Earlier this year, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Tom Wheeler, abruptly abandoned a survey of Americans鈥� media information needs, which, despite its modest scope, would have provided crucial data for the FCC in its efforts to maintain viewpoint diversity in our increasingly concentrated media markets.
Ironically, Wheeler did so in the face of accusations the FCC was assaulting the First Amendment and press freedoms when, in fact, the study would have helped enhance free expression. Critics argued that, as Republican FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, the study was 鈥渁n initiative to thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country.鈥�
Unfortunately, despite Chairman Wheeler鈥檚 (premature) withdrawal of the initiative, the brickbats continue.
The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform now plans to take time, tax dollars, and focus away from the real problems facing our country and government by launching a formal inquiry into the Wheeler study.
Chairman Darrell Issa鈥檚 (R-CA) letter to the chairman announcing the inquiry previews the tenor of this 鈥渋nvestigation.鈥� The Wheeler study, Rep. Issa said, is emblematic of an 鈥渙ngoing assault on the Constitution by the Obama Administration.鈥� The study 鈥渨as not an innocent inquiry鈥� and is 鈥渄isconcerting in light of the current Administration鈥檚 continuing efforts to silence the constitutionally protected speech of its opposition.鈥�
Such language suggests that perhaps the Chairman鈥檚 views have been colored by his view of other administration actions and may not be entering into the 鈥渋nvestigation鈥� with a completely open mind.
It鈥檚 crucial to understand what we鈥檙e talking about here. The survey, known as the Critical Information Needs study (鈥淐IN鈥�), would have assisted the FCC in identifying barriers to entry in the communications marketplace, especially for minority and female owners, which the FCC is obliged by law to do.
It also would have included a section surveying minority and female media consumers to evaluate whether their information needs are being met, including things like access to emergency information in a hurricane.
Some, however, pounced on the study as a direct assault on the First Amendment. In addition to Commissioner Pai鈥檚 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, some Congressional Republicans called the study the first step on the road to a 鈥渘ews police.鈥� Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR), chairman of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee, to block the CIN study.
Were there a legitimate First Amendment concern with the CIN study, the 老澳门开奖结果 would be the first to object (it鈥檚 not like we love FCC content regulation). We caution the Congressional committee charged with eliminating government waste, however, not to waste scarce taxpayer resources on an 鈥渋nvestigation鈥� into a harmless, and actually helpful, government fact-finding exercise.
Learn More 老澳门开奖结果 the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON 鈥� Today, the 老澳门开奖结果, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok鈥檚 challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will 鈥渟hutter one of America鈥檚 most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.鈥� 鈥淭he Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,鈥漵aid Patrick Toomey, deputy director of 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 National Security Project. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.鈥� The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law鈥檚 profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court鈥檚 decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users鈥� First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government鈥檚 ban on TikTok as a vindication of users鈥� First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign 鈥減ropaganda.鈥� But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its 鈥渕otivating ideology鈥� or 鈥減erspective,鈥� and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. 鈥淭he government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,鈥� said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit鈥檚 erroneous ruling.鈥� Finally, the brief underscores that the government can鈥檛 impose this type of sweeping ban unless it鈥檚 necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government鈥檚 invocation of 鈥渘ational security鈥� as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. 鈥淩estricting citizens鈥� access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,鈥� said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. 鈥淚t would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.鈥� You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 老澳门开奖结果 of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter鈥檚 privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer鈥檚 subpoenas.