Trump Picks Carr To Head FCC With Pledge To Fight 'Censorship Cartel' 105
Donald Trump has named FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr to chair the U.S. communications regulator when he takes office in January 2025, citing Carr's stance against what Trump called "regulatory lawfare." Carr, a lawyer and longtime Republican who has served at the FCC under both Trump and Biden administrations, has emerged as a vocal critic of major social media companies' content moderation practices.
"Humbled and honored" by the appointment, Carr pledged on X to "dismantle the censorship cartel." As the FCC's senior Republican commissioner, Carr has advocated for stricter oversight of technology companies, pushing for transparency rules on platforms like Google and Facebook, expanded rural broadband access, and tougher restrictions on Chinese-owned TikTok. Trump praised Carr as a "warrior for free speech" while announcing the appointment. During his campaign, Trump has said he would seek to revoke licenses of television networks he views as biased.
"Humbled and honored" by the appointment, Carr pledged on X to "dismantle the censorship cartel." As the FCC's senior Republican commissioner, Carr has advocated for stricter oversight of technology companies, pushing for transparency rules on platforms like Google and Facebook, expanded rural broadband access, and tougher restrictions on Chinese-owned TikTok. Trump praised Carr as a "warrior for free speech" while announcing the appointment. During his campaign, Trump has said he would seek to revoke licenses of television networks he views as biased.
Sooo... (Score:5, Funny)
During his campaign, Trump has said he would seek to revoke licenses of television networks he views as biased.
Starting with Fox News?
Re:Sooo... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Sooo... (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
Except the GOP's complaints are with MSNBC and CNN which are cable channels as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think Donnie knows that? Don't be silly.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Starting with Fox News?
You didn't read what you quoted. Here's the important bit:
television networks *he* views as biased.
As long as Fox News continues to give him a daily reacharound *he* won't see them as biased.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The fascists that America just voted for say "hold my beer".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Citation needed (Score:1)
The OP didn't provide a link, can you provide one, perhaps? Full direct speech — verbal or written — of Trump, where he promises to "seek to revoke licenses of television networks he views as biased". Thank you!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/... [x.com]
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/22... [cnn.com]
https://www.theguardian.com/co... [theguardian.com]
https://www.brookings.edu/arti... [brookings.edu]
Re:Sooo... FAUX is for marching morons (Score:2)
Nice FP and you deserve the Funny mods, but I think you should have tried to work your joke into your truly vacuous Subject.
My bad joke of the day is:
"You can't scramble dregs without breaking eggheads."
It's one of those feeble jokes that died even before it was explained. You see, the orange puppet doesn't even know he's part of the precipitate. The sociopaths pulling his strings have an infinite need for more money, even if it's become imaginary numbers of imaginary monies. It's the silly eggheads who sti
Re: (Score:2)
Fool me thrice...err.....We Won't Get Fooled Again [youtu.be]....
Re: (Score:3)
How does the government tell the press what they can and cannot say without seriously violating the 1st Amendment?
Re:Sooo... (Score:4, Insightful)
The first amendment can easily be reinterpreted by the supreme court. Now don't forget to tip your judge!
Re: (Score:2)
Corporate speech would be the first victim of that.
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations run the government so I'm sure the Supremes would let them do anything they want (I.e. Citizens United).
The real losers will be "the little guy" who can't buy politicians.
Re: (Score:2)
Well that all depends if the judges want to earn nice gratuities for being such an amazing judges.
Who doesn't tip well when you're charging it to a company?
Re: (Score:2)
That's a good question, and one I've spend way too much time thinking about.
We are have some simple things like not being able to yell fire in a theater - because it can/does lead to direct harm.
I always wondered, would it be fair to enforce a system such that if a News outlet said something that turns out to be provably false, then they must spend and equal amount of time (in the same general time window, not 2am) talking about how they got it wrong.
i.e., if they spend 2-3 hours over the Month stating that
Re: (Score:2)
The yelling fire in a theater is less about free speech and more about consiquence of action.
The act of shouting "fire" when there are no reasonable grounds for believing one exists is not in itself a crime, and nor would it be rendered a crime merely by having been carried out inside a theatre, crowded or otherwise. However, if it causes a stampede and someone is killed as a result, then the act could amount to a crime, such as involuntary manslaughter, assuming the other elements of that crime are made ou
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds an awful lot like creating another regulating body, of which Trump and team are looking to dissolve. They are starting to be at odds with themselves
Re: (Score:2)
I always wondered, would it be fair to enforce a system such that if a News outlet said something that turns out to be provably false, then they must spend and equal amount of time (in the same general time window, not 2am) talking about how they got it wrong.
i.e., if they spend 2-3 hours over the Month stating that some Senator from Texas was a Pedo, and he's later found to be innocent, then they should be required to spend 2-3 hours admitting they were wrong.
