Tag: censorship

Industry News

FCC’s Gomez Testifies About First Amendment Concerns

By TALKERS | by TALKERS

At last week’s appearance before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology Committee on Energy and Commerce, FCC Commissioner Anna M. Gomez testified about her concerns withimg the way the commission is operating. She took issue with FCC Chair Brendan Carr’s interpretation of how the Commission should ensure that licensees operate in the public interest. She stated, “For months, this FCC has asserted an apparent roving mandate to police speech that this Administration does not like, invoking an undefined and unchecked concept known as the ‘public interest’ standard.

Instead of functioning as a principle intended to serve the public, this standard is being treated as a license to weigh in on content, viewpoint, and editorial judgment.

This is not what the FCC was created to do. The Commission’s job is not to police content, root out media bias, or guarantee favorable coverage for any administration. Its responsibility is to regulate communications infrastructure and markets, not censor the speech that flows through them.

The First Amendment protects against government interference with speech, and the Communications Act prohibits the FCC from engaging in censorship. In a free society, the government does not decide what speech is acceptable or aligned with its views. When the government’s media regulator claims the power to judge content or police bias, we move away from oversight and closer toward censorship and control.

That is why it is so important for the FCC to clearly define what it means by the public interest standard, something I have called on it to do repeatedly. It is also why Congress must insist on guardrails that prevent content-based regulation and protect against the FCC acting as an arbiter of speech.”

Industry Views

Neutraliars: The Platforms That Edit Like Publishers but Hide Behind Neutrality

By TALKERS | by TALKERS

By Matthew B. Harrison
TALKERS, VP/Associate Publisher
Harrison Media Law, Senior Partner
Goodphone Communications, Executive Producer

imgIn the golden age of broadcasting, the rules were clear. If you edited the message, you owned the consequences. That was the tradeoff for editorial control. But today’s digital platforms – YouTube, X, TikTok, Instagram – have rewritten that deal. Broadcasters and those who operate within the FCC regulatory framework are paying the price.

These companies claim to be neutral conduits for our content. But behind the curtain, they make choices that mirror the editorial judgment of any news director: flagging clips, muting interviews, throttling reach, and shadow banning accounts. All while insisting they bear no responsibility for the content they carry.

They want the control of publishers without the accountability. I call them neutraliars.

A “neutraliar” is a platform that claims neutrality while quietly shaping public discourse. It edits without transparency, enforces vague rules inconsistently, and hides bias behind shifting community standards.

Broadcasters understand the weight of editorial power. Reputation, liability, and trust come with every decision. But platforms operate under a different set of rules. They remove content for “context violations,” downgrade interviews for being “borderline,” and rarely offer explanations. No appeals. No accountability.

This isn’t just technical policy – it’s a legal strategy. Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, platforms enjoy broad immunity from liability related to user content. What was originally intended to allow moderation of obscene or unlawful material has become a catch-all defense for everything short of outright defamation or criminal conduct.

These companies act like editors when it suits them, curating and prioritizing content. But when challenged, they retreat behind the label of “neutral platform.” Courts, regulators, and lawmakers have mostly let it slide.

But broadcasters shouldn’t.

Neutraliars are distorting the public square. Not through overt censorship, but through asymmetry. Traditional broadcasters play by clear rules – standards of fairness, disclosure, and attribution. Meanwhile, tech platforms make unseen decisions that influence whether a segment is heard, seen, or quietly buried.

So, what’s the practical takeaway?

Don’t confuse distribution with trust.

Just because a platform carries your content doesn’t mean it supports your voice. Every upload is subject to algorithms, undisclosed enforcement criteria, and decisions made by people you’ll never meet. The clip you expected to go viral. Silenced. The balanced debate you aired. Removed for tone. The satire? Flagged for potential harm.

The smarter approach is to diversify your presence. Own your archive. Use direct communication tools – e-mail lists, podcast feeds, and websites you control. Syndicate broadly but never rely solely on one platform. Monitor takedowns and unexplained drops in engagement. These signals matter.

Platforms will continue to call themselves neutral as long as it protects their business model. But we know better. If a company edits content like a publisher and silences creators like a censor, it should be treated like both.

And when you get the inevitable takedown notice wrapped in vague policy language and polished PR spin, keep one word in mind.

Neutraliars.

Matthew B. Harrison is a media and intellectual property attorney who advises radio hosts, content creators, and creative entrepreneurs. He has written extensively on fair use, AI law, and the future of digital rights. Reach him at HarrisonMediaLaw.com or read more at TALKERS.com.

Industry News

Newsmax Complains of “Blatant Censorship” in Exit from DirecTV

By TALKERS | by TALKERS

As of Tuesday (1/24), Newsmax TV is not available on AT&T’s DirecTV satellite television service. AT&T says in a statement that it wanted to continue to offer the channel but says Newsmax’s demand for an increase in its carriage fee would have meant “significantly higher costs that we would have to pass on to our broad customer base.” But, Newsmax CEO Christopher Ruddy says, “This is a blatant act of political discrimination and censorship against Newsmax.” Newsmax says, “DirecTV pays cable license fees to all top 75 cable channels and to all 22 liberal news channels it carries. Almost all of these channels are paid hefty license fees significantly greater than Newsmax was seeking — and despite the fact that most of the channels have far lower ratings than Newsmax.” Ruddy adds, “The most extreme liberal channels, even with tiny ratings, get fees from AT&T’s DirecTV, but [in their view] Newsmax and OAN need to be deplatformed.” Conservative channel OAN was removed from the DirecTV platform in April of 2022.