Opposition Mounts To Trump FCC Plan To Kill Burner Phone Anonymity, Ramp Up Surveillance

from the bad-ideas-by-bad-people dept

Last month I noted how the Trump FCC had unveiled a brand new plan to “stop robocalls.”

As with most efforts the proposal doesn’t actually do much to stop robocalls because a well-lobbied U.S. government (1) refuses to hold big companies accountable or collect fines, (2) constantly embraces weak rules that make telemarketers and debt collectors happy through endlessly loopholes scammers then exploit, and (3) has an unhealthy fixation with undermining regulators at the behest of large companies.

But buried in the Trump FCC plan was another new effort we mentioned: one that involves cracking down on burner phones by forcing telecoms (the ones bone-grafted to our domestic surveillance operations) to dramatically scale up the information they collect from consumers.

That’s… understandably raised concerns among privacy advocates and civil rights groups well aware that greater surveillance will be abused by the Trump administration and beyond. It also ignores that there’s often very good reasons why abuse victims, whistleblowers, journalists, refugees, and others might be seeking an anonymous prepaid burner phone, privacy advocate Eric Null told 404 media:

“To address the scourge of illegal robocalls, the FCC has unfortunately proposed to force every wireless subscriber in the nation to sacrifice their privacy and give up significant personal details before receiving or renewing a wireless line. While some carriers already collect such details, there are specific circumstances where a person may need privacy and anonymity when seeking a cell phone, including if that person is a victim of domestic violence, or is a journalist or whistleblower. This proposal represents a loss of privacy across the board, and from an agency whose remit includes protecting privacy. The FCC might let a few bad apples spoil the whole bunch.”

Anonymity is one of the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. The EFF notes this also isn’t likely to really stop criminals from finding ways to communicate anonymously:

“This proposal by the FCC will do little to combat scams and robocalls, since most people doing that will have no trouble creating fake documentation or identities,” Cooper Quintin, security researcher and senior public interest technologist with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), told 404 Media. “Given this administration’s crackdown on free expression, protest, immigrants, and women’s health we have trouble seeing this as a bold attack on freedom of communication. They want to take away our ability to make an anonymous phone call.”

So, in short, it won’t actually stop robocalls or criminal activity, but it will harm people who need anonymous communications tools to survive, and it will almost certainly lead to greater surveillance abuses by America’s corrupt, authoritarian government.

One plus side: the rules aren’t official yet. The FCC’s proposed plan is open to public input until June 25. You can file an express comment here; (the specific proceeding discussing new prepaid phone restrictions is 13-97).

Filed Under: anonymity, brendan carr, burner phones, civil rights, eff, fcc, free speech, privacy, surveillance, telecom

American Diabetes Association Fucked Up Real Bad Trying To Placate Trump Administration

from the real-real-bad dept

As we near the halfway point in the second Trump presidential term, there’s something that is worth remembering: Donald Trump, like most nasty viruses, is a temporary condition. Trumpism may not be, though I have my doubts as to how long a cult of personality can survive without that specific personality leading the cult. But Donald Trump as president will come to an end in the not too distant future.

The millions and millions of people who have been negatively impacted by him and by those who have decided to bow at his cultish altar, are not temporary. They are not going to go away. And they will remember the actions of many during this time.

And I imagine the American Diabetes Association, and specifically those currently leading it, will be in the memories of its members and many others for a long, long time. It’s been nearly a week since the ADA had five diabetes scientists, including its own former president, involuntarily removed from outside the ADA’s annual conference by police. Their crime? Distributing a copy of an editorial from the April edition of the ADA’s own journal.

The scientists were distributing the editorial outside the conference’s opening speech, which was originally scheduled to be given by Jay Bhattacharya, head of the National Institutes of Health under Trump. Bhattacharya canceled at the last minute, and senior NIH official Rick Woychik took his place.

Within minutes of beginning to hand out the editorial, police reportedly escorted the scientists out of the conference, which was held in New Orleans. The police reportedly shoved at least one scientist, took all of their conference badges, and threatened to arrest them if they tried to return. Louisiana State Police later told media that they acted at the request of the ADA. The ADA subsequently barred the five scientists from the rest of the conference.

The editorial just so happened to be very critical of the Trump administration and RFK Jr.’s funding at NIH and other health agencies and groups. It’s quite obvious that the ADA feared repercussions from the Trump administration if it wouldn’t allow these scientists to hand the article out while members of the administration were speaking and tried to use the police to silence them. And then, when this whole thing went viral, the ADA offered up justifications for its actions. Justifications that kept changing, as it turns out.

In an email to ADA members Saturday, the association said the scientists were removed because they didn’t have prior approval to distribute material at the conference and that it was “not because of the viewpoints expressed in those materials,” according to reporting from Science.