I don't think that would be enough. If I were that senator, I would sue the news outlet for defamation/slander/whatever. That would trigger discovery, and the news outlet would need to defend their reporting. Assuming I win, the news outlet would do something as part of the judgement against them: publish a retraction and pay me some money, as a minimum. See Fox News vs. Dominion for an example of that.
Now I fully understand that forced speech is just as bad. But if we are talking about licensing... Should we as a society continue to tolerate media outlets that knowing lie/slander/mislead? Or should we expect more from them - only reporting facts not offering opinion. I mean how awesome would that be to just report facts. And if they are caught lying, or implying, or opining, they they either accept the terms of the punishment, or lose their broadcast rights.
I'm not sure we're talking about license-empowered broadcast rights exclusively here. That only applies to
Re: (Score:1)
The Robin Williams character in Good Morning Vietnam was a sergeant in the US Air Force [wikipedia.org] and was broadcasting on a US government station.
Not sure why you think that's a good example here.
Re: (Score:2)
During his campaign, Trump has said he would seek to revoke licenses of television networks he views as biased.
Starting with Fox News?
The complaint, is centered around censorship.
Exactly. What is hypocritical is that on the one hand he is appointing Carr to fight censorship, and on the other hand he wants to revoke the license of stations that broadcast material he doesn't like.
That is literal censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
During his campaign, Trump has said he would seek to revoke licenses of television networks he views as biased.
Starting with Fox News?
The complaint, is centered around censorship.
Exactly. What is hypocritical is that on the one hand he is appointing Carr to fight censorship, and on the other hand he wants to revoke the license of stations that broadcast material he doesn't like.
That is literal censorship.
This. Censorship is something the government does. The rest of us (media or individuals) are just exercising our right to free speech.
I have put it another way before on Slashdot: The First Amendment protects you and me from the government. It does not protect you and me from each other.
Re: (Score:2)
Get rid of censorship ... (Score:5, Insightful)
... but tougher restrictions on TikTok. Not that I particularly like TikTok, but these two things just don't sound compatible.
Re: (Score:1)
... but tougher restrictions on TikTok. Not that I particularly like TikTok, but these two things just don't sound compatible.
Sure they do. The main restriction we should be focusing on, is getting children off social media. Which we will likely find should have never been there in the first place. That’s the main concern with Tik Tok et al.
Then, if we find 18-21 year olds can’t handle it and aren’t maturing as a result, fine. We raise the voting age. I don’t mind if you act like a grown-ass idiot. You just don’t get the same voting rights I do, that’s all. Go gain some real world experie
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you have seen Starship Troopers way too many times.
You might want to research the countries who have mandatory conscription on this planet first before assuming that concept only lives in Hollywood.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you seriously just say that anyone with a handicap that make them unfit for military service should also lose the right to vote? That anyone who screws up bad enough in the military to get kicked out within those two years should lose the right to vote?
Are you sure you like democracy at all?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Come to think of it, being unfit for military service would also make them unfit for office? Because there's that thing about bone spurs...
Re: (Score:2)
McDonald's wouldn't even hire a convicted sex offender. https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
(Don't even get me started on the voting counter-argument of 18 year olds serving. Mandatory 2-year conscription into the US Military would do fucking wonders for today’s generation. In every aspect imaginable. That’s my answer to that “problem”. You earn the right to vote after you’ve served the country that gave you that right the hard way.)
Fine. But fuck right off about any sort of federal or state taxes until I'm allowed to vote. If I don't have a say in the system, then it's ridiculous to say that I have to pay into that system, whether I'm getting a benefit from it or not. Let the veterans pay for their authoritarian state; the rest of us ride for free.
Re: (Score:1)
US constitutional free speech protections do NOT apply to foreign governments. It's as simple as that.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That IS part of it, but the MAIN reasons is, to remove an app that gives the CCP an incredible capability of swaying US mindsets on subject, both political and non-political in nature.
We should not be giving a foreign power, especially if they are antagonistic towards the US that much power over public perception and general conversation.
Re: (Score:2)
Bad for free speech and net neutrality (Score:4, Interesting)
Trump's "free speech champion" will be tasked to "revoke licenses of television networks he views as biased".
Brendan Carr is also against Net Neutrality. So it sounds like yet another bad nomination from Trump.
Re:Bad for free speech and net neutrality (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bad for free speech and net neutrality (Score:5, Interesting)
It's remarkable how much "free speech" for certain segments seems to entirely consist of the government banning things they don't like.
