the companies a "censorship cartel."
As an FCC commissioner, said City University of New York journalism professor Jeff Jarvis, Carr "is already trying to force platforms to carry right-wing propaganda."
Meanwhile this is terrible news for the internet and freedom of expression. Carr is already trying to force platforms to carry right-wing propaganda. Compelled speech is not free speech. Trump picks Brendan Carr as FCC chairman www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2...
[image or embed]
— Jeff (Gutenberg Parenthesis) Jarvis (@jeffjarvis.bsky.social) November 18, 2024 at 7:20 AM
Carr also called for social media platform TikTok to be banned in the U.S. if it does not cut ties with its China-based parent company, ByteDance.
TikTok sued the U.S. government earlier this year over the Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversaries Act, which threatens the company with a ban unless ByteDance sells the platform.
Supporters of net neutrality rules, the Obama-era regulations that stop internet service providers from blocking or throttling content and creating "fast lanes" for web companies that pay a fee, condemned Carr's nomination, saying the commissioner will "kill" the regulations that the Biden FCC has worked to revive.
"He's committed to ending net neutrality and undermining the FCC's ability to hold accountable companies like AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon for abusing internet users," said Craig Aaron, co-CEO of public advocacy group Free Press.
Carr's nomination was announced two weeks after the commissioner claimed on social media that Vice President Kamala Harris' appearance on NBC's "Saturday Night Live" was "a clear and blatant effort to evade the FCC's Equal Time rule."
The FCC's equal time guidelines do not require networks to "provide opposing candidates with programs identical to the initiating candidate." A spokesperson for the commission said in a statement after Carr's complaint that "the FCC has not made any determination regarding political programming rules."
The FCC is barred from punishing TV networks for their editorial decisions in most cases, but with Trump having called on the commission to strip companies like NBC and CBS of their licenses because of what he views as unfair coverage of him, advocates expressed concern that Carr could use his position to pressure and threaten networks.
"Be wary of any reporting that regurgitates Trump's claim that Brendan Carr is a 'warrior for Free Speech,'" said Tim Karr, senior director of strategy and communications for Free Press. "He's actually the opposite, willing to use the FCC to go after TV broadcasters that are 'unfair' to Trump, or to punish fact-checkers, like NewsGuard, that vet Trump's many false claims."
Carr has aligned himself with billionaire Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, who spent nearly $120 million to support Trump's presidential campaign. The commissioner dissented in 2022 when the FCC revoked an $885 million grant that had been given to Starlink, Musk's satellite internet provider; the Democratic-led FCC said Starlink didn't meet the requirements for the commission's Digital Rural Opportunity Fund.
"Carr wants to use his perch to funnel money to companies run by Trump cronies like Elon Musk, while punishing opponents by increasing their fees or ending subsidies and contracts," said Evan Greer, director of Fight for the Future. "In short, Carr plans to use the full weight of the FCC to help billionaires and authoritarians while abandoning the agency's actual mission of protecting the public interest."
Carr, said Aaron, "has been campaigning for this job with promises to do the bidding of Donald Trump and Elon Musk," and "got this job because he will carry out Trump and Musk's personal vendettas."
"While styling himself as a free-speech champion, Carr refused to stand up when Trump threatened to take away the broadcast licenses of TV stations for daring to fact check him during the campaign," said Aaron. "This alone should be disqualifying. The public needs a watchdog looking out for them at this independent agency, not an attack dog for Trump and Musk."
"His close relationships with far-right zealots and his craven cozying up to the CEOs he's supposed to be regulating tell you everything about the kind of FCC chairman he will be," he added. "For more than a year now Carr has been auditioning for this job, desperate to gain Trump's attention and show how he's willing to bend the rules and twist the law to serve this administration. His groveling is now being rewarded with a promotion, and it's the American public who will pay a heavy price."
Keep ReadingShow Less
FCC Chair Rebukes DeSantis-Run Florida for Threatening TV Station Over Abortion Ad
Another critic said that "this is the latest proof that there is no limit to how low DeSantis will stoop to censor free speech and punish dissent."
Oct 09, 2024
Federal Communications Commission Chair Jessica Rosenworcel on Tuesday called out a Florida agency for threatening a Tampa NBC affiliate with prosecution for airing an advertisement in support of a state abortion rights proposal on the November ballot.
"The right of broadcasters to speak freely is rooted in the First Amendment," Rosenworcel said in a statement. "Threats against broadcast stations for airing content that conflicts with the government's views are dangerous and undermine the fundamental principle of free speech."
