Mediaboss Marketing

As President Biden announced he's bumping up his deadline by two weeks for states to make all adults in the U.S. eligible for coronavirus vaccines, Dr. Anthony Fauci warned "it's premature to declare victory." (April 6) AP Domestic

On March 2, Texas Gov. Greg Abbottissued an executive order that wouldofficiallylift the requirement that Texans wear masks in public and authorizeall businesses to operate at full capacity on March 10. As reasoning, he pointed tothe decline in COVID-19 hospitalizations that occurred in February and the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines.

Health experts warned that because less than 30% of Texans had antibodies from a previous infection or vaccine, loosening restrictions could cause cases to increase again.Dr. James McDeavitt, dean of clinical affairs at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, told CBS Austin on March 3 that Texas could see an increase in cases within two to six weeks.

Aboutthree weeks after the executive order went into effect, Mediaite posted an article about comments made by Dr. Anthony Fauci in an interview on MSNBC.

The headline said "Fauci Says Hes Not Quite Sure Why Covid Cases Are Dropping in Texas After Mitigation Restrictions Were Lifted."Young Americans for Liberty, a libertarian political action group, posteda screenshot of the headlineon its Facebook page on April 7, garnering over 2,200 reactions. USA TODAY reached out to the poster for comment.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, seated at left, speaks to state Rep. Dustin Burrows table in Montelongos Mexican Restaurant in Lubbock, where Abbott announced he is rescinding a statewide mask mandate and capacity limits.(Photo: Justin Rex/Lubbock Avalanche-Journal)

Some commenters asserted that masks, and mask mandates, are ineffective at preventing COVID-19.

"Because lock downs and masks dont work!!!!! No proof," one commenter wrote.

"Maybe because by being exposed, PEOPLE ARE BUILDING THEIR NATURAL IMMUNITY. Science,"another commenter wrote.

One commenter even claimed that lifting the mandate actually decreased the risk of infection: "Surely it doesn't have anything to do with people not constantly rebreathing the toxins their body is trying to expel," he wrote.

USA TODAY has previously reported the CDC has found mask mandates causedCOVID-19 cases to declineand that masks and vaccines slow the spread of the disease.

A view of the fans and the stands during the playing of the Canadian and U.S. national anthems before the game between the Texas Rangers and the Toronto Blue Jays at Globe Life Field. The Rangers opened their stadium for 100% attendance, the first such sporting event since the start of the coronavirus pandemic in March 2020.(Photo: Jerome Miron, USA TODAY Sports)

Mediaite's April 6 article covered an interview featuringFauci on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."

In theinterview, Fauci said that he"wasn't sure" why COVID-19 cases were in decline in Texas because there could be multiple factors.

There are a lot of things thatgo into case numbers decreasing," he said. "When you say that theyve had alot of the activity ... outside, like ballgames, Im notreally quite sure.It could be theyre doing thingsoutdoors.Its very difficult to one onone compare that.You just have to see in the longrange.I hope they continue to tickdown.If they do, that would be great."

The Facebook post could be construedas implying a causal link between Texas' lockdown ending and COVID-19 cases decreasing.

In theinterview, Fauci said three weeks is too early to know the result of Abbott's executive order.

Yeah, you know, it can be confusing. Youmay see a lag and a delay,because often, you have to waita few weeks before you see theeffect of what youre doingright now,"Fauci said."Weve been fooled before bysituations where people begin toopen back up, nothing happens,and all of a sudden, several weeks later,things (hospitalizations, case numbers, etc.)start exploding on you. Soweve got to be careful we dont prematurely judge that."

A group of people gather to burn masks along the JFK Memorial Causeway in honor of the end of the statewide mask mandate across Texas on Wednesday, March 10, 2021.(Photo: Courtney Sacco, Corpus Christi Caller-Times)

We rate this claim MISSING CONTEXT, because without additional information it could be misleading. Fauci said he was unsure about why COVID-19 cases were decreasing in Texas despite the removal of state-mandated precautions, but he added that it istoo early to know the results of the executive order and because many factors can contribute to case numbersoutside of state policies on mask-wearing.

Thank you for supporting our journalism.You cansubscribe to our print edition, ad-free app or electronic newspaper replica here.

