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is, in fact, nominating Nathan Simington to the FCC, taking over the seat of of Mike O'Riely, whose nomination was withdrawn just days after O'Rielly expressed his strong support for the 1st Amendment and made it clear what he thought of idiots calling for the government to force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

Days After FCC Commissioner Mike O'Rielly Suggests Trump's Section 230 Exec Order Is Unconstitutional... His Renomination To The FCC Is Withdrawn

from the petty-shit dept

Earlier today we wrote about how Ajit Pai was pushing ahead with the Commerce Department's silly FCC petition regarding a re-interpretation of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. We noted that it wouldn't actually be that hard to just say that the whole thing is unconstitutional and outside of the FCC's authority (which it is). Some people have pushed back on us saying that if Pai didn't do this, Trump would fire him and promote some Trump stan to push through whatever unconstitutional nonsense is wanted.

Well, now at least there's some evidence to suggest that Trump also views the FCC -- a supposedly "independent" agency -- as his personal speech police. Of the Republican Commissioners, Brendan Carr has been quite vocal in his Trump boot-licking, especially with regards to Section 230. He's been almost gleeful in his pronouncements about how evil "big tech" is for "censoring conservatives," and how much he wants to chip away at Section 230. Pai has been pretty much silent on the issue until the announcement today. But the other Republican Commissioner, Mike O'Rielly, has at least suggested that he recognizes the Trump executive order is garbage. Six weeks ago he said he hadn't done his homework yet, but suggested he didn't think Congress had given the FCC any authority on this matter (he's right).

Just last week, during a speech, he made it pretty clear where he stood on this issue. While first saying he wasn't necessarily referencing the Trump executive order, he said the following:

Today, I would like to address a particularly ominous development in this space. To be clear, the following critique is not in any way directed toward President Trump or those in the White House, who are fully within their rights to call for the review of any federal statute's application, the result of which would be subject to applicable statutory and constitutional guardrails. Rather, I am very troubled by certain opportunists elsewhere who claim to be the First Amendment’s biggest heroes but only come to its defense when convenient and constantly shift its meaning to fit their current political objectives. The inconsistencies and contradictions presented by such false prophets would make James Madison’s head spin, were he alive to witness them.

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.

To be clear: I agree 100% with that statement, and am glad that O'Rielly was willing to stand up on principle to defend it.

And then, today, it was announced that the White House is pulling his renomination to the FCC. In other words, the White House is being a petty asshole, again, and firing anyone for not being in lockstep with the President's ridiculous unconstitutional whims.

There was some talk last week about how Senator James Inhofe's office was blocking O'Rielly's renomination over a different issue: the approval of L-Band spectrum for use by Ligado (formerly LightSquared). A variety of government organizations had opposed the use of this spectrum, fearing that it might interfere with GPS systems. However, the Ligado deal was unanimously approved by all five commissioners, so it's difficult to see why O'Rielly would be singled out, other than his nomination was up. The Inhofe/Ligado thing feels like a smokescreen for the 230 issue.

The question now is whether or not O'Rielly will serve out his term, or if he'll leave now that his renomination is not being considered. One hopes that he'll at least stick it out long enough to vote down the Petition on 230. Even if he did leave, it's unclear if a new Commissioner would get through any confirmation process prior to the election. Either way, at least it's nice to see one Republican Commissioner willing to stand up to Trump. We've criticized O'Rielly plenty of times in the past, but at least he's not taking the path of Carr (and even Pai) in dealing with this nonsense.

Filed Under: 5g, donald trump, fcc, free speech, gps, james inhofe, mike o'rielly, networks, renomination, section 230, speech police
Companies: ligado

One Of The Few Government Officials Who Actually Can 'Police Speech' Whines Ridiculously About Facebook's Oversight Board

from the not-a-good-look-brendan dept

Earlier this week I wrote about the official Facebook Oversight Board and why everyone hates it because everyone hates everything having to do with Facebook. As I noted, I don't think it will have much of an impact one way or the other, but I do think it's an interesting experiment in moving at least some moderation controls away from an internet company.

One of the strangest responses to the announcement, though, came from FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr, who went on a truly bizarre and misleading rant about how this was the "new speech police" in which he then called out individual members of the board to complain that some of them have (*gasp*!) criticized Imperial Number One Leader President Trump.

As I noted in my original post, there are a bunch of people on the board who I disagree with on a variety of policy positions, but that there would be no reasonable construction of such a board that was made up of people that everyone would universally agree with. What is true is that pretty much all of them (at least all of the ones whom I recognize or know) are people who I've found to be thoughtful, even when I've disagreed with them.

But what's much more stunning about this, is Carr's ridiculous framing of the board as "the new speech police." Everything about that is wrong -- and it's extra ridiculous coming from an FCC Commissioner who remains one of the very few government officials who is literally part of the speech police. Remember, the FCC's mandate allows it to enforce fines against broadcasters for "indecent or profane programming."

It is a violation of federal law to air obscene programming at any time. It is also a violation of federal law to broadcast indecent or profane programming during certain hours. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) defines indecent speech as material that, in context, depicts or describes sexual or excretory organs or activities in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium.

Congress has given the FCC the responsibility for administratively enforcing the law that governs these types of broadcasts. The FCC has authority to issue civil monetary penalties, revoke a license or deny a renewal application. The FCC vigorously enforces this law where we find violations.

That's what the speech police look like.

The Facebook Oversight Board, on the other hand, is not that. Indeed, the whole point of the board is for a non-Facebook organization to review and potentially reverse Facebook's decisions to take down content (while at a later date, it may also review cases where Facebook decided to leave content up, the board very clearly stated that its initial work will be the opposite -- looking for cases where it thinks Facebook took down content it should not have).

Even more importantly, as discussed a million and a half times around here, Facebook is a private company, and not the government. It has its own 1st Amendment rights to moderate however it sees fit, even (as in this case) handing off some of those moderation powers to an outside board of experts. Indeed, an FCC Commissioner named (checks notes....) Brendan Carr, used to recognize this, and whined vociferously when Mark Zuckerberg suggested that perhaps the government should get involved in policing speech on the platform. At that time, he pointed out that Facebook is a private platform.

Facebook, a private company, is experimenting with a variety of means for content moderation. As we've long noted, content moderation at scale is impossible to do well because someone will always disagree. But part of the 1st Amendment rights of private companies is the ability to experiment and try things. That's the kind of thing you would think someone like Brendan Carr would support. But, since it's more fun to bash Facebook and cry "partisanship" that's what he's going to do.

Meanwhile, since Carr seems to think that no "speech police" should ever express any partisan opinions, and he's the literal speech police, does that mean that Carr will refrain from partisan hackery going forward? Given his public pronouncements cheering on this administration, and this entire partisan performance in which Republicans like Carr pretend that Facebook is somehow "anti-conservative," somehow I doubt it.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, brendan carr, content moderation, content moderation at scale, facebook oversight board, oversight board, speech police
Companies: facebook