In a statement Sunday, the organization, which is a nonprofit, said it removed the scientists because it was complying with federal regulations for 501(c)(3) nonprofits, which requires “maintaining a strictly nonpartisan environment at all organizational events and functions while engaging across party affiliations to advance our mission.” However, the federal regulations do not restrict leaders of organizations from sharing political views in a personal capacity or from speaking on important public policy issues.

And from there, the Streisand Effect took over. The editorial, which you can find right here, went somewhat viral itself, getting a ton more attention than it had to date. But the real backlash came from the public and from within the medical community itself. There have been resignations in protest of the ADA’s actions. An open letter to the ADA signed by 40 members was written to torch leadership’s actions and treatment of the scientists at the conference. Another open letter was also written, likewise demanding an apology.

And, finally, the ADA did in fact apologize days later.

In the video Wednesday, ADA CEO Charles Henderson personally apologized to the five scientists, including Aaron Kelly, pediatrics professor at the University of Minnesota; Justin Ryder of Northwestern University; and Irl Hirsch, also of the University of Washington, in addition to Kahn and Schatz.

“What transpired is not reflective of who I am, the values I hold, or the way I was raised,” Henderson said. “I will work hard to bring our community back together to build on the progress we have collectively made for those affected by diabetes.”

In addition to apologizing to the five ejected scientists, Henderson apologized to the community as a whole, saying that the ADA would commission a “thorough independent review of the events that occurred as well as the policies, procedures, and decision-making process that guided our actions.”

Yeah, no, not good enough. The fish stinks from the head down, as the saying goes, and there have been days worth of attempts to make this stupidity anyone’s fault but leadership at the ADA. This was a clear attempt to lick the Trump administration’s boots, at the very moment when clear leadership from medical groups is so sorely needed, and that’s a bell that cannot be un-rung.

Henderson needs to go. And I have little doubt that he will before too long. Trump and RFK Jr. will eventually be gone, as well.

But we won’t forget how groups like the ADA, and the people leading them, acted during this time.

Filed Under: free speech, jay bhattacharya, nih, protests, streisand effect
Companies: american diabetes association

Bill Introduced That Would Codify The Right To Record Federal Law Enforcement Officers

from the better-late-than-never dept

Good news! (Maybe?) Federal legislators have introduced a bill that, if passed, would finally guarantee the right to record law enforcement officers. Here’s Reason’s CJ Ciaramella with the details:

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D–Conn.) and Rep. Maxwell Frost (D–Fla.) introduced the “Right to Record Act of 2026,” which they say would create new consequences for individual federal officers who violate a person’s First Amendment right to document and record police.

The legislation would create a right to sue a federal law enforcement or immigration officers who engage in wide range of retaliatory behavior, including threatening and harassing videographers, surveilling them, and seizing and destroying their equipment.

So, there’s a lot to discuss here. First off, the only reason a bill like this is necessary is the current iteration of the Supreme Court. This court has repeatedly shrugged off cases that may have finally established the right to record law enforcement officers (and other public officials). Most (but not all!) lower courts have already established this right.

The Supreme Court is the holdout. Maybe that’s just because it doesn’t feel it’s necessary to step in when the issue seems to have been pretty much settled at the district level. If that’s the case, the excuse is lazy and convenient. It takes the Supreme Court to fully settle an issue when there are outliers bucking against the trend. So far, it has refused to do so.

Next up is the caveat in the introduced law: it only affects federal law enforcement officers.

While it would be nice for the proposed law [PDF] to codify the right to record any law enforcement officer, there are good reasons for introducing the bill with this specific wording.

One of the compelling reasons has been created by federal officers, especially those engaged in Trump’s mass deportation efforts. Not content to simply overreact to protests and friction with violence and actual murders, officers have been witnessed deliberately targeting journalists and observers for the obvious reason of deterring further recordings and seizing/destroying what’s already been captured.

The lawmakers cited recent allegations of federal officers targeting videographers in New Jersey, Memphis, and elsewhere across the country, as well as the importance of video evidence in refuting the false government narratives of several shootings of U.S. citizens by immigration agents.

[…]

[D]epartment of Homeland Security (DHS) officials have repeatedly suggested that [recording officers] is doxing and obstruction of justice. Over the past two years, videos from around the country—from Oregon to Maine to the Florida Keys—have shown federal immigration agents arresting or threatening to arrest people for filming them.

This right needs to be recognized if it’s going to mean anything when federal officers violate it. That brings us back to this same Supreme Court, which in recent years has made it impossible to successfully sue federal officers for violating rights. Part of this is due to this version of court steadily narrowing the Supreme Court’s 1971 Bivens ruling to allow lower courts to immediately reject anything that doesn’t exactly match the facts of the original case.