Our fact check work is supported in part by a grant from Facebook.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/04/14/fact-check-fauci-eased-covid-19-restrictions-tx/7182261002/

See the article here:
Fact check: Fauci says it's too early to know results of eased COVID-19 restrictions in Texas - USA TODAY

Days after the demise of a higher education budget, University of Idaho President C. Scott Green is looking for backup from alumni and business leaders.

In an unprecedented action, special interests have been actively working against passage of the higher education funding bill in the Idaho Legislature, Green said in a letter Friday to U of I alumni and friends, as first reported by Melissa Davlin of Idaho Reports on Idaho Public Television. These interests represent a libertarian-based ideology, the principles of which generally do not believe that any public funding should be used for public education. The misinformation and half-truths spread are directly impacting higher education funding by the Idaho Legislature.

(Scroll down to read Greens email in full.)

Greens appeal for support is a not-so-veiled reference to the Idaho Freedom Foundation, the lobbying group that has led opposition to the higher education budget. In a tweet Monday, the group dismissed Greens comments as spin.

Previously, foundation president Wayne Hoffman hailed House members for rejecting the first version of the higher education budget, and urged lawmakers not to be timid:

Lawmakers must instruct Idaho schools that no public funds should ever be used for social justice enterprises. The public funds restriction is important, as these schools operate on several baskets of money from many sources. No public funds means, it doesnt matter whether the money comes from state or federal taxpayers, student tuition or fees, or in the form of a grant from Coca Cola, Disney, or Delta; no state institution should be engaging in the promotion of social justice dogma.

(Scroll down to read Hoffmans statement in full.)

The dueling statements come as legislative budget-writers prepare to take a second run at writing a higher education budget for 2021-22.

On Wednesday, the House overwhelmingly rejected a higher education budget that had comfortably passed the Senate in March. Bill sponsor Paul Amador, R-Coeur dAlene, urged House members to vote down the bill and allow budget-writers to start over. After nearly an hour of freewheeling debate focused largely on social justice concerns the House voted down the budget on a 13-57 vote.

Its unclear when the budget rewrite will begin. The Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee meets Tuesday morning, but higher ed is not on its agenda.

In another dispatch from the higher education debate, the State Board of Education will take up a host of freedom of expression issues during a meeting next week.

The April 21-22 discussion will focus on several topics: campus freedom of expression, including a review of current board policies on speech; making some student fees optional; student course evaluations; student surveys on campus climate.

The meeting agenda is not set, but the board will accept comments on freedom of expression issues through April 19 at [emailprotected].

Here, in full, is Greens letter:

In an unprecedented action, special interests have been actively working against passage of the higher education funding bill in the Idaho Legislature. They have executed a campaign of radio ads, robo-calling and pressure on our legislators that may never have before been matched in effort or spending. These interests represent a libertarian-based ideology, the principles of which generally do not believe that any public funding should be used for public education. The misinformation and half-truths spread are directly impacting higher education funding by the Idaho Legislature.

They have targeted and tried to redefine issues of diversity, inclusion, and social justice to create an illusion that higher education in Idaho is actively pushing a political agenda wrought with leftist indoctrination. You already know, based on your experience and relationship with the University of Idaho, that this is a completely inaccurate description of our institution. Yet, with the help and financial support of interests inside and outside of our state, this narrative gained enough traction to lead our legislators to defeat the higher education funding bill this week.

The University of Idaho has a longstanding, clear mission: to educate Idahoans. We do not condone indoctrination of any kind. We provide a place where people with all viewpoints can express themselves civilly. This is a core part of learning at an institution of higher education and, most importantly, is speech protected by the First Amendment. At the University of Idaho, we ask our faculty to ensure that multiple, differing sides of an issue are presented. We expect all our students and faculty to treat each other with respect, even when differing on viewpoints. In instances where students feel their views are not respected or that they have been shamed, there is a grievance process to evaluate claims and take action where appropriate, including where faculty or students do not meet our standards of respect. Regardless, the special interests have little incentive to make these truths known.

There is a troubling void of voices in the legislature standing up for the principles of critical thinking, the pursuit of knowledge, and the ability of students and faculty to explore ideas, examine the facts, and come to their own conclusions. The importance of protecting the First Amendment in the classroom was recently reiterated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, when they held last month in the Meriwether v. Hartop case that American universities have been beacons of intellectual diversity and academic freedom that have tried not to stifle debate by picking sides. There is also a growing chorus that argues higher education is not worth the cost (despite the fact that college graduates earn over $1.2 million more over their lifetimes and live 9 years longer on average than non-graduates).