Floridians Protecting Freedom's ad is designed to build support for Amendment 4, which if approved by voters next month would alter the Florida Constitution to outlaw pre-viability prohibitions on abortion care, including Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis' six-week ban, which took effect earlier this year and has already been shown to harm patients.
The 30-second ad features a Tampa resident who was diagnosed with brain cancer while pregnant. Caroline, who already had one child at the time, says that "the doctors knew if I did not end my pregnancy, I would lose my baby, I would lose my life, and my daughter would lose her mom."
"Florida has now banned abortion even in cases like mine," explains Caroline, who received abortion care in 2020, before the U.S. Supreme Court reversedRoe v. Wade and enabled bans like the one signed by DeSantis. "Amendment 4 is gonna protect women like me. We have to vote yes."
Florida journalist Jason Garcia revealed Monday that last week, John Wilson, general counsel at the state Department of Health (DOH), wrote to WFLA-TV vice president and general manager Mark Higgins, claiming that the ad contains information that is "categorically false" and constitutes a "sanitary nuisance," which could lead to criminal proceedings if it is not removed.
As HuffPostreported Tuesday:
It's unclear if the agency only sent the letter to the NBC affiliate, or to others as well. Either way, a threat like this could have a chilling effect on publicly advocating for the pro-choice measure, just weeks away from when it will be in front of voters. Florida's Department of Health did not respond to HuffPost's request for comment.
The sanitary nuisance law is meant to curb conditions that can threaten or impair Floridians' health. It normally pertains to issues like overflowing septic tanks and problematic garbage disposals.
Attorneys for Floridians Protecting Freedom swiftly sent a letter to WFLA leaders, arguing that the DOH interjection "raises serious First Amendment concerns—indeed, it reflects an unconstitutional attempt to coerce the station into censoring protected speech," and "the advertisement is true."
The DOH letter "vaguely outlines the limited instances where abortions are allowed in Florida but fails to provide any evidence showing that Caroline's statements are false," the lawyers wrote. "Caroline was diagnosed with stage four brain cancer when she was 20 weeks pregnant; the diagnosis was terminal."
Florida's ban has limited exceptions for abortions after six weeks—before many people even know they are pregnant. In cases of rape and incest, patients can receive care up to 15 weeks, if they can manage the burdensome paperwork. Abortions to protect the health or life of a pregnant person require two physicians to assert in writing that such care is necessary.
"The only instances where the Agency for Health Care Administration has provided guidance that abortions are permitted after six-weeks' gestation are when there is an immediate threat to the pregnant person's life," the lawyers noted. "Caroline's diagnosis was terminal. Practically, that means that an abortion would not have saved her life, only extended it. Florida law would not allow an abortion in this instance."
The group of attorneys is far from alone in criticizing the Florida DOH's attempt to get the ad off the air. Aaron Terr, director of public advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), toldPopular Information that the department's letter stretches "the meaning of sanitary nuisance beyond recognition."
"Terr told Popular Information that even if the ad was false and violated Florida's sanitary nuisance law, the enforcement of the law against a political ad would be unconstitutional," the outlet added. "Terr notes that the First Amendment contains 'no general exception for false speech or misinformation, and that's because of the danger of the government having a general power to dictate what is true or false, especially when it comes to political speech.'"
As Slate's Mark Joseph Stern reported Monday:
Rebecca Tushnet, a professor at Harvard Law School and a First Amendment specialist, told me that the DeSantis administration's threat is "about as blatant a violation of the First Amendment as you'll see."
Jennifer Safstrom, director of the First Amendment Clinic at Vanderbilt Law School, condemned the administration's letter as an unconstitutional "weaponization of state law to suppress speech" that's "designed to have a chilling effect on advocates during a time critical to voter outreach." Alexander Tsesis, a professor at the Florida State University College of Law, said it seemed "absurd to threaten prosecution," and pointed out that stations' own "editorial decisions" are protected by the First Amendment. Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, a professor at Stetson Law, called the incident yet another episode in DeSantis' "long recent history of violating the First Amendment with abandon."
Seth Stern, director of advocacy of Freedom of the Press Foundation, similarly said in a Wednesday statement that "this is the latest proof that there is no limit to how low DeSantis will stoop to censor free speech and punish dissent."
