Biden Revokes Trump's Silly Executive Order On Section 230; But It Already Did Its Damage

from the too-late dept

It's better than nothing -- especially given that Biden has been so vocal against Section 230 -- but last week, Biden rescinded Trump's ridiculous executive order about Section 230. As you may recall, almost exactly a year ago, Trump issued an absolutely insane executive order demanding the FCC reinterpret Section 230. As we noted at the time, this made no sense, as 230 was written with the explicit admonition that the point was to keep the FCC out of the business of regulating the internet.

At any point in the process, those involved in the federal government could have stood up to Trump and said that everything about the executive order was a joke and ridiculous. But, nope, that's not how things work apparently. NTIA, which was in the process of being handed over to a lawyer whose mission in life seems to be to lie about and destroy Section 230 (partly to favor his white nationalist clients), followed through on Trump's demands, and petitioned the FCC to reinterpret Section 230.

Then, Ajit Pai had every opportunity to do the right thing and say that this was way outside of the FCC's jurisdiction -- as he had years earlier before Trump even knew what Section 230 was. Instead, he let the charade play on, wasted everyone's time and energy in needing to explain to Pai why the FCC had no authority... and then ignored all of the legal precedent and every ounce of whatever principles he supposedly had, and agreed to do a rulemaking on 230. Of course, what might have suddenly drained Pai of any basic decency was the fact that when his colleague Michael O'Rielly actually spoke the truth, Trump fired him. O'Rielly came out of this nonsense with principles, while Pai came out of it looking like a Trump lapdog with no principles whatsoever.

Pai only finally ditched the idea right after January 6th when everyone was focused on the insurrection on Capitol Hill, and he realized that he could dispose of the news while Trump's attention was elsewhere.

Still, the whole thing was a huge waste of time, and has completely polluted the dialogue about Section 230 with utter nonsense. It's good that Biden rescinded the order, though it was way too late. Meanwhile, the author of the original executive order, Nathan Simington... got O'Rielly's vacant seat on the FCC, guaranteeing that the two Republicans on the Committee are now anti-1st Amendment, anti-Section 230.

Trump didn't end up getting the FCC to issue a reinterpretation of Section 230, but he still did a ton of damage to the dialogue around Section 230, with tremendous help from Adam Candeub, Nathan Simington, and Ajit Pai.

Filed Under: adam candeub, ajit pai, donald trump, fcc, joe biden, nathan simington, nist, section 230

Americans For Prosperity Sue Commerce Department To Find Out Who Was Influencing NTIA's Attack On Section 230

from the interesting-list dept

This is kind of fascinating. The group Americans for Prosperity have announced they've filed FOIA litigation against the Commerce Department after it has refused to respond to a FOIA request seeking communications between two former top NTIA officials that we've discussed here recently, regarding Section 230.

As background, you'll recall that after Twitter added two fact checks on Donald Trump's misleading tweets about mail-in ballots, Trump issued a bizarre executive order, demanding that (among other things) NTIA ask the FCC to reinterpret Section 230. Trump needed to order NTIA to do this because the FCC is supposed to be an independent agency and the President isn't supposed to order it to do anything. Indeed, as you'll recall, when Barrack Obama merely made a public statement about net neutrality, without directing the FCC to do anything, basically every Republican, including Donald Trump, whined that he was illegally trying to "bully' the FCC to do his bidding.

It quickly came out that two NTIA staffers were responsible for crafting the Executive Order: Adam Candeub, a long term critic of Section 230 who had just been hired to NTIA, and Nathan Simington. Candeub was later promoted to run NTIA and just this week was given a top job in the Justice Department. Simington, despite little qualifying experience, has been made an FCC Commissioner.

This was despite a separate FOIA request that revealed that Candeub and Simington, together, had emailed with a Fox News producer, asking to get Fox News host Laura Ingraham to attack Section 230 to help move the NTIA petition forward, and noting that it was important to do so to help re-elect Trump and help with down-ballot Republicans. This, of course, should be disqualifying for either of them to hold government jobs. When you get a job in the government you represent everyone and not just your own political party. You are not supposed to be using your government job to bully the media to do things for purely political reasons.