We have consistently and repeatedly told legislators that our industries demand critical thinkers. But without our industries delivering the same message to our legislators, it falls flat. There is a strong demand for a highly educated and diverse work force, a need Idahos universities are working hard to deliver. The four-year institutions have already agreed to hold tuition flat if the governors budget is passed. Defunding the states four-year institutions will make it even harder for industry to attract the workforce they need to grow in this state. This is a message I have heard over and over again.

The denigration of opportunities for the children of our state, together with the false narrative that a college degree is not valuable, are having a chilling effect on applications within the state of Idaho. In-state applications are down over 11%, a trend that is counter to the rest of the country (we are seeing dramatic increase in applications from other states).

It is likely that a new funding bill will again be taken up over the next few days. The attached talking points have already been distributed to our friends in the legislature. It is imperative the entire body hears directly from more than special interests and understands that public higher education needs public funding. Countering the negativity and showing support for higher education is in the best interest of Idaho. Showing support at this moment now is critical. The health of our educational institutions, state and your business depend on it.

Here, in full, is Hoffmans statement on the higher education budget:

Congratulations to members of Idahos House of Representatives, who voted 57-13 Wednesday against a bill that would have allowed the continued funding of social justice programs on our states public higher education campuses.

Now the real work begins. Lawmakers must still pass a budget for Boise State University, University of Idaho, Lewis-Clark State College, and Idaho State University. Radicalism has very much infiltrated the college system, and the cost to Idaho taxpayers and students is easily more than $20 million.

That figure includes funding for gender equity and LBGTQ offices, myriad classes and lessons on diversity and inclusion, and teacher trainings built on critical race theory. Lawmakers must instruct Idaho schools that no public funds should ever be used for social justice enterprises. The public funds restriction is important, as these schools operate on several baskets of money from many sources. No public funds means, it doesnt matter whether the money comes from state or federal taxpayers, student tuition or fees, or in the form of a grant from Coca Cola, Disney, or Delta; no state institution should be engaging in the promotion of social justice dogma.

Lawmakers should also ensure that state taxpayers are no longer forced to subsidize the extreme left-of-center programming on government-run radio stations. That includes National Public Radio-saturated Boise State Public Radio and KISU.

They should also provide the State Board of Education with explicit instructions to reduce tuition and fees for the 2021-2022 academic year, as well as begin the process of allowing students to opt out of paying fees for programs they do not use.

This is no time for lawmakers to be timid. Already this year, as lawmakers debated indoctrination on Idahos college campuses, students at Boise State University had to sit through a lecture in which the professor gave credence to the idea that white people should be held as slaves in retribution for historic black slavery.

Forgetting for a moment that it is fact that both blacks and whites have been victims of slavery, why should any college professor give a second of credence to the idea that, in the interest of fairness, we should subject people to violence, oppression, and other indignities merely for the crime of being white? And why should taxpayers and students be forced to pay thousands of dollars so that young minds can be filled with this trash?

This is what passes for normal at Idahos institutions of higher learning. Entire classes, often mandatory even though they have little or nothing to do with a students field of study, are being used to indoctrinate students into worshiping at the altar of wokeness.

Here in Idaho and nationally, young minds are compelled to seriously consider the most asinine theories and concepts that, as critical race theory purports, have been hidden from them by descendants of slave-owning white people who built an entire world and culture around their hetroersexual, monogamous, patriarchal view of the world. Students are quite literally being conned into believing that they are seeing the inhumanity of a society built on racism, thanks to the helpful state government employees known as professors, and institutions known as universities, who showed them the light.

Its obvious enough that members of the Idaho House of Representatives realize whats going on. Based on their Wednesday vote, theyre ready to do something about it.

Senior reporter and blogger Kevin Richert specializes in education politics and education policy. He has more than 30 years of experience in Idaho journalism. He is a frequent guest on KIVI 6 On Your Side; "Idaho Reports" on Idaho Public Television; and "Idaho Matters" on Boise State Public Radio. Follow Kevin on Twitter: @KevinRichert. He can be reached at [emailprotected]

Read the rest here:
Green: 'Misinformation and half-truths' threaten higher education funding - Idaho EdNews

Republicans, conservatives, libertarians and people of traditional faith love to whine about the policies they believe are destroying the America they love. Isnt it just awful what the liberals and the far left have done to our nation with their socialist policies? they say to each other, wringing their hands, before going about their daily lives.

