House Government Appropriations Bill Would Bar FTC & FCC From Doing Anything Related To Trump's Inane Anti-230 Executive Order
from the congress-makes-the-laws,-folks dept
It's appropriations season (isn't it always?), and as the House Appropriations Committee digs into the various ways in which it funds the government a friendly little birdie pointed me to a fun little tidbit buried in the House's Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill for 2021:
If you can't read that it says:
The Committee includes a new provision prohibiting the Federal Trade Commission or Federal Communications Commission from taking certain actions related to Executive Order 13925 of May 28, 2020
And just what is Executive Order 13925? Why it's Donald Trump's inane anti-Section 230 Executive Order that, among other things, tries to order two independent agencies -- the FTC and the FCC -- to take certain actions regarding a made up, nonsensical interpretation of Section 230.
Of course, as we've pointed out, the President doesn't get to change the law all by himself -- and that includes the interpretation of the laws. And he's also not supposed to direct independent agencies like the FCC and the FTC to do things he wants them to do (hence the "independent" part of "independent agencies.") Congress writes the laws. Congress gets to handle what the FCC and FTC have authority over. And, at least on the House side, they don't think that either the FCC or the FTC should be doing anything at all regarding Section 230.
Now, it's unlikely this little tidbit survives to the final appropriations bill, but it is a little bit of a slap pointed at the White House for its weird nonsensical (and totally misguided) obsession with reinterpreting Section 230.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: appropriations, content moderation, donald trump, executive order, fcc, ftc, section 230
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Serious question
Why do we even bother looking at what comes out of the House? If the thing passes, it won't look anything like it does now. Most likely won't pass at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Serious question
Because knowing what a bill started as allows you to point out where and how it was changed, noting who was involved in that change and what they did to make it worse?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Three lines above that interesting bit is this:
Section 634. The Committee includes a new provision preventing use of funds to enter into any contract, grant, or cooperative agree-ment with any entity in which the President or Vice President, or their family members, owns, controls, or holds a significant equity interest.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Serious question
Appropriation bills tend to pass, and get signed by the President. Whether this particular provision makes it to the end is the real question. There is also the thought that Trump may no longer have the support in Congress he once had.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The fact that that even needs to be fucking spelled out...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Serious question
Eh, if the republicans were going to bail on him they'd have done it well before now, I suspect that they'll back him no matter what until he's out of office at which point they'll collectively pretend that he was never really part of their party.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
…is a result of the GOP letting the Trump administration get away with practically anything that isn’t Trump shooting someone on 5th Avenue (and they might even let that pass).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
'Self defense, they might have possible been armed!'
I have no doubt at this point that they would find some excuse for even that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Serious question
Are you suggesting that politicians might be two-faced, self aggrandizing, self serving pieces of lying fecal matter? If so, well put.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Serious question
Well, for starters, literally every single person serving in the House is up for reelection in November, and it might be worthwhile to consider how they vote in determining whether you want to vote for them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
'Congress writes the laws. Congress gets to handle what the FCC and FTC have authority over.'
And look what a glorified fuck up they've made of it so far!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Left Goes Right
Inane or not at least it's an attempt at taking back the Commons. It's just so odd that you would champion fascism and book burning. Almost as odd as seeing the Dems do their best to support their tech totalitarian masters.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
…fucking what
[ link to this | view in thread ]
... cool story bro.
Truly the world you live in seems to be a terrible and terrifying one, thankfully it's not the real one or things would be truly bad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So you don't support DACA...
Interesting...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Now I may be wrong, but it seems to me that DACA is neither law nor the interpretation of law. It is a choice on how and whether to enforce the law. I.e. it is an administrative decision and administration is the responsibility of, let me see, ah yes, the executive branch.
Move along folks, nothing to see here...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The Left Goes Right
[Projects facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
About BLOG
Hi , Just wanted to say thanks for this fantastic article.
Website: http://btmaills.com
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDNmLPATW0s
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Trump: Demands that the first amendment be trampled to promote the speech of his bigoted, abusive base over the free market of ideas and the rights of others.
Trump: adding another notch in his Totalitarianism belt by fascistically demanding that covid data be hidden, to make it easier for him to commit mass murder solely for perceived political gain.
Shitwits: "No, it's totally the Dems that are totalitarian fascists, because *crickets*."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Didn't the Supreme Court just tell Trump he couldn't end DACA?
But I thought DACA was created by Executive Fiat and thus if it was to be ended by Executive Fiat, then the Judicial Branch should have no part in it since, well...
DACA isn't a law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
That's about the best summary so far. I didn't really believe there could be someone sufficiently dimwitted to exceed Baghdad Bob/Hamilton in reversing cause and effect. But there he is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]