September 29, 2020

1975 words 10 mins read

The FCCs Independence and Mission Are at Stake with Trump Nominee

The FCCs Independence and Mission Are at Stake with Trump Nominee

When there are only five people in charge of a major federal agency, the personal agenda of even one of them can have a profound impact. That’s why EFF is closely watching the nomination of Nathan Simington to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Simington’s nomination appears to be the culmination of a several-month project to transform the FCC and expand its purview in ways that threaten

our civil liberties online. The Senate should not confirm him without asking some crucial questions about whether and how he will help ensure that the FCC does the public interest job Congress gave it, which is to expand broadband access, manage the public’s wireless spectrum to their benefit, and protect consumers when they use telecommunications services. There’s good reason to worry: Simington was reportedly one of the legal architects behind the president’s recent executive order seeking to have the FCC issue “clarifying” regulations for social media platforms. The executive order purports to give the FCC authority to create rules to which social media platforms must adhere in order to enjoy liability protections under Section 230, the most important law protecting our free speech online. Section 230 protects online platforms from liability for the speech of their users, while protecting their flexibility to develop their own speech moderation policies. The Trump executive order would upend that flexibility.  As we’ve explained at length, this executive order was based on a legal fiction. The FCC’s role is not to enforce or interpret Section 230; its job is to regulate the United States’ telecommunications infrastructure: broadband, telephone, cable television, satellite, and all the various infrastructural means of delivering information to and from homes and businesses in the U.S. Throughout the Trump administration, the FCC has often shirked that duty—most dramatically, by abandoning any meaningful defense of net neutrality. Simington’s nomination seems to be an at-the-buzzer shot by an administration that’s been focused on undermining our protections for free speech online, instead of upholding the FCC’s traditional role of ensuring affordable access to the Internet and other communications technologies, and ensuring that those technologies don’t unfairly discriminate against specific users or uses. The FCC Is Not the Speech Police—And Shouldn’t Be Let’s take a look at the events leading up to Simington’s nomination. Twitter first applied a fact-check label to a tweet of President Trump’s in May, in response to his claims that mail-in ballots were part of a campaign of systemic voter fraud. As a private company, Twitter has the First Amendment right to implement such fact-checks, or even to choose not to carry someone’s speech for any reason. The White House responded with its executive order that, among other things, directed the FCC to draft regulations that would narrow the Section 230 liability shield. As a result, it perverted the FCC’s role: it’s supposed to be a telecom regulator, not the social media police. The White House executive order reflects a long-running (and unproven) claim in conservative circles that social media platforms are biased against conservative users. Some lawmakers and commentators have even claimed that their biased moderation practices somehow strip social media platforms of their liability protections under Section 230. As early as 2018, Sen. Ted Cruz incorrectly told Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg that in order to be shielded by 230, a platform had to be a “neutral public forum.” In the years since then, members of Congress have introduced multiple bills purporting to condition platforms’ 230 immunity on “neutral” moderation policies. As we’ve explained to Congress, a law demanding that platforms moderate speech in a certain way would be unconstitutional. The misguided executive order has the same inherent flaw as the bills: the government cannot dictate online platforms’ speech policies. It’s not the FCC’s job to police social media, and it’s also not the president’s job to tell it to. By design, the FCC is an independent agency and not subject to the president’s demands. But when Republican FCC commissioner Michael O’Rielly correctly pointed out that government efforts to control private actor speech were unconstitutional, he was quickly punished. O’Rielly wrote [pdf], “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.” The White House responded by withdrawing O’Rielly’s nomination and nominating Simington, one of the drafters of the executive order. During a transition of power, it’s customary for independent agencies like the FCC to pause on controversial actions. The current FCC has so far adhered to that tradition, only moving forward items that have unanimous support. Every item the FCC has voted on since the election had the support of the Chair, the other four commissioners, and industry and consumer groups. For example, the FCC has moved forward on freeing up of 5.9 Ghz spectrum for unlicensed uses, a move applauded by EFF and most experts. But we worry that in nominating Simington, the administration is attempting to pave the way for a future FCC to go far beyond its traditional mandate and move into policing social media platforms’ policies. We’re glad to see Fight for the Future, Demand Progress, and several other groups rightfully calling on the Senate to not move forward on Nate Simington’s nomination. The FCC’s Real Job Is More Important Than Ever  There’s no shortage of work to do within FCC’s traditional role and statutory mandate. The FCC must begin to address the pressure test that the COVID-19 pandemic has posed to the U.S. telecommunications infrastructure. Much of the U.S. population must now rely on home Internet subscriptions for work, education, and socializing. Millions of families either have no home Internet access at all or lack sufficient access to meet this new demand. The new FCC has a monumental task in front of itself.  During his Senate confirmation hearing, Simington gave no real indication on how he plans to work on the real issues facing the agency: broadband access, remote school challenges, spectrum management, improving competition, and public safety rules, for example. The only things we learned from the hearing are that he plans to continue the Trump-era policy of refusing to regulate large ISPs and that he refuses to recuse himself from decisions on the misguided executive order that he helped write. Before the Simington confirmation hearing started, Trump again urged Republicans to quickly confirm his nominee on a partisan basis. In response, Senator Richard Blumenthal called for a hold on Simington’s nomination, indicating real concern for the FCC’s independence from the White House. That means the Senate would need to bypass his filibuster if it truly wanted to confirm Trump’s nominee. Sen. Blumenthal’s concerns are real and important. President Trump effectively fired his own commissioner (O’Rielly) for expressing basic First Amendment principles. Before it confirms Simington, the Senate ought to consider what the nomination means for the future of the FCC. As the pandemic continues to worsen, there are too many mission critical issues for the FCC to tackle for it to continue with Trump’s misguided war on Section 230.