After the 2020 election legally won by President BidenJoe BidenIRS to roll out payments for ,000 child tax credit in July Capitol Police told not to use most aggressive tactics in riot response, report finds Biden to accompany first lady to appointment for 'common medical procedure' MORE egged on by former President TrumpDonald TrumpBiden to move ahead with billion UAE weapons sale approved by Trump Fox News hires high-profile defense team in Dominion defamation lawsuit Associate indicted in Gaetz scandal cooperating with DOJ: report MORE and some of his loyalists, their cry became Look what the far-left media and itsallies in Big Tech did to us!

All this has been heaped upon their constant complaints about the disgraceful far-left bias in the media, academia, entertainment and, of late, science and medicine.

Since before I entered the Reagan White House in 1987, I have been listening to such incessant whining. Poor us, they cry, We Americans who believe in God, the rule of law, sovereign and protected borders, a strong military, smaller government, lower taxes and personal accountability. What are we to do in the face of such unfairness?

What they generally do is howl at the moon.

If Republicans, conservatives and people of traditional faith truly believe the left has come to dominate the media, entertainment, academia, science and medicine, then they should take steps to change that.

Almost a quarter-century ago, I sat down with my old boss, former Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas, to discuss this reality and the political and power-balancing enigma. Back then, long before tech giants Google, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube came to dominate society, Dole the former Senate majority leader and Republican presidential and vice presidential nominee was honestly astounded that more ultrawealthy Republicans and conservatives were not getting into the media and entertainment fields. What we were told then was that those fields either did not fit their business models or that they might adversely affect their bottom lines.

As Dole and I discussed, common sense and pragmatism dictate that not having a voice in the largest megaphones of our nation the media, entertainment and academia is a losing strategy destined to create negative consequences for those trying to advance conservative or faith-based thought or arguments.

It can most certainly be argued that, for the past few decades, the left has come to dominate these fields, as well as science and medicine. And in some ways, liberals should be congratulated for achieving such dominance. That said, none of it happened in a vacuum or in the dead of night. It was all done with everyones eyes wide open including people who later morphed into complainers about the unfairness of it all but who voluntarily chose to do nothing at the time. For whatever reason, they looked away while those on the left went about their business creating amazing high-tech achievements such as Google, Amazon and social media platforms.

Now, some on the right want to scream, How dare those liberal entrepreneurs espouse the political or ideological thoughts they believe in, on sites they created, while blocking some they disagree with! Ah, but isnt it basic human nature to exercise control over a private company in which one has invested his or her blood, sweat and tears to create?

The last time I checked, there were thousands of Republican, conservative, libertarian and traditional faith-based millionaires, multimillionaires and billionaires who have amassed collective wealth exceeding $1 trillion. Surely thats enough money to invest in a few newspapers, fund television networks, start a few universities or create some Big Tech sites of their own.

Its time for the right to stop playing victim and put their money where they swear their values lie. If not, those who are complaining should put a cork in it.

Douglas MacKinnon, a political and communications consultant, was a writer in the White House for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and former special assistant for policy and communications at the Pentagon during the last three years of the Bush administration.

Link:
Republicans and conservatives are to blame for the America they decry | TheHill - The Hill

White House press secretary Jen Psaki wished her predecessor, Kayleigh McEnany, well in her new role as a Fox News contributor and said she'd be happy to appear with her on the network. (March 2) AP Domestic

Its not the greatest thing for a comedic talk show when your funniest opening-week moment is unintentional.

Gutfeld!,Fox News Channel's newlate-night entry whose conservative/libertarian take sets it apart from talk-show competitors, explored an intriguingtopic on its second night last week: the inability ofsome national mediato get over the departure of former President Donald Trump and the mountain of material and ratings he provided.

So it was LOL funny whenhost Greg Gutfeld turned to critique "post-Trump stress"with the night'smarquee guest: Trumps sonEric. And that was one night after former Trump press secretary Kayleigh McEnany, the new co-host of Foxs Outnumbered, was the premiere episode's big get.