The rest of it is due to this court’s conservative majority having almost no interest in establishing rights, while being more than happy to eliminate rights that have been recognized for decades.

That’s the other meaningful part of this bill: it creates a cause of action the courts can’t just shrug off. If it is shown the “right to record” has been violated, individual officers and their employer (the US government itself) can be held liable for these violations. The bill’s text also eliminates the federal government’s “sovereign immunity” option, which means it has to take the loss if its employees are ruled to have violated this right.

This is Congress beating the Supreme Court at its own game. The nation’s top court loves to tell citizens whose rights have been violated that if they don’t like the fact federal officers are 99.9% immune from civil suits they should take it up with Congress. Well, Congress is taking it up. And if the bill becomes law (which seems extremely unlikely), the Supreme Court (and lower courts) can’t talk their way around the rights violations by pretending (1) the right isn’t established or (2) the remedy lies elsewhere.

The bill provides a long list of actions that are presumptive violations of the right to record. This includes everything from merely trying to deter recordings to threatening observers, pursuing them to other locations, placing them under surveillance, or demanding to see their identification. That’s not the entire list either. It also covers attempts to seize or destroy recordings and engaging in any actions that appear to be retaliatory.

In the current climate under the current administration, there’s almost zero chance this will be passed by Congress. But this administration won’t last forever (assuming this Republic can be kept). And this effort needs to be made, even if it results in little more than more congressional reps and federal officials going on record expressing their disdain for the public and their rights. As long as this Supreme Court retains its current makeup, the best option may be legislation, rather than litigation. This puts the administration on the defensive and calls the Supreme Court’s bluff.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, bivens, free speech, maxwell frost, police misconduct, richard blumenthal, right to record, rights violations

Apparently One Dismissed Speech-Suppressing SLAPP Suit Wasn’t Enough For Matt Taibbi

from the vampire-squid-strikes-again dept

To lose one speech-suppressing SLAPP suit may be regarded as thoughtless. To lose two looks like you’re a censorial hack.

Last month we wrote about how supposed “free speech warrior” Matt Taibbi (who spent years misrepresenting the work of people who study disinformation as inherently censorial, while getting pretty basic facts wrong) had lost his speech suppressing SLAPP suit against author Eoin Higgins. In that case, he argued that some rhetorically hyperbolic metaphors used on the book’s cover defamed him. The court pointed out that’s not at all how defamation works.

Taibbi, who also claimed he somehow had to sue to “protect free speech” (also not how it works) apparently wasn’t satisfied with just a single SLAPP suit. He also had sued congressional Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove in a separate action, claiming that her calling him a “serial sexual harasser” (and entering into the record two articles to support that claim) during a congressional hearing was defamation. If you’re interested, the two articles that were entered into the record were the Chicago Reader’s “Twenty years ago, in Moscow, Matt Taibbi was a misogynist asshole—and possibly worse” and the Washington Post’s “The two expat bros who terrorized women correspondents in Moscow.“

The hearing in question was yet another in a ridiculously long line of congressional hearings (multiple ones where Taibbi has appeared peddling nonsense) about the supposed “censorship industrial complex,” a mostly made-up concept pushed by political hacks trying to shield online trolls and bullies from ever facing consequences from private actors for breaking the clearly stated policies of online platforms.

Kamlager-Dove chose to question Taibbi’s credibility. You could argue she could have focused on the factual problems with his continued confused claims about how disinformation research and trust & safety work — but she went for the more salacious (and widely reported) claims about his time in Moscow from a few decades ago, along with a characterization that reads as a clear opinion based on disclosed facts, which (by definition) cannot be defamatory.

As you may be aware, things said in Congress tend to be protected by the speech and debate clause of the Constitution. Taibbi’s lawyers claimed that because Kamlager-Dove reposted videos of her remarks on social media, that somehow took them outside the clause’s protection. For her part, Kamlager-Dove pointed to the Westfall Act which (as we’ve discussed in the past) allows the government itself to substitute in as a defendant in cases filed against government employees if the lawsuit was based on government work they were doing. In defamation cases, this is fatal: once the federal government substitutes itself in as defendant, the case collapses, because you simply can’t sue the federal government for defamation thanks to sovereign immunity.

Here, the case fails on those grounds exactly. Judge Evelyn Padin finds that the Westfall Act does apply, effectively dooming the case. Taibbi’s lawyers tried to argue that Kamlager-Dove’s statements weren’t part of her job as Congress… because her comments were “partisan communications” and were for “self-aggrandizement on Twitter” rather than serving her constituents. Except politicians making self-aggrandizing partisan communications is (unfortunately) part of their job these days.