Given that, there should be tremendous interest in just who Candeub and Simington were talking to about Section 230. And Americans for Prosperity sent a FOIA request seeking exactly that information, asking for any emails between the two of them about Section 230 with a short list of known anti-Section 230 folks, including former Fox lobbyist (and the person responsible for getting FOSTA passed), Rick Lane, anti-230 FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr, AT&T (a company protected by 230, but which has decided to attack the law because it hates Google), DCI Group (a famously sketchy lobbying organization) and a bunch of others.

The full complaint details what happened:

On October 26, 2020, NTIA transmitted its first interim production, which contained 128 records in 35 electronic files. Ex. 5. Thirty-five records were withheld “in part or in their entirety,” under Exemption 5, but without identifying any relevant privilege. Id. An additional eight records were “withheld in part under Exemption 6.”

In this production, one record revealed that Mr. Candeub sent an email from a government email address to his private, gmail.com email address.

On November 10, 2020, AFPF asked NTIA whether it could email the next production and when another interim or final production could be expected.

On November 11, 2020, AFPF raised concerns that the first interim production did not include any text messages or instant messages. Id. (“These should be included in ‘all communications’ as well as e-mail, hand-written notes, etc.”).

On November 16, 2020, NTIA responded that the second interim response was prepared, but the agency required an address clarification. Ex. 8. NTIA also claimed that AFPF’s “request only specified email, it did not specify text and IM. If [AFPF] would like to request text messages and IM, [it] will need to file another FOIA request for those records.”

AFPF immediately confirmed its mailing address and noted that its initial FOIA request contained “no reference to seeking only e-mail records,” as it instead mentioned “all communications.” Id. AFPF further noted that this “matches the same language in [NTIA’s] . . . clarification confirmation e-mail from September 18 . . . . Therefore, the request covers text messages and IMs.” Id. AFPF also asked how many records were left after the second batch and when AFPF could expect to receive them.

NTIA responded that it does “not have a final count or an estimate of how many records will be responsive to [AFPF’s] request. Nor d[id it] have an estimate of when this will be completed.” Id. Additionally, NTIA attempted to justify its refusal to include records beyond e-mails in a search for “all communications” by pointing to a footnote in AFPF’s request that defines the term “record.”

On November 18, 2020, NTIA transmitted its second interim production, which contained 153 records in 39 electronic files. Ex. 9. Fifty-nine records were withheld “in part or in their entirety,” under Exemption 5, but without identifying any relevant privilege. Id. An additional twenty-five records were “withheld in part under Exemption 6.” Id. Additionally, fourteen records were referred to the Department of Justice and three to the Department of Commerce “for a direct response[.]”

On December 14, 2020, AFPF emailed NTIA noting that both Mr. Candeub and Mr. Simington will reportedly be leaving the agency. Ex. 10. Given these reports, AFPF requested “that NTIA take affirmative steps to preserve all potentially responsive records, including text message records and any private email account that may contain government records.”

To date, NTIA has not provided a final determination on AFPF’s request, nor has it released another interim or final production of responsive records.

And thus, the lawsuit for failing to comply with FOIA's requirements. As with most FOIA lawsuits, the main remedy sought is having NTIA actually cough up the records requested, as required by the law. It sure would be interesting to see what's there, and why NTIA seems unwilling to obey the law and hand over those records.

Filed Under: adam candeub, brendan carr, commerce department, donald trump, executive order, fcc, foia, nathan simington, ntia, rick lane, section 230, transparency
Companies: afp, at&t, dci

GOP Confirms Unqualified Simington to FCC With Eye On Crippling Biden FCC

from the minority-rule dept

The Senate voted 49-46 Tuesday afternoon along strict party lines to appoint Trump ally NTIA advisor Nathan Simington to the FCC. Simington is hugely unqualified, and his appointment sets another new low in the modern GOP's campaign of sleazy and blisteringly hypocritical politics at the cost of a functioning government or the public interest.

Simington has absolutely no experience in telecom issues, consumer protection, or the other complicated issues facing the FCC. He was nominated because he literally helped write Donald Trump's idiotic and dangerous attack on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and is expected to continue (at least performatively for distraction's sake) the campaign at the FCC. If you ask Trumpland, the campaign is necessary to stop "censorship" of conservatives online. In reality, that censorship doesn't exist (in fact reality indicates the opposite). The campaign is really about bullying tech giants into not policing disinformation and hate speech, now cornerstones of GOP power.