Nowwho is it exactly that can't quit Trump?

Greg Gutfeld gets comfortable on the new set for his Fox News late-night show, 'Gutfeld!'(Photo: Photo provided by Fox News Channel)

Maybe "Gutfeld!" (weeknights, 11 EDT/8 PDT) sees Trump obsession only in terms of those who are critical of the former president.Thatpoints to what may be the biggest contrast between "Gutfeld!" and itslate-night competitors. It's lessabout structure Gutfeld and guests riffing on the newsmore resembles"The View," minus the long desk thanlead-in programming on a network intertwined with Trump and his supporters.

While Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Fallon and Jimmy Kimmel come on after scripted dramas and local news, "Gutfeld!" followsthree hours of Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham hammering the left. It may be lighter in tone than those shows, but it servesthe same red meat: criticism of the media, liberal cancel culture and Hunter Biden.

As a political chatfest, "Gutfeld!" spends much time rehashing Fox talking points. As comic relief, it's not very funny.

Itslate-night rivals, who range from apolitical/centristto progressive,haven't been all thattough on President Joe Biden or New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo while suffering occasional bouts of embarrassingfawning(See Fallon and "Cuomosexuals"). However, they do makejokesabout both of those Democrats and others.

"Gutfeld!," by comparison, didn't go after right-wing sacred cows, including ahuge Republican target:scandal-plagued U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz. Of course, "Gutfeld!" viewerswho get all their news from Foxmight not even know Gaetz has a problem.

"Gutfeld!" appears boxed inby its opinion lead-ins, a contradiction for a show that cultivates a subversivetone but a potential path to ratings success.In its first fournights,"Gutfeld!" averaged1.6million viewers, up 400,000 from the hour's previous average with news programming. It outrankedCNN andMSNBC, tiedABC's "Jimmy Kimmel Live" and fell behind onlyCBS' "Late Show with Stephen Colbert"(although bothtalk shows start35 minutes later).

"Gutfeld!" was disingenuous Wednesday when its host, a regular panelist on Fox's "The Five" and host of a former weekend show that is similar to "Gutfeld!,"laid out his credo: The point of this show is to pull you and I out of these destructive 'Us vs. Them'narratives by trying to show you how the media creates false stories to keep us engaged and angry.

That'sa point worth discussing, but it's ludicrous coming from a host on Fox, where Us vs. Them could be thenetworks motto.

Greg Gutfeld hosts the Fox News Channel late-night show, 'Gutfeld!' It premiered April 6.(Photo: Fox News Channel)

Andwhile you'dexpect "Gutfeld!" to tilt conservative, it shouldn't make"Cancel Culture Just Got Cancelled!" its slogan if it's going to ignore intolerance on the right. Perhaps last week'sbiggest attempted cancellationwas Trump's proposed boycottof a broad swath of corporate America Major League Baseball, Coca-Cola, Delta Airlines and others over opposition to the controversialRepublican-passedGeorgia voting law. Kimmel did a fun bit on Trump's statement; nary a word on "Gutfeld!"

At the same time, Gutfeld! presentedmultiple segments targeting baseball and other businesses protesting the new law, which critics say will make it tougher for many to vote.The show's conversation focused more on people being called racist than the actual problem of racism.

If Gutfeld is really committed to hisslogan, hecould take a lesson from HBO's Bill Maher, an old-schoolfree-speech liberal who savages the censorious left as well as the right.

Screen grab from Republican National Convention of Eric Trump speaking.(Photo: Republican National Convention via USA TODAY NETWORK via Imagn Content Services, LLC)

Adifferent political perspective is a goodaddition to late night: The field has showna tepidsameness at times, partly the result of gorging too long at the Trump trough. Establishment politicians and media can be condescending, so a sharp voice willing to puncture pompous egos would be welcome.

Jabs aimed at competitors, from ABCs Kimmel to MSNBCs Brian Williams, are fine a little rough-and-tumble among the media elite is entertaining but Gutfeld needs much better material.

If Gutfeld! takes on topics otherswont, that wouldbe a plus, too. But so far most of thechoices areobvious. Cuomo is easy to mockthese days, andthe program already needs time in comedy rehabafteroverdosing on Hunter Biden drug abuse jokes.