Representative Kamlager-Dove’s Statements and republications, however, are precisely the kind of conduct that is “a central part of the job for members of Congress.”…. Indeed, a “primary obligation of a [m]ember of Congress in a representative democracy is to serve and respond to his or her constituents.” …. As the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee holding the Hearing. Representative Kamlager-Dove’s remarks mentioned “taxpayer time and resources” and “foreign policy” topics that are important to members of Congress and that are top-of-mind for their constituents….

Republishing the statements online does not change the analysis. Taibbi claims that the “republications on X, BlueSky, and [Representative Kamlager-Dove’s] website were not legislative work, [and] occurred outside the legislative setting.” …. But members of Congress routinely engage with the public on social media and on the internet as part of their jobs…. (“There is no meaningful difference between tweets and the other kinds of public communications between an elected official and their constituents that have been held to be within the scope-of-employment under the Westfall Act.”). As Taibbi concedes, Representative Kamlager-Dove was simply “talking to voters on Twitter.” …

Thus, while the judge doesn’t get a chance to dismiss the censorial SLAPP suit for being a censorial SLAPP suit, the court does make it pretty clear you can’t sue over this kind of thing.

Two SLAPP suits filed to silence critics. Both dismissed. This is a guy who built his recent brand on the Twitter Files and the “censorship industrial complex” — and who has been a key cog in helping the government suppress speech in the process. He’s now spent quite a lot of time trying to use the courts to shut people up for criticizing him — and failing at that, too.

Filed Under: defamation, free speech, matt taibbi, slapp, slapp suit, sydney kamlager-dove, westfall act

Former Cop Arrested For Not Being Sufficiently Reverential Of Charlie Kirk’s Corpse Scores $835K Lawsuit Settlement

from the whiny-ass-debate-me-bros dept

MAGA got itself a martyr when Charlie Kirk was killed. The “violent left,” etc. as they say. One of it’s own practiced what he preached and his life was ended prematurely by someone practicing what Kirk preached.

I mean, this is a direct quote of Charlie Kirk:

Kirk argued that the benefits of having guns in many American hands outweighed the costs. Gun deaths were inevitable in such a heavily armed society, he admitted, but the prevalence of firearms allowed citizens to “defend yourself against a tyrannical government”.

“I think it’s worth it,” he said. “I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It’s rational.”

The most charitable reading of this quote suggests that Kirk has embraced Thomas Jefferson — “”The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants” — but decided the “patriots” and/or “tyrants” must be, occasionally, innocent people, including elementary school students.

The least charitable reading is this: Charlie Kirk doesn’t care how many of your kids are killed so long as he (and his fellow debate me bro grifters) still have access to firearms. And as for the “second amendment protects the other God-given rights), get the fuck out of here. The last time any of these God, Guns, and Gadsden flag motherfuckers ever went after the government, they did it to fully embrace tyranny while attempting to destroy democracy.

So, when someone says something pointed to say about Charlie Kirk’s live-by-the-gun, die-by-the-gun philosophy, they’re in the right (as in “correct,” rather than being part of the “right”).

Late last year, someone not sufficiently supportive of Kirk’s martyrdom got arrested. Somewhat surprisingly, this person was a former law enforcement officer, which didn’t put him beyond the reach of a current law enforcement official who was a big fan of Charlie Kirk. Perry County (Tennessee) sheriff Nick Weems took it upon himself to take offense on behalf of everyone in his jurisdiction and arrested former cop Larry Bushart for simply quoting Donald Trump in response to Charlie Kirk’s shooting:

One of his posts was a photo of President Donald Trump, along with the quote “We have to get over it,” drawing from his response to a school shooting in Perry, Iowa, in 2024. 

Weems pretended that this post caused mass hysteria in Perry County, Tennessee. First, he claimed he was justified in arresting Larry Bushart because Bushart refused to take the post down. “What kind of person just says he don’t care?” asked the sheriff, who apparently thinks the First Amendment only applies to people who care what law enforcement officers say when they’re in the process of violating people’s rights.

Then he lied to everyone — something exposed by none other than Lexington PD officers. He later admitted investigators knew Bushart wasn’t referring to Perry County or its schools in his Facebook post, which meant the post couldn’t possibly hope to satisfy even the vague and expansive contours of a local law that’s supposed to curb school shootings by punishing online threats.

Sheriff Weems claimed “mass hysteria” was the result of Bushart’s post. A public records request to the Perry County School District for documents by FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which represented Bushart in this case) pertaining to this post was met with a “no related records” response, which strongly suggests no parent, student, teacher, or administrator thought Bushart’s post was some sort of threat against local schools or students.