While the 230 drama will get all the press attention, Simington's appointment was rushed through primarily for another reason: to help Mitch McConnell (read: AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast) gridlock the FCC at 2-2 Commissioners for at least the next two years, preventing the reversal of hugely unpopular Trump FCC policies by the Biden FCC.

By law, the party that wins the White House controls a 3-2 majority at the FCC, and gets to appoint the agency boss. But back in August Trump fired Republican FCC Commissioner Mike O'Rielly for some pretty timid comments (correctly) suggesting Trump's planned attack on social media didn't make much sense. With both O'Rielly and Ajit Pai leaving the agency on January 20, that left the FCC with a 2-1 Democratic majority in the new year. So despite the FCC attack on 230 now crippled with Trump's election loss, and despite Simington being an unqualified Trump sycophant, the GOP rushed the nomination through anyway, knowing he would create 2-2 agency gridlock.

Most every telecom expert and consumer advocate I've spoken to now expect the GOP, should it retain control of the Senate after the Georgia run off elections, to block the appointment of any Democratic FCC boss with a spine, ensuring that the FCC remains mired in partisan gridlock indefinitely. With Democratic FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel's term up at the end of 2021, her replacement is likely to be blocked as well, resulting in a GOP 2-1 FCC majority -- despite losing the election. Whatever representative democracy is supposed to look like, this sure as shit isn't it.

The GOP's ploy is a huge gift to telecom giants like AT&T and Comcast, which don't want the Biden administration reversing any of the Trump FCC's hugely unpopular policies, be it the attack on net neutrality, the neutering of the agency's overall consumer protection authority, or the attack on decades-old, bipartisan media consolidation rules.

Gridlocked at 2-2 or even 2-1, the Biden FCC also won't be able to pass any COVID-relief efforts that meaningfully challenges the broadband industry (the whole point), be they restrictions on arbitrary and punitive usage caps, or policies aimed at preventing ISPs from kicking struggling Americans offline for nonpayment. Angry voters will then blame the Biden FCC for the dysfunction foisted upon them by the GOP, a story you'll see playing out across numerous regulatory agencies and policy fights in the coming year as the GOP shifts from Trump sycophancy (and attacks on fundamental democracy) back to obstructionism.

With that as context, Simington's role as a Section 230 attack dog is largely going to be an afterthought and distraction. Though as TechFreedom's Berin Szoka notes, that doesn't mean he can't throw a wrench into the numerous ongoing litigation efforts related to content moderation:

Still, the primary goal here now for Mitch McConnell isn't Section 230. It's protecting the four-year ass kissing the Trump administration gave the telecom industry. An industry every bit as problematic as the "big tech" giants the GOP's faux-populist wing (Josh Hawley quickly comes to mind) exploits for political benefit. "Big telecom" has waged an incredibly successful four-year campaign exploiting the often legitimate anger at "big tech," to call for heavier regulation of the industries it wants to compete with in the ad space, while eliminating most meaningful oversight of its own highly monopolistic sector.

Now, with the GOP's help, they're hoping to keep things that way for as long as is humanly possible. In a functioning country, crippling the nation's top telecom regulator in the middle of a pandemic (one showing how affordable broadband is essential for survival) because some lobbyists told you to would be met with real consequences and scorn. Here, if the press can even be bothered to report on what telecom and the GOP are even doing, it will be met with a shrug and around thirty seconds' worth of attention span.

Filed Under: fcc, mitch mcconnell, nathan simington, net neutrality, policy, politics, section 230

With Simington Vote, The GOP And Big Telecom Maneuver To Cripple The Biden FCC

from the nice-democracy-you've-got-there dept

We've noted at length how the GOP is rushing this week to appoint Trump ally Nathan Simington to the FCC. Simington, you'll recall, wrote Trump's ridiculous executive order targeting Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the essential law that protects freedom of expression and innovation on the internet. The bumbling attack is necessary, you're told, to "fix" the social media "censorship" of Conservatives that doesn't actually exist. In other words, an unqualified appointment pushing an idiotic solution to a nonexistent problem that actually creates new, unnecessary headaches.

Simington you'll recall is slated to replace Mike O'Rielly, the Republican FCC Commissioner fired last August by Trump for some timid statements suggesting that Trump's plan wasn't a great idea (an argument supported by a massive bipartisan coalition of experts) and the FCC lacks the proper authority to enforce. O'Rielly's term is up at the end of the year, so the GOP is rushing to gain a quick Simington approval in both committee and the broader Senate. The committee vote sped through process this morning along party lines, with the GOP making nary a peep about Simington's lack of any real qualifications for the post.