As president, Joe Biden is a necessary comedic target, and theres room for a harder-edged take, but Gutfeld! so far has been weak. An actor impersonating Biden as adodderingold manseemslike an even staler version of whatHannity hasbeen trotting out for months. Colbert, hardly a conservative,did better lastweek commenting on Bidens awkward conversational tangents, which offerplenty of good material.

Kayleigh McEnany will co-host Fox News' "Outnumbered."(Photo: SAUL LOEB, AFP via Getty Images)

A skit Wednesday featuring a faux Jen Psaki taking a Rorschach test, which skeweredthe Biden press secretary's semantic approach to immigration questions,showed morepromise.Thursday's show critiquedmedia coverage of the summer protests that followed George Floyd's death and Democrats' expanding definition of infrastructure,topics likely to receive less commentelsewhere in late night.

Comedy programs take time to gel. Gutfeld has a way with self-deprecating humor and an easyrapport with regulars Kat Timpf and Tyrus, who moved over from Gutfeld's weekendpredecessor series. There was more amusingconversation on some of the less polarizingtopics, such as a report on robotic dogs, but the show needs wittierguests and more focused discussion. Some of last week's rambling discourseshould give "Gutfeld!" pause about mocking old men.

But that's just tweaking around the edges. Gutfeld!, judging by its first week, doesn't seem interested in establishing a distinctivevoice. It seems morecomfortable just being a sheep in Fox clothing.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2021/04/13/fox-news-channels-gutfeld-falls-short-comedic-talk-show/7156579002/

Follow this link:
'Gutfeld!' review: Fox News talk show lives in glass house when critiquing Trump-obsessed media - USA TODAY

On April 5, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas kicked off a new round of debate on the right way to regulate social media companies with a thoughtful and creative piece of legal scholarship. His key point is that First Amendment review by the courts might very well uphold a state or federal statute that treated social media platforms as common carriers or places of public accommodation and restricted their ability to remove content on their systems based on political point of view. He did this in the form of a non-binding concurring opinion in the Supreme Court decision dismissing as moot a lawsuit against former president Donald Trump over his blocking of some Twitter followers.

Justice Thomas is keyed into much of the ferment among conservatives who feel that tech companies are biased against their perspective. They point to the deplatforming of President Trump in January, following the Capitol Hill riot by his supporters, as a paradigmatic case of political discrimination against the conservative point of view. A proposed Texas law would respond to this perceived bias by treating social media companies as akin to common carriers and prohibiting deplatforming based on viewpoint.

Justice Thomas has, in effect, provided a response to a First Amendment challenge to such a common carriage law. In doing so, he joins critics from the left in stepping outside the libertarian paradigm that gives private companies the unfettered right to decide what is said on the media platforms they operate. He goes to the opposite extreme and says that social media companies should not be treated as speakers at all for First Amendment purposes. Rather, like telephone companies, they should be reconceptualized as neutral, passive conveyors of the speech of others.

This conception of social media companies as common carriers with no or severely restricted speech rights corresponds to the way they present themselves to the world as platforms for others to speak. It also reflects our intuitive understanding of what we are doing when we use social media platforms. When we post something on a social media platform, we are speaking, not the platform, just as when we make a telephone call we are speaking, not the telephone company. Thomas takes these business facts and entrenched social norms and turns them into the legal doctrine of common carriage.

In this conception, a state or federal law that treated social media companies as common carriers and prevented them from removing accounts on political grounds would not infringe on the companies First Amendment rights because, as common carriers, they do not have their own speech rights. It is the speech rights of the users that are paramount. The platforms are there merely as enablers of the speech of others.

As precedent Justice Thomas cites the Turner Broadcasting case that required cable operators to carry broadcast signals. He notes that the key passage in that decision [I]t stands to reason that if Congress may demand that telephone companies operate as common carriers, it can ask the same of cable operators might apply also to digital platforms.

The response from conservatives was positive, despite the opinions departure from the libertarian orthodoxy on the First Amendment. The conservative outlet, the Daily Wire, for instance, quoted extensively and approvingly from the opinion. Economist Marshall Auerbach writing in the conservative American Compass welcomed Justice Thomass refusal to require a showing of market power before designating social media as common carriers and praised his promising function-centric approach.