The end result of Weems’ asinine attempt to punish someone for indirectly maligning Kirk’s cooling corpse? A sizable settlement that taxpayers might want to remember the next time Weems is up for election:

A Tennessee man who was jailed for 37 days over a Facebook post he shared after the killing of Charlie Kirk has agreed to a $835,000 settlement with the sheriff who detained him, his lawyers said on Wednesday.

[…]

In the posts, he shared memes that accused Mr. Kirk’s organization, Turning Point USA, of perpetrating hate and another that included past comments from President Trump about moving past a school shooting. The sheriff’s office in Perry County, Tenn., claimed that with those posts, he had threatened violence.

His bail was set at $2 million, and he remained in jail until the charge against him was dropped.

Check out that last sentence. Voters might also want to keep this in mind the next time local judges are up for election (or, if appointed, the people who appoint these judges are up for election).

Look, even if I didn’t think Charlie Kirk was a terrible person with reprehensible ideas/ideals, I’d still speak up for everyone’s right to treat his death with whatever level of respect they thought it deserved. “Too soon” is in the eye of the beholder, which definitely isn’t the objective approach needed to address cases involving personal expression.

Even if I thought Larry Bushart was extremely careless in his wording or was perhaps trying to tease out an inference that could conceivably be seen as “threatening,” there’s no excuse for what happened here.

“No one should be hauled off to jail in the dark of night over a harmless meme just because the authorities disagree with its message,” Adam Steinbaugh, a senior attorney with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a free speech legal advocacy group that represents Mr. Bushart, said in a statement. “We’re pleased that Larry has been compensated for this injustice, but local law enforcement never should have forced him to endure this ordeal in the first place.”

No law enforcement officer worth their paycheck would have engaged in this arrest. (And, indeed, it looks as though the first officers on the scene from the Lexington PD saw this as an unconstitutional attack on someone’s protected rights.) And no judge should have signed off on a $2 million bail request over a post only one person — that being Sheriff Weems — seemed to feel was illegal.

Bushart wins. Tennessee residents also win, but they’re stuck with the bill. Sheriff Weems loses, but unless he’s ousted from office, he’ll learn nothing from this experience, since this won’t be coming out of his own pocket. The First Amendment has been vindicated, but Sheriff Weems (and the people who support him) made it clear it will always be under attack so long as MAGA acolytes remain in positions of power.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, bogus arrest, censorship, charlie kirk, donald trump, free speech, gun violence, larry bushart, perry county, sheriff nick weems, tennessee

Prosecutor Nopes Out Of The DOJ After Being Handed The James Comey ‘8647’ Case

from the running-out-of-lawyers dept

The DOJ has gone past bleeding talent. Now, it’s just bleeding whatever.

It’s one thing to do a bit of MAGA swagger before a captive audience and walk out with a criminal indictment that contains no evidence of criminal activity. It’s quite another thing to present that case to a court, where you’ll have to answer questions from judges and opposing counsel.

Matthew Petracca wasn’t really the sort of person someone would expect to be elevated to the position of Assistant US Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Sure, he had some past experience with the state’s Department of Justice, but he definitely wasn’t a seasoned prosecutor by any stretch of the imagination. He was, however, a registered Republican and that may have been the only thing that mattered.

But Donald Trump really wanted to see former FBI director James Comey punished for daring to choose loyalty to the public over loyalty to Trump during Trump’s first presidency. The first attempt to lock him up fell apart for several reasons, but most notably because another one of Trump’s handpicked prosecutors — his former insurance lawyer, Lindsey Halligan — managed to set fire to pretty much everything she touched before deciding to exit to the DOJ.

This case is even stupider than the first vindictive prosecution attempt — one that attempts to convert obviously protected speech into a true threat against the sitting president. Ellis Boyle — the US Attorney for the EDNC — definitely wants this to happen. Boyle has made it clear he doesn’t actually work for the Department of Justice. He works for the Department of Whatever The Fuck Trump Wants.

Boyle wears Trump’s hallmark red ties, mimics the double thumbs up in photos, and ends his emails with, “Thank you for your attention to this matter,” echoing the president’s social media sign-offs. He peppers press releases with the same sort of charged language, like catching “thugs” and “bad hombres,” that Trump uses on Truth Social.

Trump pushed Boyle. Boyle pushed his office. And Petracca got stuck with this case. But only temporarily. Unlike his two bosses, Petracca was expected to present this case to a court. Faced with that reality, Petracca chose to exit as gracefully as he could under the circumstances.

Friday’s court filing requests that Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Petracca, who was listed as the government’s lead lawyer on the Comey case, be removed from the docket. Federal prosecutor Timothy Severo was swapped in.

