The FCC and the “Equal Time Rule”: A Weaponized Regulation

The “equal time rule” was initially designed to ensure fairness in political broadcasting, mandating that candidates receive equivalent airtime. Historically, it served to level the playing field in an era of limited broadcast frequencies. However, Carr is leveraging this regulation in a way that raises eyebrows and alarms.

Carr’s threats to revoke NBC’s broadcast license over Kamala Harris’s appearance on Saturday Night Live (SNL) are a case in point. The claim that NBC violated the rule is factually inaccurate. NBC affiliates, not NBC itself, hold the broadcast licenses, and the network’s programming adhered to the rule by providing equal airtime to other candidates. Moreover, it’s worth noting that Republicans, including Carr, have long opposed the equal time rule as an extension of the controversial Fairness Doctrine. The sudden embrace of this regulation reeks of opportunism rather than principle.

By threatening to pull licenses, Carr sends a chilling message: platforms hosting viewpoints he opposes could face costly investigations. While he lacks the direct authority to revoke licenses, the threat alone is enough to encourage self-censorship among broadcasters. This tactic undermines the spirit of the First Amendment, which prohibits government interference in free speech and a free press.

Section 230 and the Attack on Content Moderation

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is often misunderstood and misrepresented, but its foundational purpose is clear: to protect online platforms from liability for user-generated content while empowering them to moderate harmful material. Carr’s recent actions suggest a deliberate attempt to misinterpret and undermine this law.

In a letter to major tech companies, Carr accused them of “censorship” for using NewsGuard, a service that evaluates the trustworthiness of news sources. His argument hinges on the claim that such partnerships violate the “good faith” provision of Section 230, a claim that courts have consistently rejected. The “good faith” clause applies narrowly to specific types of content moderation and does not negate the broader protections offered by Section 230.

Furthermore, Carr’s assertion that the FCC has jurisdiction over Section 230 contradicts the legislative intent behind the law. When Congress passed Section 230, it explicitly sought to prevent FCC regulation of online content. By threatening to reinterpret the law, Carr not only oversteps his authority but also risks eroding the very protections that have enabled the internet to thrive.

At its core, Carr’s strategy is about coercion. By targeting NewsGuard and other content moderation tools, he aims to pressure tech companies into avoiding fact-checking and other practices he finds unfavorable. This is not a defense of free speech; it’s an attack on the rights of platforms to exercise their own editorial discretion.

The Broader Implications for Free Speech

The actions of Brendan Carr reveal a troubling pattern: the use of regulatory power to silence dissent and promote a partisan agenda. Whether through threats to broadcasters or attacks on content moderation, his approach undermines the principles of free speech he claims to uphold.

This trend is particularly concerning in an era where digital platforms play a central role in public discourse. By forcing companies to self-censor or face regulatory retaliation, Carr sets a dangerous precedent. If left unchecked, this could lead to a chilling effect on speech, where only viewpoints aligned with those in power are amplified.

The First Amendment was designed to protect against precisely this kind of overreach. It is not the role of the government to dictate what private entities can or cannot say. Yet, Carr’s actions blur the lines between regulation and censorship, threatening to erode the freedoms that underpin our democracy.

Key Takeaways

• Brendan Carr’s use of the FCC’s regulatory authority raises serious questions about government overreach and censorship.
• The “equal time rule” and Section 230 are being weaponized to suppress dissenting viewpoints.
• Threatening broadcasters and tech companies undermines the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment.
• Vigilance and advocacy are required to protect free speech in the face of such challenges.

Source: Brendan Carr Makes It Clear That He’s Eager To Be America’s Top Censor | Techdirt

Lawsuits as Weapons

The recent $10 billion lawsuit against CBS over Vice President Kamala Harris’s 60 Minutes interview exemplifies the intent to use the judicial system to intimidate and suppress critical media outlets. While legal experts universally dismiss the lawsuit as baseless, it has already served its purpose: creating a chilling effect on journalistic practices.

Filed in a jurisdiction known for favoring conservative causes, the lawsuit strategically plays into a larger narrative of attacking so-called “fake news” and undermining public trust in the press. CBS’s bold response—challenging the President-elect to appear on 60 Minutes to address grievances—stands as a testament to the courage needed to uphold journalistic integrity in these trying times.

A Climate of Fear

During the campaign, the President-elect intensified verbal assaults on the media, frequently encouraging supporters to boo and jeer at reporters during rallies. These orchestrated moments of hostility have now become a fixture of this political movement, cultivating an environment where journalists feel unsafe and targeted.

Moreover, threats to revoke broadcast licenses, investigate networks like NBC for “treason,” and imprison journalists for protecting sources have transitioned from campaign bluster to potential policy goals. This weaponization of government power against the press is an unprecedented escalation that could fundamentally alter the landscape of American journalism.

The Erosion of Public Trust

Anti-media rhetoric has significantly contributed to declining public trust in journalism, particularly among Republicans. According to a Pew Research Center study, trust in national news organizations among Republicans has plummeted to a historic low. This erosion of trust feeds into a vicious cycle: as the public becomes more skeptical of the media, efforts to hold power accountable become increasingly difficult.

A new FCC, a new mission: the “censorship cartel”

The appointment of Brendan Carr as FCC Chairman by the 2025 President-elect signals a potential shift in the regulatory landscape with significant implications for media and communications. Carr, known for his staunch criticism of major tech companies and advocacy for dismantling what he describes as a “censorship cartel,” has promised to reduce legal protections for platforms and scrutinize media organizations more closely. While Carr frames his priorities as promoting free speech, critics warn that his approach could lead to increased governmental control and suppression of dissenting voices. This appointment further underscores the incoming administration’s intent to reshape the boundaries of the freedom of the press and media accountability.

Why A Free Press Matters

A free press is not just a cornerstone of democracy; it is its lifeblood. The First Amendment ensures that journalists can report without fear of censorship or retribution, holding those in power accountable and keeping the public informed. Recent rhetoric and actions threaten to undermine these principles, creating a landscape where dissent is punished and misinformation thrives.

Now more than ever, news organizations must demonstrate an unwavering commitment to truth, accuracy, and ethical reporting. Journalistic integrity cannot be compromised, even in the face of political and legal pressures.

A Call to Action

As the incoming administration prepares to assume power, defending a free press will require collective effort. Journalists must continue to pursue their mission with courage, while the public must remain vigilant in supporting a free and independent press. Only through such unified resolve can we preserve the values that underpin American democracy.

Protect Your Privacy

It’s critical for individuals to take steps to safeguard their personal privacy. Use private browsing modes to limit tracking, VPNs to protect your location and encrypt your online activity, and messaging apps with end-to-end encryption (E2EE) to secure your communications. For highly sensitive information, consider using TOR to anonymize your online presence. By adopting these tactical privacy measures, you can protect yourself and support a culture of free and open communication in an increasingly surveilled world.

This critical juncture for the United States demands action. How the nation addresses these challenges will define the future of its democracy and the role of the press in safeguarding it.