Of course, It is not just conservatives who are concerned with social media censorship. The suspicion of the power of private tech companies to control speech on their systems is broadly shared among progressives. For instance, a leader of the progressive left, Senator Bernie Sanders, was unnerved by the bans on former President Trump, wondering when the handful of high-tech people who control social media platforms might target somebody else who has a very different point of view.

Some on the progressive left have also endorse the idea of treating social media as common carriers. On the Law and Political Economy blog, law professors Genevieve Lakier and Nelson Tebbe argue that users have a constitutional right to carriage on social media that is needed to counteract the threats to freedom of speech that result from private control of the mass public sphere. Lakier also posted a series of favorable tweets on the Thomas opinion.

We are seeing a growing convergence of left and right on identifying private sector domination of the digital information space as the key problem. Both groups are seeking reforms to curb this power and are engaging in new thinking about the First Amendment to defend these reforms. Their watchwords are fairness, nondiscrimination, political neutrality, access and carriage rights.

This emerging coalition of reform forces recalls the 1980s fight to codify the Fairness Doctrine that pitted a coalition of left and right led by Ralph Nader and Phyllis Schlafly against broadcasters and pro-business deregulators. Then-President Ronald Reagans antigovernment instincts prevailed over his conservative instincts and he vetoed the bill, thereby sustaining the decision by the Federal Communications Commission to repeal the Fairness Doctrine.

But common carrier regulation might not be the right way to go. In a response to Lakier and Tebbe on the Law and Political Economy blog, the renown First Amendment scholar Robert Post is right to note that treating social media companies as common carriers means that they would be compelled to broadcast intolerable and oppressive forms of speech. It might thereby invalidate even the minimal content moderation policies that these social media platforms currently deploy and exacerbate the problem of atrocious communication in the digital public sphere.

Post also notes that Congress cannot remedy this problem through content regulation of social media companies because the atrocious communication in the digital public sphere is protected speech; harmful perhaps, but legal. In our system, we largely rely on the private sector, not the government, to set the boundaries of acceptable speech. If social media companies cannot do this because they are treated as common carriers, then nothing is to stop them from becoming cesspools of pornography, hate speech, white supremacist propaganda and disinformation campaigns, all of which are constitutionally protected under current First Amendment jurisprudence.

There is another way forward, however. Common carrier regulation is not the only alternative to unfettered editorial freedom. Broadcasters are not common carriers, but they have some public interest responsibilities that prevent them from exercising full editorial control over their systems. At one time this included the Fairness Doctrine, but their public interest duties still require them to provide candidates with equal time and to provide reasonable amounts of educational and informational programs for children, to name just two examples. Enforcement by the Federal Communications Commission was and is flexible, showing great deference to the editorial judgment of the broadcasters themselves and intervening only when that judgment is so extreme that no reasonable person could agree with it.

A conception of the public interest responsibilities of social media companies needs to be developed, debated and discussed, and eventually legislated. One idea is that it is not access rights or non-discrimination among speakers that is needed for social media, but a fair representation of the views of the community. Our lodestar might be the principle recommended by free speech theorist Alexander Meiklejohn What is essential is not that everyone shall speak, but that everything worth saying shall be said.

Once those public interest duties are satisfied through an adequate and equitable distribution of community points of view, social media companies should be allowed to exercise editorial control over their systems. This would allow them to take the steps necessary to keep their systems free of harmful but legal material, just as broadcasters used their control of the airwaves to set their own boundaries of acceptable speech. This approach would create a middle ground between common carriage and unfettered freedom, where the editorial discretion of the social media companies would be broad enough to allow them to filter content, but not so broad that they can engage in viewpoint censorship of disfavored community perspectives.

Adapting these principles to social media would not be easy and will involve some hard thinking about technology. What should be done about amplification? Does a regulatory framework have to distinguish organic popularity from promotion by the platform itself? As a first approximation, the goal might be that the salience of the views on a platform should reflect their actual prevalence in the community, not the judgment of the platform of what should be popular or interesting or what would garner the most engagement for advertising purposes.

A regulatory structure would be needed to supervise such an arrangement and care must be taken to design it to prevent partisan bias of the regulator from corrupting the agency mission. The details will be messy and complicated but the time to start the hard work of constructing a balanced regulatory framework for social media is now.

Go here to see the original:
Justice Thomas sends a message on social media regulation - Brookings Institution