Petracca has also been taken off at least three other cases since last week, according to court filings, which do not specify why he is stepping aside. 

This doesn’t look like a move made by the DOJ to replace a prosecutor it felt couldn’t handle these cases. Instead, according to this reporting by NBC News, it looks like Petracca is leaning towards getting out of the DOJ business altogether.

Petracca had contemplated leaving the Justice Department altogether, according to two people familiar with the matter, but instead remained a DOJ employee after taking a week off. Petracca had not responded to a previous request for comment on his status at the Justice Department, and did not respond to an additional request for comment on Friday. 

Leaving would be the smart thing to do. Any junior prosecutor stuck with this loser of a case should leave as well. If Ellis Boyle wants to be Trump’s mini-me, the least he can do is show up in court and defend his office’s transparently vindictive actions in person. Anything other than dismissing the charges with prejudice is just going to further destroy the DOJ’s reputation. And it really doesn’t have any reputation to spare at this point… and Trump’s still going to be running/ruining it for another couple of years.

Petracca’s best course of action would have been to quit as soon as he was handed this case. He didn’t and now his name will forever be associated with this vindictive, unconstitutional indictment. But if he wants to salvage what’s left of his integrity, he’ll need to leave this iteration of the DOJ entirely and put as much space between him and it as possible.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, doj, donald trump, ellis boyle, free speech, james comey, matthew petracca, trump administration, vindictive prosecution

Trump FCC Proposes Vile New Trans Panic TV Warnings

from the ignorance-and-fear dept

Last month the FCC quietly issued a public notice saying the Brendan Carr run agency was demanding that the TV Oversight Management Board (TVOMB) create new TV ratings to alert viewers to “transgender and gender non-binary programming” and “the discussion or promotion of gender identity themes” included in children’s programming.

You are to ignore that the FCC has no actual authority to even be proposing this. The TV Oversight Management Board is an independent, industry-created coalition that manages the TV ratings system without legal influence by the FCC.

The FCC’s justification for these demanded changes are based entirely on the false claims of a bunch of anonymous “parents” who may or may not even exist:

“Recently, parents have raised concerns that controversial gender identity issues are being
included or promoted in children’s programs without providing any disclosure or transparency to parents. Specifically, the industry guidelines that parents rely on are rating shows with transgender and gender non-binary programming as appropriate for children and young children, and doing so without providing this information to parents, thereby undermining the ability of parents to make informed choices for their families.”

Of course these issues have only been made “controversial” by Republicans, who have taken brutal and ignorant aim at a very small segment of the population in order to actively hurt marginalized people and divide, misinform, and disorient the electorate. Like gay marriage was during the George W. Bush administration, trans rights are an effective wedge issue that exploits public fear, bigotry, and ignorance to redirect public attention away from things like, say, historic levels of corruption.

The idea that media and tech companies are actively flooding the population with a bunch of dangerous “gender non-binary programming” aimed specifically at children is a popular Republican lie designed to agitate and mislead, but there’s no evidence to support the claim. Still it pops up a lot; like Josh Hawley’s false claim at a recent hearing that Netflix is pushing trans-heavy kids programming.

Understandably the proposal didn’t sit well with organizations like GLAAD, which pointed out that it’s grotesque, ignorant, and dangerous to conflate gender fluidity with obscenities, drug abuse, and violence:

“And the Public Notice does not state how a change in TV ratings will impact gay, lesbian, and bisexual characters and stories on TV. Applying warning labels to programs with transgender and nonbinary characters and stories incorrectly equates them to programming with coarse and crude language, sexual situations, or violence. 

This makes life harder for LGBTQ Americans. It sends a message that the FCC can pressure the TVOMB to add even more ratings that stigmatize other diverse groups.”

A broader coalition of 40+ public interest groups ranging from Free Press to Public Knowledge were equally disgusted by the proposal:

“This is Carr’s latest attempt to shut down speech and shift U.S. public discourse to please President Trump. Television-program ratings are wholly outside of the FCC’s control, and the use of this public-comment procedure to coerce change raises constitutional concerns. The FCC should abandon this contrived and morally repugnant exercise.”

Part of Carr’s actual job at the FCC is supposed to involve protecting the public from corporate power, whether it’s a telecom monopoly that leverages corruption to rip off broadband customers, to a cable company using sleazy fees to jack up the cost of TV service. Carr’s not interested in that. He’s repeatedly given large companies free reign to engage in whatever consumer abuses they see fit.

Carr likely figures that the more time the public spends freaking out about nonexistent trans kids’ programming, the less time they have to realize that he’s been captured by industry to the detriment of everyone.