Attention now shifts to a full Senate vote on Simington.

It gets lost in analysis, but the GOP is threatening Section 230 to bully social media giants into not policing disinformation and race-baiting bullshit, a cornerstone of modern party power. But given the gambit's unlikely success at the FCC in the wake of a Trump loss and Ajit Pai exit, the 230 stuff has almost become a distraction now, at least as it pertains to the FCC.

The goal for McConnell has shifted toward miring the Biden FCC in partisan gridlock to prevent it from being able to reverse unpopular Trump-era policies. Should Simington be approved, the agency would sit at two Republican and two Democratic Commissioners heading into the new year. I've spoken to several consumer groups and insiders familiar with the process who say this is the likely GOP strategy. But it was further highlighted in a letter by Grover Norquist (yes, he's still around) to Mitch McConnell.

Norquist's right wing 501(c)(4) organization, Americans for Taxpayer Reform (ATR), is a telecom-industry favorite, frequently used in policy debates to target things AT&T and Comcast don't like, from functional, adult oversight of the broadband sector, to diabolical plan by many communities to build better, faster broadband networks. Norquist's letter spells out to McConnell (who of course already knew this) that the Simington appointment would be a great way to thwart the Biden FCC from doing much of anything. Of course it's phrased in such a way to suggest Norquist and friends are only interested in genuine, good faith bipartisanship:

"Americans for Tax Reform urges you to confirm Nathan Simington to the FCC before the end of this year,” Americans for Taxpayer Reform president and conservative operative Grover Norquist wrote to McConnell. “Simington’s confirmation now would ensure a 2-2 FCC at the outset of a Biden Presidency. The FCC could continue to pursue important initiatives on a bipartisan basis, but it would be blocked from jamming through partisan initiatives—whether those involve profligate spending or an anti-growth agenda."

Of course if you've tracked the modern "own the libs" GOP for any more than thirty seconds, you already know bipartisan solutions aren't what they're interested in. Most tech policy subjects, like net neutrality or community broadband aren't partisan and have broad, bipartisan support among U.S. consumers. But the GOP, and countless industries like telecom, figured out years ago if you frame them as partisan anyway via disinformation and rightwing news outlets, you can easily drum up animosity among the misinformed, stall consensus, and thereby, derail meaningful reform or constraints on corporate power.

For telecom, Simington's appointment has several advantages. One, it appoints an unqualified sycophant to the FCC who'll spend much of his time fixated on "reining in big tech," while ignoring a parade of bad behavior by "big telecom." That's well in line for a telecom industry that has spent several years exploiting legitimate grievances about tech giants to its own tactical and regulatory advantage without most folks really understanding or noticing.

Two, the 2-2 split gives telecom and the GOP leverage to either block the appointment of a Biden FCC boss with any spine, or block the appointment of anybody whatsoever, effectively crippling the agency for at least two years. That means no reversal of the net neutrality repeal, no restoration of media consolidation rules, and probably not even any meaningful Covid policies (like barring usage caps or preventing ISPs from kicking struggling Americans offline) if they upset AT&T, Comcast, or Verizon in any meaningful way. That will create voter anger at Biden for "not doing more," a tactic you'll see played out across most regulatory agencies as the GOP shifts from mindless Trump sycophancy back to corporatist obstructionism.

Of course the GOP (and telecom) will argue that this most certainly isn't what's happening, as if the party that used dead and fake people to support shitty, unpopular FCC policies is above such tactics. But it's happening all the same. Like Americans for Tax Reform, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr is pushing the talking point (likely provided them in a .pdf by AT&T and USTelecom) that they're doing this to save the economy from harm (which is complete and total nonsense):

"FCC Republican Brendan Carr this week appeared on Fox Business and said, "It would be very valuable to get Simington across the finish line to help forestall what really would be billions of dollars worth of economic damage that I think a Democrat FCC would look to jam through from day one in January or February." (Despite Carr's claims, the Obama-era Title II regulation and net neutrality rules did not slow down investments in broadband networks, but major ISPs have cut back on network spending since the Pai-led FCC deregulated the industry and repealed the rules.)"