"Orwellian" is a bit of an overused term, but it's very Orwellian.
Re:Bad for free speech and net neutrality (Score:5, Insightful)
It's remarkable how much "free speech" for certain segments seems to entirely consist of the government banning things they don't like.
"Orwellian" is a bit of an overused term, but it's very Orwellian.
For those of us who've actually read the book, the parallels are quite striking. Especially their attempts to change the language.
Re: (Score:2)
It's hilarious how the left has suddenly rediscovered Orwell, now that Trump is making appointment declarations.
Where've you been for the past 4 years?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you think the "orange man" is not bad, you haven't been paying attention.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
These are the people who pretend that the Orwellian names given to things are accurate descriptions. The PATRIOT act was patriotic. The Inflation Reduction Act reduced inflation. The border security bill they blamed Republicans for killing was going to secure the border (as long as you don't count the first 2 million illegal crossers per year). Etc, etc.
In this case, they pretend that the thing named "Network Neutrality" is about making networks neutral when it is really about power and control.
These pe
Re: (Score:2)
You know these threats of the bad things that happened in the USSR really don't scare me living in a country where if I'm murdered there's a 1 in 3 chance that a police officer does it(and we don't exactly have a low murder rate to begin with). "Oh no, not a country where dissidents are suppressed with violence that official investigations cover up" is a thing to say in a country where protestors against police violence routinely turn up "dead by suicide" in suspiciously similar circumstances.
By any strict
Re: (Score:2)
By any strictly objective standard of oppression, you live in a country way way way way way way worse off than even the worst of Stalinist USSR, and not because of "wannabe commissars"
Settle down, Ivan.
Re: (Score:1)
That is the real reason the leftist authoritarians are so upset this time around. They know we are about to see one of two things happen!
Trump will either burn down the federal bureaucracy and messy though it will likely be we actually will get a smaller more accountable federal government that
-or-
Trump will accomplish nothing, and that elections even matter and the President and our elected legislators are in charge of anything and its not all theater hiding the deep state will be proven a fiction.
I am ho
Re: (Score:3)
Trump will either burn down the federal bureaucracy and messy though it will likely be we actually will get a smaller more accountable federal government that
Trump is proof that no one is accountable right now.
Re: (Score:2)
The PATRIOT act was patriotic.
No it wasn't, it was named deceptively to get pushed through quickly with the wave of patiotism
The Inflation Reduction Act reduced inflation.
Seems like you might be confused on this one. There's no doubt that inflation is lower now than before the bill, but a lot of that's probably due to COVID shortages going away.
The border security bill they blamed Republicans for killing...
Of course people blamed republicans when the bipartisan border security bill that Trump personally requested Republicans not vote for so it wouldn't help Biden.
In this case, they pretend that the thing named "Network Neutrality"
Now you're getting a little confused again. Net Neutrality isn't a bill like the
Re: (Score:2)
Net Neutrality is a principle, not a law (although some laws in some jurisdictions try to enforce it). It's not a marketing gimmick law name such as PATRIOT or Inflation Reduction Act.
And yes, it's about making networks neutral. Otherwise, my ISP could make a deal with Netflix and throttle competing streaming services to 500 kbps. Or redirect http://google.com/ [google.com] to http://bing.com./ [bing.com.] I already had an ISP who throttled BitTorrent, so it's happening if you leave ISPs to regulate themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
"Orwellian" is a bit of an overused term, but it's very Orwellian.
Definitely an overused term but the doublespeak here is too blatant to not make one. I was thinking the same thing.
"War is peace," "Freedom is slavery," "Ignorance is strength", "Censorship is free speech"
So the government telling the media what to say? (Score:3)
Not sure how that solves any problem with censorship.
Nor how this jibes with the 1st Amendment.
This I can get behind (Score:1)
Out of all the shit America's orange troll dictator is planning, this I can get behind.
Censorship has no real place in a modern society.
"But won't someone think of the children?" - sure. but what are we protecting them from? Swear words? boobs? Things they can see on the internet? Violence? Guns? Things they can see at school.
Let the parents dictate what their kids can and cannot see. Parental Controls exist on pretty much every medium today except OTA broadcast TV and radio.
Re:This I can get behind (Score:5, Interesting)
Then Twitter and Truth Social can both be forced to stop their censorship of posts. You can't censor when someone says Leon needs to pay more in taxes or the convicted felon is a failure, as both are being done now.
Let the parents dictate what their kids can and cannot see. Parental Controls exist on pretty much every medium today except OTA broadcast TV and radio.
So you want to add another layer to Twitter, Facebook, Insta, etc so parents can control what their kids can see? How will that work?