Instead of doing his job, Carr’s obsessed with being a weird little zealot and authoritarian lapdog, whose post-FCC legacy, if he has one, will be one of ignorance, censorship, distraction, and fear.

Filed Under: brendan carr, bullying, censor, fcc, free speech, lgbtq, media, regulator, trans panic, trans rights, tv, tvomb
Companies: glaad

Lying, Cheating Administration Has Its Ass Handed To It By Judge Overseeing BS Charges Against ICE Protesters

from the holy-fuck dept

There are many (negative) things this Trump administration is known for. It’s a long list and I would encourage everyone to add as many negative things to that list.

His DOJ is specifically known for vengeful prosecutions of those who dare to oppose the guy who thinks he’s a king. The nation’s top law enforcement entity has been stripped of talent and experience by repeated purges. It has since been (partially) stocked with people more known for their loyalty to Trump than their legal acumen.

All of this is on the public record. And perhaps nothing is more damning than the combined efforts of two federal judges who are handling the administration’s bullshit prosecution of a half-dozen protesters.

Everything about this is a work of art — one inadvertently commissioned by Trump’s DOJ and its remaining collection of lying lawyers. Here’s a useful summary, via CBS News:

U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros said during a Thursday afternoon hearing that the decision to dismiss charges was due to improper handling of the grand jury proceedings by the lead prosecutor in the case. A rare federal trial for misdemeanor charges that had been scheduled to begin next week was canceled, after prosecutors agreed to dismiss the charges with prejudice, meaning they cannot be refiled.

Boutros announced the decision to dismiss the remaining charges in court following a closed-door meeting over redacted grand jury transcripts. He told U.S. District Judge April Perry he was unaware until recently of the alleged misconduct, including a prosecutor meeting with a grand juror outside proceedings and other jurors who disagreed with the case being dismissed and prevented from participating. Boutros did not dispute the allegations, saying the conduct was upsetting and the reason the case was being dismissed.

If you’re not intimately familiar with the US legal process (and let’s hope for your sake that you aren’t), this is some wild shit. Some seriously unlawful shit went down as Trump prosecutors tried to convince grand jurors to give them an indictment they hadn’t actually earned.

The transcript [PDF] of the hearing in front of US federal judge April Perry has been released. It’s pretty much just 60 pages of the government being taken behind the proverbial woodshed. It is fucking harsh. And for good reason. It shows the government engaged in a lot of shady, possibly-illegal stuff in hopes of securing at least a federal misdemeanor charge against the four suspects who hadn’t already been excused for a lack of evidence.

It starts here, with this, as the judge weighs whether further sealing of the grand jury deliberations is warranted:

Although I am not going to prejudge the issue without a hearing, I will say that I was incredibly shocked by the redactions that were made. I have read hundreds, if not thousands, of grand jury transcripts involving prosecutors who are the most junior of prosecutors to several U.S. Attorneys who appeared before the grand jury. I have never seen the types of prosecutorial behavior before a grand jury that I saw in those transcripts.

Just in case the context doesn’t make it clear, this is not the court congratulating the DOJ for being the best at law-type stuff it has ever seen. It’s the other thing: a court excoriating the DOJ for doing shady shit the likes of which it has never seen.

The list begins:

First, improper prosecutorial vouching to the grand jurors, with the AUSA putting her personal credibility and trustworthiness on the line in support of the charges.

This may not sound like a big deal. It actually is. Here’s a former federal prosecutor (who some of you might be familiar with) explaining why “vouching” is considered off limits by serious prosecutors who actually consider themselves to be in the business of justice.

To quote the embed verbatim:

“Vouching” is when a prosecutor asks a grand jury or jury to just trust them rather than rely on evidence: “I am a federal prosecutor, I have had this job for twenty years, and you can rely on me when I say there is additional strong evidence that shows they are guilty,” that sort of thing.

So, this is the government being this guy, except that federal charges are involved:

Moving on:

Second, improper prosecutorial communications of a substantive nature with the grand jurors outside of the grand jury room.

Do what now? I mean, what the actual fuck? Grand juries are swathed in secrecy, and we kind of are cool with this because… well, SHIT LIKE THIS IS NOT SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN.

Moving on… again:

And, third, the prosecutor excusing grand jurors who disagreed with the government’s case from the deliberations process.

So, that’s how this works now? Has it always been this way? Can the government further stack the grand jury deck simply by booting anyone who doesn’t seem inclined to buy what the government is selling? Maybe this is just the way the government always does these things, but this is the first time I’ve seen a court not only mention it, but directly go after a federal prosecutor for trying to cover up the government’s grand jury min/maxing.

Oh, and there’s so much more if you’re that sort of sadist. Ken White’s Bluesky thread hits a lot of the highlights. Multiple news agencies make the most of some cherry-picked lowlights.

