When President Donald Trump appointed Brendan Carr as chair of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), he said Carr would be a “warrior for free speech.” Unfortunately, Chair Carr has been a warrior against social media companies and broadcast networks whose “content moderation” and programming choices do not meet with his approval. For example, Chair Carr has threatened to block the merger of Paramount (who owns CBS) and Skydance Media because of allegations that CBS edited their interview with Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris to make her appear more coherent. Chair Carr’s position seems to be that the FCC should serve as a federal “fact checker” and use its regulatory power to punish businesses that the agency decides are peddling “misinformation.”
Chair Carr has also called for the FCC to reinterpret Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. Section 230 protects internet companies from being held liable for content that users post on their sites. Section 230 also protects internet sites from liability for removing or “suppressing” content they find objectionable—even if the content is protected under the First Amendment.
Chair Carr wants the FCC to reinterpret Section 230 to narrow the protections afforded to internet companies that engage in content moderation. There are three problems with this. First, it is the job of Congress—not executive branch agencies—to decide if a federal law needs to be changed or not. Secondly, Section 230’s protection of social media sites’ ability to remove “objectionable” content does not leave a lot of room for interpretation. The final, and most significant problem with Chair Carr’s position is that social media companies’ right to engage in content moderation is protected by the First Amendment.
Last year, the Supreme Court struck down laws in Texas and Florida regulating online content moderation. As Justice Elena Kagan wrote, “traditional publishers and editors” enjoy First Amendment protections when they “select and shape other parties’ expression into their own curated speech products,” and “that does not change because the curated compilation has gone from the physical to the virtual world.” Chair Carr’s agenda largely reflects ‘Khanservatism‘—the use of expanded government power favored by former Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chair Lina Khan—to achieve conservative ends.
However, one of his initiatives deserves the support of pro-limited government conservatives, libertarians, and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). This is his investigation into whether the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR) violated the law by running what amounted to paid advertisements for businesses that sponsor their programs.
As Chair Carr put it in his January 29 letter, the heads of PBS and NPR’s “acknowledgements” of their corporate sponsors may “cross the line into prohibited commercial advertisements.” Carr further wrote that “to the extent that these taxpayer dollars are being used to support a for-profit endeavor or an entity that is airing commercial advertisements, then that would further undermine any case for continuing to fund NPR and PBS with taxpayer dollars.” Carr sent copies of his letter to relevant members of Congress for use in the ongoing debate over whether Congress should continue funding public television and radio. He added, “I do not see a reason why Congress should continue sending taxpayer dollars to NPR and PBS given the changes in the media marketplace since the passage of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967.”
Carr is referring to the fact that when Congress passed the Public Broadcasting Act, viewing choices were limited to three broadcast networks and some independent TV stations. There were more options in radio, but even then most stations offered variations on the same format. Today, thanks to the internet, most Americans have a variety of sources for news, as well as a source of educational content on almost every topic.
One justification for funding PBS was providing educational options for children. While online offerings for children are not free of problems, involved parents can find quality content online to supplement their child’s education. Carr should work with Congress and DOGE to end taxpayer subsidies for PBS and NPR, as well as any other government interference in the communications market. The American people need an artful ‘DOGER’—not a ‘Khanservative’— at the FCC.