Author: Ernesto Falcon

Date: 2020-11-23


In an Uncertain World, EFF Will Always Support the Users (2020-11-04) EFF turned thirty this year In our three decades of work weve seen huge shifts in the way technology and the Internet help harm and otherwise influence the lives of nearly everyone on the planetand that includes its enormous influence on electoral politics Our thirty-year view has allowed us the insight that regardless of who is in power technology can be wielded in the service of justice and demo..
EFF to Supreme Court: American Companies Complicit in Human Rights Abuses Abroad Should Be Held Accountable (2020-10-21) For years EFF has been calling for US companies that act as repressions little helpers to be held accountable and now were telling the US Supreme Court Despite all the ways that technology has been used as a force for goodconnecting people around the world giving voice to the less powerful and facilitating knowledge sharingtechnology has also been used as a force multiplier for repression and huma..
Turkey Doubles Down on Violations of Digital Privacy and Free Expression (2020-11-04) Turkeys recent history is rife with human rights-stifling legislation and practices The Internet Law its amendments and the recent decision of Turkeys regulator BTK further cemented that trend The Internet Law and amendments require large platforms to appoint a local representative localize their data and speed up the removal of content on-demand from the government Turkey has also adopted a data ..
EFF Urges Vallejo’s Top Officials to End Unconstitutional Practice of Blocking Critics on Social Media (2020-10-22) Elected Officials Cant Block People Whose Views They DislikeSan FranciscoThe Electronic Frontier Foundation EFF told the City of Vallejo that its practice of blocking people and deleting comments on social media because it doesnt like their messages is illegal under the First Amendment and demanded that it stop engaging in such viewpoint discrimination unblock all members of the public and let the..
Podcast Episode: Why Does My Internet Suck? (2020-11-12) Episode 002 of EFFs How to Fix the Internet Gigi Sohn joins EFF hosts Cindy Cohn and Danny OBrien as they discuss broadband access in the United States or the lack thereof Gigi explains the choices American policymakers and tech companies made that have caused millions to lack access to reliable broadband and what steps we need to take to fix the problem now In this episode youll learn: How the FC.. Podcast Episode: Why Does My Internet Suck?
EFF Files Comment Opposing the Department of Homeland Security’s Massive Expansion of Biometric Surveillance (2020-10-22) EFF joined by several leading civil liberties and immigrant rights organizations recently filed a comment calling on the Department of Homeland Security DHS to withdraw a proposed rule that would exponentially expand biometrics collection from both US citizens and noncitizens who apply for immigration benefits and would allow DHS to mandate the collection of face data iris scans palm prints voice ..
Bar Applicants Deserve Better than a Remotely Proctored “Barpocalypse” (2020-10-09) This week was the California Bar Exam a grueling two-day test that determines whether or not a person can practice law in California Despite the privacy and security risks remote proctoring apps present to users the California Bar as well as several other state bars throughout the country are requiring that students use proctoring and surveillance app ExamSoft to protect the integrity of the test ..
Tell Trump’s Patent Office Director: Don’t Make Permanent Rule Changes Now (2020-11-12) In the final days of the administration Andre Iancu President Trumps Director of the US Patent and Trademark Office is trying to push through permanent rule changes that would destroy the post-grant review system Iancu is going all out to weaken inter partes review proceedings or IPRs which are the most effective mechanisms we have for getting the Patent Office to cancel patents it never should ha..
Introducing Cover Your Tracks! (2020-11-19) Today were pleased to announce Cover Your Tracks the newest edition and rebranding of our historic browser fingerprinting and tracker awareness tool Panopticlick Cover Your Tracks picks up where Panopticlick left off Panopticlick was about letting users know that browser fingerprinting was possible; Cover Your Tracks is about giving users the tools to fight back against the trackers and improve th..
Introducing “How to Fix the Internet,” a New Podcast from EFF (2020-11-12) Today EFF is launching How to Fix the Internet a new podcast mini-series to examine potential solutions to six ills facing the modern digital landscape Over the course of 6 episodes well consider how currenttech policy isnt working well for users and invite experts to join us in imagining a better future Hosted by EFFs Executive Director Cindy Cohn and our Director of Strategy Danny OBrien How to ..