But even without those audiovisual aids, you can see for yourself how this administration operates when it’s trying to punish people for disagreeing with it. Since it knows that law doesn’t support the charges, it will lie, cheat, and steal to get the grand jury “votes” it needs to silence dissent. The courts are already aware of this. But it’s on the public to convert this outrage to votes to prevent the further enshitification of what’s left of this Republic.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, broadview six, chicago, dhs, doj, free speech, ice

Brendan Carr Says He Wants Public Input On His Censorship Campaign Against ABC

from the pretending-to-be-open-to-input dept

As we’ve previously noted, Brendan Carr recently launched a series of phony inquiries into ABC because Jimmy Kimmel made fun of the president’s wife. Carr can’t just come out and say that, so he’s launched a series of fake (and legally laughable) “investigations” into the company. They’re all designed to scare ABC, and other big media companies, away from platforming critics of the unpopular president.

“If you platform voices critical of the president you’ll face an endless barrage of costly and annoying legal headaches and bad press in the right wing media,” is the unsubtle threat.

So Carr has falsely claimed ABC is violating the Communications Act by embracing diversity practices. He’s also falsely claimed that ABC violated the dated FCC “equal time” rule by not platforming more right wing Trump supporters. And he’s repeatedly lied and stated ABC is violating the FCC’s antiquated and never used “news distortion” rule because Kimmel made fun of Charlie Kirk.

It’s all a very big pile of racism, ignorance, zealotry, and censorship pretending to be serious adult policy. And you’ll notice the inquiries only go one way: Carr has nothing to say about Fox News (or countless local right wing broadcast new affiliates and AM radio stations) routinely airing right wing propaganda. Right wing outlets can do whatever they’d like without criticism or repercussion. Funny, that.

As part of the proceedings, Carr has repeatedly threatened to pull one of ABC’s eight broadcast licenses if they refuse to roll over to the administration (they haven’t… so far).

Last week, Carr pretended he was open to receiving public input about the whole ignorant mess. The FCC Media bureau issued a public notice seeking opinions on whether The View qualifies for the bona fide news exemption to the FCC’s equal-time rule, which requires equal time for opposing political candidates on non-news programming. From the notice:

“Does The View qualify as a bona fide news interview program? Does the federal equal opportunities statute pass relevant constitutional scrutiny, either as a general matter or as applied here? Are the relevant decisions on The View, including on format and participants, based on newsworthiness or on an attempt to oppose or support particular candidates within the meaning of FCC precedent? We welcome comment on these and any other relevant points.”

The last page of this document has details on how you can formally comment. Of course, Brendan Carr doesn’t really welcome public input; they’re looking to make this appear like a meaningful public policy initiative, and not the censorial witch hunt it actually is. I suspect the call for comments, as is usually the case, will be flooded with all sorts of bots and fake people.

As we’ve mentioned previously, ABC’s daytime talk show The View hosted Texas Democrat James Talerico last February. The Trump administration is apparently unhappy with the inroads Talerico has been making with Texas Christians and independents. So Carr has falsely claimed that platforming Talerico violated the FCC’s equal time rule, requiring ABC file appropriate paperwork and platform a Republican voice in opposition.

But as ABC’s recent notice to the FCC makes clear, The View was clearly granted an FCC Bona Fide Exemption to the rule back in 2002. Most talk shows have broadly been viewed as exempt since 1984 or so (and increasingly so, as the Internet challenged TV’s supremacy). So there’s nothing to really debate.

Carr knows that, so instead he manufactured a controversy. But it’s worse than that: as ABC’s filing made clear, Carr appears to have worked collaboratively with right wing local broadcasters to make it seem like ABC-owned Houston affiliate KTRK had done something wrong. They collaborated on a big performance to make it seem like KTRK broke the law.

This is all so profoundly stupid it would be laughed immediately out of court in a functional country. But a corporate media, worried they won’t get mergers approved (or could face costly legal headaches for having a spine), has generally chosen to roll over both in their official capacity, and as reflected by their journalism.

As a result, most of the reporting on Carr’s censorship has generally either failed to call out Carr’s behaviors as radical or extreme, or they’ve taken a “both sides” approach to the story where they frame everything as a matter of two equally valid opinions, in turn normalizing authoritarian censorship.

But make no mistake: Carr’s a censorial authoritarian zealot engaged in a laughable and racist government harassment campaign because the U.S. President is a giant baby with a historically fragile ego. And Brendan Carr should never be allowed to live it down.

Filed Under: authoritarian, brendan carr, bully, censorship, equal time, fcc, first amendment, free speech, james talerico, the view
Companies: abc, disney