Whether it succeeds depends on GOP lawmakers suddenly growing a spine and voting against a terrible and unqualified Trump-chosen FCC Commissioner in the full Senate, or the Democrats finding creative and tactically-clever ways to kill or stall the vote, both of which would challenge recent historical precedent. "Crippling the nation's top telecom regulator with partisan gridlock during a public health crisis is bad" is messaging that pretty much writes itself, but most Democrats, seemingly often incapable of any creative and aggressive tactical responses to threats like this, have (with a few minor exceptions) been silent about the threat, assuming they see it coming at all.

But the ploy also hinges on the GOP being able to hold the Senate via the Georgia run off races, which is no sure bet. Either way, the modern GOP continues to show its primary party platform is to repeatedly proclaim that government can never, ever work, then set about immediately sabotaging any effort that might just test that theory. Given his very first fundraiser was held by a Comcast lobbyist, there's certainly no guarantee a Biden administration will be tough on telecom. But it's also pretty clear "big telecom" doesn't want to risk his administration appointing anybody that might just disrupt the broken status quo and reverse four straight years of anti-consumer Trump policy.

Filed Under: fcc, gridlock, joe biden, nathan simington, net neutrality, regulations, section 230

Trump's FCC Nominee Asked Fox News To Help Destroy Section 230 To Help Elect More Republicans

from the free-speech? dept

We've written a few times about Nathan Simington, who is currently nominated to take over Michael O'Rielly's seat at the FCC. As you'll recall, O'Rielly's renomination was withdrawn after he dared to give a talk in which he noted, accurately, that the 1st Amendment means that the government cannot regulate how private companies handle content moderation. Simington, in contrast to O'Rielly, has been at the center of various efforts to force social media companies to host speech they do not wish to host (a clear violation of the 1st Amendment, which does not allow for the government to compel speech).

Simington was the guy who apparently wrote the original executive order that kicked off the ridiculous (and still unconstitutional) FCC review process of Section 230. He also works at NTIA, which is run by Adam Candeub, a guy who has spent the last few years attacking (or misrepresenting) Section 230, after he filed a failed lawsuit against Twitter on behalf of a white supremacist. When the lawsuit was filed, Candeub appeared not to understand 230 when I engaged with him in an email exchange. Since then he's spent the intervening years, trying to change 230 to match his false belief of what it should be.

So, perhaps it shouldn't be too surprising that it's now been revealed that Simington and Candeub appeared to spend some time over the summer trying to get Fox News' bloviating talking heads to start attacking Section 230 as well, hoping that this would spur the FCC on towards action (again, which legally it cannot do) against the law.

Simington, a senior adviser in a key Commerce Department tech agency, wrote that the popular Fox News host could help sway the FCC to act on Trump's proposal before Election Day. He also suggested that democracy hinged on the ability of the commission — which has not traditionally regulated social media — to target Silicon Valley companies.

The actual letter to a Fox News staffer, in which Simington notes that this is part of a scheme with Candeub (who is cc'd) is really stunning. Having a government official asking a media personality to assist the government in pushing through an unconstitutional attack on the 1st Amendment is staggering -- and should immediately raise questions as to why either Simington or Candeub are part of the government. Simington flat out admits that he's trying to force the FCC to take action to help support the President and others "down ballot" in the election.

That is not supposed to be how government officials act. Campaigning/electioneering efforts are not supposed to be done by current government staff who are paid by our taxpayer dollars. This is a hugely problematic stance, and should call into question both Simington and Candeub's role in government. It certainly should preclude Simington from being considered for a position on the FCC itself.

As discussed, my boss, Dept. Ass't Sec'y Adam Candeub (CC'd), is strategizing about how best to present the NTIA's petition to the FCC re CDA 230. We hope that FCC rulemaking will uphold press and communication freedoms while restraining social media companies from behavior that, absent certain case law re CDA 230, would be illegal.

As you know, this is a hot issue right now, not merely per the President's major social media executive order, but also (1) Senator Cruz's recent actions re Twitter, coming out of his long-standing concerns about the partiality and bias emerging from social media's de facto content creation via moderation, promotion and demotion, and (2) Senator Hawley's new social media bill.

We therefore hope that there might be some way of engaging with Ms. Ingraham on our piece of this issue. Any additional support we might be able to obtain could help to get the FCC on board more quickly and thereby ensure a freer, fairer social media landscape going into the elections this fall. This is of concern both to the presidency and also down-ballot, and given the emerging role of social media as a replacement for mass media, our democracy will be weakened if we cannot respond to this issue quickly and effectively.