"It comes on the heels of his efforts to rewrite defamation law to make it easier for the rich and powerful to bankrupt their critics, his Stop WOKE Act stunt, and other similarly unconstitutional nonsense," Stern noted. "A governor who is confident in his policies and secure in his leadership would welcome debate and correct statements he believes are misleading rather than trying to weaponize trash disposal laws against the free press."
"But DeSantis is not that governor. His administration's conduct would be silly if it weren't such a transparent bully tactic," he added. "Floridians care about the First Amendment, which is why DeSantis' outrageous censorship campaigns keep failing. We hope the news outlets he targets will not only ignore him but loudly shame him."
The governor has come under fire for various actions throughout the fight for Amendment 4. As Garcia highlighted on social media, while targeting Caroline's ad, "the DeSantis administration is running taxpayer-funded television commercials attacking Amendment 4 on ESPN, CNN, Fox News, The Weather Channel, and more."
The ads are part of what the ACLU of Florida has called an "unconstitutional misinformation campaign," which also includes a government website. Additionally, as Common Dreamsreported last month, multiple state residents have had law enforcement come to their homes to confirm that they signed the petition to get Amendment 4 on the ballot.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Spineless': Democracy Watchdog Condemns FEC Refusal to Act on Election Deepfakes
"We need a clear FEC rule in place to deter fast-proliferating political deepfakes, which threaten electoral integrity and people's basic faith that what they see and hear is real—but the agency has utterly failed to deliver."
Sep 19, 2024
The Federal Election Commission on Thursday voted to forgo new rulemaking on the use of artificial intelligence in U.S. political campaign advertising, drawing sharp criticism from a watchdog group that said deepfakes threaten electoral integrity.
Public Citizen, the watchdog group, had last year petitioned the FEC to issue regulations clarifying that the use of deepfakes in political ads is illegal. The commission on Thursday formally declined to do so and instead voted in favor an anodyne "compromise" rule that states that artificial intelligence is subject to current regulations.
Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, said "compromise" was a "misnomer" and the FEC's position was in fact "compromised."
"We need a clear FEC rule in place to deter fast-proliferating political deepfakes, which threaten electoral integrity and people's basic faith that what they see and hear is real—but the agency has utterly failed to deliver," he said in a statement.
Fellow co-president Lisa Gilbert agreed, saying that "the threat of deepfakes is staring us in the face and unfortunately our elections agency has chosen to look the other way," and calling the decision "spineless and shameful."
It is OUTRAGEOUS that the FEC has not taken action to protect the upcoming election from political deepfakes.
Listen to @Rob_Weissman explain the threat AI-generated deepfakes pose to our democracy. pic.twitter.com/RCHWxKIMgy
— Public Citizen (@Public_Citizen) September 9, 2024
There are six FEC commissioners, including three from each major party, with a rotating chairmanship. Democrats have criticized the structure in recent years, arguing that Republican commissioners block meaningful regulations—four votes are needed to pass any rule—and have made the FEC toothless. They argue that a strong FEC is more necessary than ever given the massive increase in spending on U.S. elections that's occurred since the Citizens United ruling was issued in 2010.
For Public Citizen's petition, however, the problem was not just the Republican commissioners. Two Democratic commissioners, Dara Lindenbaum and Shana Broussard, declined to support the petition and instead helped craft the anodyne interpretative rule.
Democratic Commissioner Ellen Weintraub, the current vice chair, supported the petition and has commended an ongoing effort by the Federal Communications Commission to regulate AI use in political advertising. The FCC has proposed requiring a disclosure when AI has been used in the making of an ad, drawing praise from watchdog groups such as Public Citizen. The two federal agencies have sparred over the FCC's proposal.
Republican FEC members spoke out strongly against the Public Citizen petition at an open meeting Thursday, arguing that the commission had neither the authority nor the expertise to regulate an emerging technology. Current Chair Sean Cooksey published an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal last month titled "The FEC Has No Business Regulating AI." He issued a 10-page statement on his opposition to the petition on Thursday.
If Congress hasn't yet granted the FEC such authority—a matter of interpretation of the law, which dates to the 1970s—it's possible that it could do so, as there is some level of bipartisan support for legislation on deepfakes. Multiple bipartisan bills have been introduced to prevent the use of AI in political ads, including one brought forth this week by Reps. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), among others.
Schiff toldThe Associated Press the bill was "modest" and "really probably the lowest hanging fruit there is" in addressing AI misuse in politics. He and Fitzpatrick acknowledged their bill was a long-shot but said they would try to attach it to must-pass legislation later in the year.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular