Tag: fcc

The FCC Wants Warning Labels for Shows With ‘Transgender’ Content

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is considering new content ratings for TV shows that depict or discuss gender identity. Doing so would be well outside the FCC’s legal authority, and some free speech organizations warn that such a request could constitute a violation of the First Amendment.

At the direction of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, broadcasters developed content ratings for TV shows, patterned after the ones for movies. The TV ratings span TV-Y (appropriate for all children) to TV-MA (mature audiences only), plus more specific content labels for suggestive dialogue, bad language, sexual content, and violence. They also established the TV Parental Guidelines Oversight Monitoring Board (TVOMB) to administer the new ratings.

The government now suggests those warnings are no longer sufficient.

“Recently, parents have raised concerns that controversial gender identity issues are being included or promoted in children’s programs without providing any disclosure or transparency to parents,” per a public notice the FCC filed in April. “Specifically, the industry guidelines that parents rely on are rating shows with transgender and gender non-binary programming as appropriate for children and young children, and doing so without providing this information to parents, thereby undermining the ability of parents to make informed choices for their families.”

As a result, it continued, “We seek comment here on any changes that can or should be made to the current ratings system to ensure that it is responsive to the issues that parents confront today.”

There are several problems with the memo—starting with the fact that the FCC lacks the authority to create or require new content labels.

The 1996 law did call for the government to create a “television rating code” and an “advisory committee,” unless the private sector “established voluntary rules” to do so within a year of the law’s passage. As the FCC acknowledged in its April memo, “Industry representatives chose to set up their own voluntary system, and the Commission in 1998 found that industry’s approach met the relevant statutory criteria.”

Even setting that aside for the moment, the memo’s phrasing also suggests any “transgender [or] gender non-binary” content is potentially inappropriate for children—after all, why else would it matter if parents were sufficiently warned about it?

This broad scope has First Amendment implications. “If what the Commission is in substance proposing is that any program featuring or discussing transgender and gender non-binary persons be flagged with a content warning, that is the stigmatization and marginalization of an entire segment of the population through the machinery of the ratings system, and it is the kind of viewpoint targeting forbidden by the First Amendment,” according to comments filed to the FCC by The Future of Free Speech, a nonpartisan think at Vanderbilt University.

Keep reading

The FCC Is Asking the Public to Weigh in on Whether ‘The View’ Is ‘Bona Fide News’ After Disney Files Petition

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr is asking the public to weigh in on whether ABC’s “The View” truly qualifies as a news program, and therefore not subject to broadcast laws requiring it to provide access to differing political views.

Of course, anyone who watches the program at all knows its political views range from left to hard left.

Carr posted on social media on Friday, “Disney has filed a petition with the FCC asking the agency to declare that The View is exempt from the statutory equal opportunities requirements that would otherwise apply to broadcast shows.”

ABC is part of the Disney Corporation.

“Disney argues that The View qualifies as ‘bona fide news’ under the law, comparing itself to Meet The Press or Face The Nation,” he added. “Therefore, Disney argues, it can have one partisan candidate for office on The View while denying equal opportunities to all others.”

Carr noted that the FCC is now seeking public comment on the matter online. “Is The View a ‘bona fide news interview program’?” he asked.

Keep reading

Disney Begs FCC to Label Far-Left Propaganda Show ‘The View’ as “Bona Fide News” So They Can Handpick Democrat Candidates and Silence Republicans – FCC Chairman Brendan Carr Asks the American People to Weigh In

Disney-owned ABC is now petitioning the Federal Communications Commission to officially declare the screeching harpies on The View as “bona fide news,” giving the daytime talk show a free pass to platform Democrat politicians while blackballing Republicans and dodging equal time rules that apply to every other broadcaster.

This is the same network that spent years pushing nonstop Trump Derangement Syndrome, COVID hysteria, and every woke agenda item under the sun, and now they want the government to rubber-stamp their partisan operation as legitimate “news” journalism? Give us a break.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, one of the few adults left in Washington fighting back against Big Tech and Big Media gatekeepers, just exposed the whole scheme in a blistering public statement that perfectly captures the hypocrisy:

Disney has filed a petition with the FCC asking the agency to declare that The View is exempt from the statutory equal opportunities requirements that would otherwise apply to broadcast shows.

Disney argues that The View qualifies as “bona fide news” under the law, comparing itself to Meet The Press or Face The Nation.

Therefore, Disney argues, it can have one partisan candidate for office on The View while denying equal opportunities to all others.

The FCC is now seeking public comment on Disney’s request to be labeled as “bona fide news.”

Is The View a “bona fide news interview program”?

Under FCC case law, tv shows do not qualify as “bona fide news” if their decisions are based on partisan purposes, such as an intention to advance or harm an individual’s candidacy.

As the Public Notice observes, Congress originally passed the equal opportunities law to prevent media gatekeepers from deciding the outcome of elections. The law, even when it applies, does not prohibit anyone from having any candidate appear on any show. Rather, Congress intended it to empower voters with more information and encourage more speech.

Keep reading

The FCC Wants Your ID Before You Get a Phone Number

The era of the anonymous phone number could be ending. On April 30, the Federal Communications Commission unanimously approved a proposal requiring telecom providers to verify customers’ identities before activating service.

Government-issued ID, physical address, legal name, and existing phone numbers would all be included. The stated goal is stopping robocalls. The result would be an identity-verification regime covering one of the last semi-anonymous communication tools available to ordinary Americans.

The proposal applies to nearly every voice provider in the country, from traditional carriers and mobile operators to VoIP services. The FCC is seeking public comment on specifics, but the direction is clear.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr framed it around negligent carriers. “As we have continued to investigate the problem of illegal robocalls over the last year, it has become clear that some originating providers are not doing enough to vet their customers, allowing bad actors to infiltrate our U.S. phone networks,” he said. Some providers, he added, “do the bare minimum (or worse) and have become complicit in illegal robocalling schemes.”

That language targets telecom companies and the surveillance targets everyone else.

The framework borrows from banking’s anti-money-laundering rules. The FCC is also asking whether carriers should retain identity documentation for at least four years after a customer leaves and whether they should check customers against law enforcement watchlists. Penalties would shift to a per-call basis, meaning fines of $1,000 to $15,000 for every illegal call a poorly verified customer places.

The real privacy stakes sit in the proposal’s section on prepaid service. Right now, you can pay cash for a prepaid phone and SIM card without showing identification. Journalists use prepaid phones to protect sources, domestic violence survivors use them to avoid being traced, and whistleblowers, activists, or anyone with a reason to separate phone activity from legal identity relies on this.

Keep reading

FCC Launches UNPRECEDENTED REVIEW OF ABC Stations After Kimmel’s “Expectant Widow” Jab

The federal government is cracking down on ABC’s broadcast licenses in direct response to Jimmy Kimmel’s latest vile comments, this time on First Lady Melania Trump. 

The FCC, under Trump appointee Brendan Carr, is directing eight Disney-owned TV stations to file early license renewals tied explicitly to Kimmel’s “expectant widow” monologue that he may have gotten away with had an assassination attempt against Trump not occurred on the same day.

White House Communications Director Steven Cheung was forthright In a post on X, declaring “Jimmy Kimmel is a shit human being for: Making a disgusting joke about assassinating the President. Doubling down on that joke instead of doing the decent thing by apologizing. ABC needs to fire him immediately and he should be shunned for the rest of his life.”

The controversy erupted after Kimmel, during a skit on his show last Thursday portraying himself as master of ceremonies for the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, told Melania Trump: “Mrs Trump, you have a glow like an expectant widow.”

Keep reading

FCC Bans Nearly All Wireless Routers Sold in the U.S.

This week, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) effectively banned the sale of nearly all wireless routers in the U.S., in yet another example of the government making Americans’ consumer decisions for them.

Ninety-six percent of American adults use the internet, and 80 percent of them use wireless routers—devices that transmit a signal throughout your home via radio waves and allow you to get online without plugging into the wall.

In a Monday announcement, the FCC deemed “all consumer-grade routers produced in foreign countries” potentially unsafe. This followed a national security determination last week, in which members of executive branch agencies concluded that “routers produced in a foreign country, regardless of the nationality of the producer, pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States and to the safety and security of U.S. persons.”

The Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019 empowered the government “to prevent communications equipment or services that pose a national security risk from entering U.S. networks.” The law directed the FCC to “publish and maintain a list of such equipment or services,” and according to that agency, inclusion on the list “will prevent the marketing, sale, or operation of any such new ‘covered’ equipment within the United States.”

Since wireless routers transmit over radio frequencies, they must be authorized by the FCC to be sold in the U.S.; adding all new foreign-made routers to the “Covered List” means the FCC will not authorize those devices’ transmitters, effectively banning their sale or use.

The announcement specifies that this only applies to new consumer-grade devices and “does not prohibit the import, sale, or use of any existing device models the FCC previously authorized.” It also notes that manufacturers who apply for exemptions on new models can be “granted ‘Conditional Approval’ after finding that such device or devices do not pose such unacceptable risks.”

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the ban will likely make it more difficult for Americans to get wireless routers.

The problem is that banning all foreign-made routers means banning practically all routers. Most manufacturers, including the three largest, make their products overseas.

Keep reading

Stephen Colbert Hates Black Women and Other Universal Truths

As someone who loves comedy, what a*s-clowns like Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert havedone to the concept is like what Harvey Weinstein did to movie production or what Democrats have done to journalism, if journalism were their cellmate in Super-Max. Colbert is the Jeffrey Epstein of truth and Kimmel is the Luigi Mangione of honesty. That’s why it was not shocking to anyone with an IQ larger than their shoe size that Colbert would go on his show and lie, doing his best to help a white guy, James Talarico, beat a black woman, Jasmine Crockett, in the Democratic primary in the Texas Senate race.

First, I have to tell you about the concept of equal time. It is surprising how many “journalists” out there either do not have the mental capacity to understand this very basic concept, or simply are willing to come off as morons for the cause of their party. It’s about half and half, as I think you’d be stunned by just how many of these people have the intelligence of someone who snacked on lead paint chips.

But the concept of equal time is pretty basic: If you are going to have a candidate for office on a show that uses the public airwaves (broadcast tv and radio, not cable or streaming), other legitimate candidates (those who are on the ballot officially) can request an appearance for the same amount of time. This only applies to real candidates, not write-ins, and ONLY for 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election. The rest of the time, it is a free-for-all and shows can have on whoever they want.

One thing I’ve heard morons in the media claim is that the FCC is monitoring broadcasts or warning networks of the equal time obligations, but that is a lie. The FCC does not monitor any broadcasts, they respond to reports filed by viewers/listeners and anyone else, either for violation of decency rules or equal time. An audience member can’t make a claim for equal time on behalf of someone else; the candidate or politician must. The FCC decides if a claim is valid, period.

This is not rocket science, not even close, which means the people deliberately saying otherwise are lying or don’t have the mental capacity to understand this very basic concept.

Keep reading

“More Trust in Gas Station Sushi!” — FCC Chair Brendan Carr BLASTS Legacy Media, Colbert, and Dem Hopeful Talarico for FALSELY Claiming Trump’s FCC BLOCKED TV Interview Over Fears Talarico Could Flip Texas

FCC Chair Brendan Carr absolutely eviscerated the fake news peddlers who swallowed hook, line, and sinker a blatant hoax cooked up by late-night comedian Stephen Colbert and far-left Democrat Senate hopeful James Talarico.

Texas Democrat James Talarico apparently teamed up with late-night leftist Stephen Colbert to push a massive, embarrassing HOAX.

The ridiculous claim? That Donald Trump’s FCC supposedly “blocked” a TV interview because they were utterly “worried” Talarico might actually flip the deep-red state of Texas.

In January, The Gateway Pundit reported that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced a crackdown on partisan talk shows in both daytime and late-night in an effort to provide equal treatment for political candidates.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said at the time, “For years, legacy TV networks assumed that their late night & daytime talk shows qualify as “bona fide news” programs – even when motivated by purely partisan political purposes.”

“Today, the FCC reminded them of their obligation to provide all candidates with equal opportunities.”

As a result of the rules, CBS chose not to air an interview between Late Night host Stephen Colbert and Texas Democrat Senate candidate James Talarico on the network.

The interview was instead moved to YouTube, and Colbert was not pleased.

In an effort to look like a free speech warrior, Colbert mentioned Talarico during the show and released a false statement:

Colbert: You know who is not one of my guests tonight? That’s Texas State Representative James Talarico. He was supposed to be here, but we were told in no uncertain terms by our network’s lawyers—who called us directly—that we could not have him on the broadcast. Then I was told in some uncertain terms that not only could I not have him on, I could not mention not having him on.

And because my network clearly doesn’t want us to talk—let’s talk about this. This doesn’t just affect interviews. The rules forbid any candidate appearance, including by voice or picture. That’s right. I am absolutely not allowed to show a photo of Texas State Representative James Talarico.

Because that’s not him—that’s a stock photo we found when we Googled “not James Talarico.”

It was a couple of weeks ago, on Carr’s Orders, the SEC opened an investigation into ABC’s The View after their James Talarico interview. That is absolutely shocking. James Talarico did The View before my show?

So I cannot show you any form of James Talarico. I can’t interview James Talarico. I can’t show any pictures of James Talarico.

I’m not even sure I can say the words “James Talarico.” But what I can show you is what we always show when we have to pull material at the last minute: this tasteful nude of Brendan Carr.

Talarico also posted a clip of the segment, further spreading the lie.

“This is the interview Donald Trump didn’t want you to see. His FCC refused to air my interview with Stephen Colbert. Trump is worried we’re about to flip Texas,” Talarico wrote on X that was viewed 12 million times.

Keep reading

FCC Probes ‘The View’ Following Interview with Texas Democrat James Talarico

In January, The Gateway Pundit reported that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced a crackdown on partisan talk shows in both daytime and late-night in an effort to provide equal treatment for political candidates.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said at the time, “For years, legacy TV networks assumed that their late night & daytime talk shows qualify as “bona fide news” programs – even when motivated by purely partisan political purposes.”

“Today, the FCC reminded them of their obligation to provide all candidates with equal opportunities.”

With the new oversight in mind, Fox News reports that the FCC is launching an investigation into ABC’s “The View” following an appearance by Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico, the first political candidate to appear on the program following the announcement in January.

Talarico is facing other candidates, including Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX), in the Democrat primary. Republicans Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), state Attorney General Ken Paxton, and Rep. Wesley Hunt (R-TX) are facing off in the GOP primary.

Crockett also appeared on the show, but her appearance came before the FCC’s announcement.

Keep reading

‘Unprecedented’ Power Grab: FCC, Congress Race to Strip Local Control Over Cell Towers

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and federal lawmakers are pushing to make it easy for telecom companies to erect cell towers in communities without residents’ consent — even if the tower isn’t really needed to close a coverage gap in cell service.

If either the agency or Congress succeeds, communities will lose the right to keep unwanted towers and other wireless infrastructure away from their homes and schools, according to Miriam Eckenfels, director of Children’s Health Defense’s (CHD) Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) & Wireless Program.

“This is the most aggressive push we’ve ever seen to override local zoning, erase public participation, and force dense wireless infrastructure into residential areas under the guise of streamlining wireless infrastructure deployment,” Eckenfels said.

On Wednesday, the U.S House Committee on Energy and Commerce advanced H.R. 2289, the American Broadband Deployment Act of 2025, in a 26-24 vote along party lines, with Democrats opposing it. A floor vote has yet to be scheduled as of press time.

If passed, the bill would allow wireless companies to install towers and antennas wherever they decide, regardless of whether local residents want the equipment, Eckenfels said.

The FCC, the federal agency that oversees telecommunications, is working on its own similar strategy. On Dec. 1, the agency published a notice in the Federal Register about a proposed rule to “free towers and other wireless infrastructure from unlawful regulatory burdens.”

Eckenfels called H.R. 2289 a “legislative shortcut” for what the FCC wants to accomplish.

The FCC and lawmakers don’t want any roadblocks to installing more wireless infrastructure, said tech attorney Odette Wilkens, president and general counsel for the nonprofit Wired Broadband, Inc. “They see community input as an obstacle, and they see it as a regulatory barrier because the zoning ordinances on the local level protect the people.”

Across the country, residents have been successfully keeping new cell towers and antennas from going up next to their homes and schools.

Eckenfels said she thinks these successes prompted the FCC — which is captured by the wireless industry — and lawmakers who favor the wireless industry to push the measures.

Wilkens agreed. “The reason for HR 2289 is to prevent any further litigation and any further successes that people have had across the country in stopping cell towers,” she said.

Eckenfels called the FCC and Congress’ proposed actions an “unprecedented federal power grab” that would “strip away state and local powers, and force communities to accept more cell towers, more antennas and more industrial equipment — without meaningful review, without due process and without the ability to say no.”

Keep reading