If you have some time tomorrow, I'd love to talk further about this, whether re engaging with Ms. Ingraham or generally for our own planning.

Senator Richard Blumenthal (a long term vocal critic of Section 230) seems to recognize how problematic this is:

“This email shows that Mr. Simington was an active and eager soldier in President Trump’s attempted assault on the First Amendment," Blumenthal said in a statement to POLITICO. "Mr. Simington was willing to bully the very agency he’s been nominated to join in order to do the electoral bidding of the Republican party on the taxpayer dime.

"I am demanding that Mr. Simington explain himself in follow-up questions for the record, and I certainly hope he will be more forthcoming in his written responses than he was during his hearing,"

In any normal administration this would be a massive scandal, abusing the power of government to help a specific party/candidate. Remember all the (mostly exaggerated) fuss about the IRS paying extra attention to conservative non-profits? That was one of the biggest scandals of the Obama era, in part because it was government employees supposedly making decisions based on politics (even though the details showed it wasn't quite that bad). This is worse. Here they are flat out admitting that they are trying to work with Fox News to use the levers of government to unconstitutionally change the law in order to help their preferred political party win in an election.

Filed Under: adam candeub, election, fcc, free speech, laura ingraham, michael o'rielly, nathan simington, ntia, politics, section 230
Companies: fox news

Congress, With Nothing Important On Its Hands, Seeks To Rush Through Nomination Of Anti-230 FCC Commissioner

from the no-other-priorities? dept

You might think that Congress has more important issues on its hands, with a pandemic still going on, issues around disinformation and the election, massive fires still burning in parts of the US, a record number of hurricanes pounding the south... but it appears that Congress thinks the most pressing issue is gutting Section 230. As you'll recall, right after FCC Commissioner Michael O'Rielly made some generally straightforward statements about how the 1st Amendment wouldn't let the government interfere with social media platforms, Trump informed O'Rielly that his nomination to stay at the FCC had been rescinded.

It seems pretty clear that in the world of Trump, all that he wants out of his FCC is to act as his own private speech police. To that effect, he not only put in place the obviously unconstitutional executive order pushing NTIA to petition the FCC to "reinterpret" Section 230 of the Communications Act -- the law that enables social media to exist in its current form -- but has since put pressure on the FCC to move forward with that effort. While some had hoped that maybe Ajit Pai would find a backbone and his long-stated principles in his giant Reese's mug, he has proven he has neither, and moved forward with the process to make the FCC the internet speech police.

Of course, there remains a problem. O'Rielly is still there, and both the Democrats on the FCC have made it clear they disagree with this plan. When the announcement was made that O'Rielly's nomination had been pulled, I heard from multiple FCC experts who told me there was "no way" that a new Commissioner could be nominated, vetted, paraded before the Senate, and voted on before January 20th. However, it appears that a Senate that has decided it can rush through a candidate for an open Supreme Court seat rather than deal with the actual problems of the country can also do the exact same thing for an FCC Commissioner.

Last month, Trump nominated the guy who wrote the unconstitutional executive order, Nathan Simington, to the seat, and again I was told that his nomination was unlikely to be reviewed by the Senate before the new session began next year. Not so, apparently. As Politico reported last week, the Senate Commerce Committee has agreed to rush through his nomination in "near record time" with a hearing set for November 10th.

It's going to be fascinating to watch all those Senators who spent years claiming they were absolutely, 100% against the FCC regulating anything to do with the internet do total 180s and make sure that Simington is ready to become the speech police for the internet.

Filed Under: fcc, free speech, michael o'rielly, nathan simington, nomination, section 230

Trump Nominates Guy Who Wants To Police Speech Online To Be The Next FCC Commissioner

from the not-great,-bob dept

As was rumored late last week, the White House is, in fact, nominating Nathan Simington to the FCC, taking over the seat of of Mike O'Riely, whose nomination was withdrawn just days after O'Rielly expressed his strong support for the 1st Amendment and made it clear what he thought of idiots calling for the government to force websites to host content:

The First Amendment protects us from limits on speech imposed by the government—not private actors—and we should all reject demands, in the name of the First Amendment, for private actors to curate or publish speech in a certain way. Like it or not, the First Amendment’s protections apply to corporate entities, especially when they engage in editorial decision making. I shudder to think of a day in which the Fairness Doctrine could be reincarnated for the Internet, especially at the ironic behest of so-called free speech “defenders.” It is time to stop allowing purveyors of First Amendment gibberish to claim they support more speech, when their actions make clear that they would actually curtail it through government action. These individuals demean and denigrate the values of our Constitution and must be held accountable for their doublespeak and dishonesty. This institution and its members have long been unwavering in defending the First Amendment, and it is the duty of each of us to continue to uphold this precious protection.