As for parents deciding what their kids can see, then you agree the state laws regarding pornography [apnews.com] or social media [npr.org] have to go away.
Re: (Score:2)
As somebody who has not tracked this too closely, is that true? I currently would not be able to find anti-Musk or anti-Trump posts on X? Or was it a handful of fishy examples? Or what?
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Though I don't know what ironicsky may say, I don't think any of your gotcha statements are gotchas.
Censorship has no real place in a modern society.
Then Twitter and Truth Social can both be forced to stop their censorship of posts.
Correct. And I think that's what most people (not all) think when they say there should be no censorship (on internet content in this case).
FWIW, I don't think it's so cut and dry. I do think the gov shouldn't dictate what can be said in a public square, and if some site is supposed to serve as a public square (as Musk has posits X is), then it should not also be the one in charge of content moderation. There
Re: (Score:1)
Can you provide any evidence for this claim?
Re: (Score:1)
Can you provide any evidence for this claim?
Get out of your bubble for once.
Translation: "No, can't provide even one example to back up wild claim. But my associates all say it is true, so you must be in a bubble!"
Feel free to try again, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately given the track record, this would open up broader access / acceptance for Hate Speech to be protected whereas we currently have laws against it. I'll be very interested in seeing what the EFF has to say about this nomination and his track record.
Re: (Score:1)
Unfortunately given the track record, this would open up broader access / acceptance for Hate Speech to be protected whereas we currently have laws against it.
Good? The best part about idiot racists is that they eventually tell you they are idiot racists. Imagine if Richard Spencer was allowed to say the garbage crap he said full throated instead of trying to hide it to avoid censorship. Believe it or not, a majority of the US still looks down on treating races differently, despite the Progressives and Alt-Right trying to knock down colorblindness.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The problem is when right-wingers complain about censorship and free-speech, they're not talking about the government suppressing speech or jailing people for speaking their mind, they're talking about being able to say offensive things free from social consequences and forcing people to listen to them.
Look at cases like Twitter - Elon sued advertisers because they wouldn't advertise when he allowed the racists back on, meanwhile he still bans people with opinions he doesn't like.
Right-wingers are constantl
Re: (Score:2)
"Censorship", in public discourse, is generally held to mean "censorship carried out by the government, against individuals and private organizations". That's the thing that we all generally agree is bad.
On the other hand, private rightsholders "censoring" messages on their owned networks is generally a good thing. If you think you disagree, imagine if every other email or notification you got was hardcore tentacle porn. (Or, if you're a tentacle porn guy, if it wasn't, I guess.) Because that's not even
Re: (Score:2)
Show me where in Section 230 that 98% and 20% figure come from. Otherwise admit that you just want the rule to apply the way you want. You can do that, just dedicate your life to law and become a supreme court justice and you can interpret things the way *you* want.
Until then, cite the figures.
Re: (Score:2)
Please accept this as an approximate translation:
fcc (Score:1)
He's also against elderly blond-headed despots. (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is right (Score:2)
Government shouldn't be pressuring, nor even making suggestions, as to what is posted on any internet site, as long as it's legal.
Government also shouldn't be telling sites how they can moderate their content, again beyond what is legal.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Did you see the twitter files? The government 3 letter agencies and the cabinet are the ones that are dictating what is allowed and not allowed. It was/is all social media and not just twitter. The have offices or people from these agencies in offices in these businesses.
Re: (Score:2)
What makes those "twitter files" any more correct than any other information? It's very difficult - and suspect - to make a claim that all media are untrustworthy except the one you prefer/promote.
Personally, I expect that all media is trying to promote one story over another. However, that bias is irrelevant when it comes to free speech; of course people should be free to be biased in their speech. Where Free Speech really matters is that you can openly and freely criticize the Powers that Be without fear
Re: (Score:2)
Government shouldn't be pressuring, nor even making suggestions, as to what is posted on any internet site, as long as it's legal.
Government also shouldn't be telling sites how they can moderate their content, again beyond what is legal.
You should probably do a bit more research as to how things become illegal, since you’re using legality as your defense. Government didn’t have First Amendment exceptions. Until they realized they had to (e.g. “Fire!” in a crowded theatre is illegal if unjustified.)
Another prime example, is you defining “hate” in speech and how Government should allow it no matter the impact. Are there valid exceptions? We found them before..
Hypocrites? (Score:2)
So the republicans won't be trying to ban, or severely restrict, porn?
Anti-regulation Repubs want more regulation (Score:2)
Because they are the exact opposite of what they claim.
So we can get equal time... (Score:2)
...and have socialists respond to right-wing lies?