While there are many things we've disagreed with O'Rielly about, on this one, we agree 100%. And, the thanks he gets is effectively being fired by the President... and then replaced with someone who appears to believe the exact opposite.

Simington is apparently the guy who wrote the utterly nonsensical, blatantly unconstitutional Executive Order that President Trump signed after he got mad that Twitter placed two fact checking notices on his dangerous and misleading tweets.

Note the situation here. Twitter (and the rest of the internet) is now being punished for providing more speech. This is, of course, what people like Simington like to claim they support. But when it comes down to reality, they seem to want to just force the internet to host the speech of their friends, and never to do anything such as present counterarguments. On top of that, they wish to force private companies to host speech they do not support and do not believe in. All of this is unconstitutional.

Yet, now the author of this nonsense gets rewarded with a potential FCC Commissionership.

It's not clear if the Senate would find the time to do confirmation hearings before the election, but there's a decent chance that now rather than there being just one (Hi, Brendan Carr) FCC Commissioner who relishes using the power of the FCC to punish companies he doesn't like, we'll have two FCC Commissioners who have abandoned all pretenses that the Republican FCC Commissioners support the 1st Amendment and favor a "light touch" regulatory regime. They seem to only favor that for the telcos so many FCC Commissioners end up going to work for after leaving the FCC. For internet companies? They seem to think the opposite.

Considering Simington's direct role in writing the executive order, and then working at NTIA while it crafted the petition for the current FCC review of Section 230, you would think that, should he actually be approved by the Senate, he should at the very least recuse himself from this particular matter. But, given this particular administration and their unwillingness to actually obey the law and follow the rules when it comes to "owning the libs" or whatever their motivation is, it wouldn't surprise me to see him take part in any vote.

Filed Under: fairness doctrine, fcc, mike o'rielly, nathan simington, section 230, speech police

Apparently The New Litmus Test For Trump's FCC: Do You Promise To Police Speech Online

from the snowflake-central dept

Last month we wrote about how President Trump withdrew the renomination of FCC Commissioner Mike O'Rielly just days after O'Rielly dared to [checks notes] reiterate his support for the 1st Amendment in a way that hinted at the fact that he knew Trump's executive order was blatantly unconstitutional. Some people argued the renomination was pulled for other reasons, but lots of people in DC said it was 100% about his unwillingness to turn the FCC into a speech police for the internet.

While it seems quite unlikely that Trump can get someone new through the nomination process before the election, apparently they're thinking of nominating someone who appears eager to do the exact opposite: Nathan Simington, who wants the FCC to be the internet speech police so bad that he helped draft the obviously unconstitutional executive order in response to the President's freak-out at being fact checked.

Three sources close to the matter say Nathan Simington, a senior advisor at the NTIA within the commerce department, has emerged as a leading candidate to take over Republican Commissioner Mike O’Rielly’s seat at the FCC.

Simington is said to have helped draft the administration’s social media executive order, and his nomination would be a victory for Republicans who want to see the FCC take a larger role in regulating social networks.

You can see the Trumpian logic here: "O'Rielly gently pushed back the tiniest bit on our plan to ignore the 1st Amendment and compel social media companies to host the propaganda and disinformation we spew, so let's replace him with someone who supports that singularly stupid argument. How about the guy who drafted the executive order!"

The idea that "will you support the FCC being the speech police" is now the Republican litmus test for being an FCC Commissioner is a freakish 180 from the history of Republican FCC Commissioners who have spent decades arguing against that on the things they actually have authority over (with the notable exception of obscenity, which GOP Commissioners have, at times, wanted to police). Either way, this seems like yet another example of the Republican party not having any core principles other than punishing the companies and people that Trump doesn't like.

Filed Under: bias, fcc, michael o'rielly, nathan simington, ntia, section 230, social media