Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Republicans United States

FCC Republican Voices Doubts About Trump's Executive Order (axios.com) 133

Posted by msmash from the reality-check dept.
Republican Federal Communications Commissioner Mike O'Rielly said he's unsure whether his agency has the authority to carry out President Trump's executive order targeting tech firms' legal protections. From a report: Trump's order seeks to have the FCC craft regulations limiting the scope of legal immunity that online platforms have under federal law. All three commission Republicans would need to support such regulations for them to pass, as the FCC's two Democrats are certain to oppose them. In an interview Wednesday for C-SPAN's "The Communicators," O'Rielly told Axios he sympathizes with the president's claims that conservatives have been unfairly stifled online, but "what we do about that is a different story. I have deep reservations they provided any intentional authority for this matter, but I want to listen to people," O'Rielly said, later adding, "I do not believe it is the right of the agency to read into the statute authority that is not there."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC Republican Voices Doubts About Trump's Executive Order More

FCC Republican Voices Doubts About Trump's Executive Order

Comments Filter:

  • I can't say I'm even remotely an Inside Baseball kinda guy when it comes to US politics, but I don't recall anything like what I'm seeing now. The military brass is basically going out in public and dissing the prez (*that* has happened in the past, but it never ends well), and now you have department heads basically saying "no, I don't think I want to do that". Strange times indeed.

    • The Republican FCC members were saying the same thing "network neutrality" during the Obama (and Bush) administrations - they think Congress has the authority to do these things, not them. So that's been consistent for quite a few years.

    • Because in the past this sort of stuff was discussed and hashed out, maybe in cabinet meetings, maybe with other department heads. But I think Trump just makes this up on the fly, whatever pops into his head, and it catches everyone off guard including his allies.

  • The FCC needs to be disbanded. If it's an area that needs to be regulated federally (which I think it is) then Congress needs to do it directly. Abdicating their authority to an unelected board of "experts" who aren't accountable to anyone is not the job of government. Congress needs to be having open debates on the floors of the House and Senate about this stuff. DISBAND THE FCC!
    • Sure, why don’t you start the process of getting an Amendment to the Constitution for your proposal. When that passes then Congress can do what you ask.

      • Sure, why don’t you start the process of getting an Amendment to the Constitution for your proposal. When that passes then Congress can do what you ask.

        What? Congress created the FCC when they passed the Communications Act of 1934. Congress can eliminate it (which would be stupid) legislatively. There's absolutely no need for a Constitutional Amendment.

        • The FCC’s primary function is to administer laws. The function of administration rests with the Executive Branch as defined by the Constitution. The role of Congress is legislation not administration. That requires changing the Constitution.

          • So when Congress created Sallie Mae in 1972 and then terminated its federal charter in 2004, did it need a constitutional amendment? I don't seem to recall that happening. When the Interstate Commerce Commission was created by Congress in 1887 and abolished by Congress in 1995, was there an amendment to the Constitution then? I don't think so.

            These are just two of many examples of Congress creating, then eliminating federal agencies. By your logic, only the Executive can create federal agencies, which

            • Again you understand the role of Congress is not administration right? The function of Congress is to create legislation. To that end, Congress can create different administrative agencies; however, they are under the control of the Executive Branch. If you can’t accept what is clearly written in the Constitution, there’s no helping you. Name one administrative agency that is under Congress. Name just one.

              • Again you understand the role of Congress is not administration right? The function of Congress is to create legislation. To that end, Congress can create different administrative agencies; however, they are under the control of the Executive Branch.

                The argument isn't whether agencies are under the control of the executive, the argument is over your ridiculous claim that it takes a constitutional amendment for Congress to eliminate a federal agency. I need present only one example to the contrary to disprove your ignorant claim. You got two. Why you ignore these examples and continue to try and support an unsupportable position is beyond me. Your sorry attempt to change the subject doesn't help you one little bit.

                If you can’t accept what is clearly written in the Constitution, there’s no helping you. Name one administrative agency that is under Congress. Name just one.

                That has fuck-all to do with the ar

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by q_e_t ( 5104099 )

                  The argument isn't whether agencies are under the control of the executive, the argument is over your ridiculous claim that it takes a constitutional amendment for Congress to eliminate a federal agency.

                  The OP claimed no such thing.

                  • The OP claimed no such thing.

                    The OOP said:

                    "The FCC needs to be disbanded. If it's an area that needs to be regulated federally (which I think it is) then Congress needs to do it directly. Abdicating their authority to an unelected board of "experts" who aren't accountable to anyone is not the job of government. Congress needs to be having open debates on the floors of the House and Senate about this stuff. DISBAND THE FCC!"

                    The only way you're correct is if UnknowingFool ignored or somehow didn't read OOP's first and last sentences. Furthermore, the statement I made in my first post on the matter was basically "Congress can eliminate the FCC without the need for a constitutional amendment." I've made that statement in every post since. If that's not what he's talking about, then he's had plenty of time to say so. He hasn't.

                    Of course, the other parts of OOP's post ("Congress needs to do it [regulate] directl

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by q_e_t ( 5104099 )

                      "The FCC needs to be disbanded. If it's an area that needs to be regulated federally (which I think it is) then Congress needs to do it directly. Abdicating their authority to an unelected board of "experts" who aren't accountable to anyone is not the job of government. Congress needs to be having open debates on the floors of the House and Senate about this stuff. DISBAND THE FCC!"

                      Lacks the words amendment and constitution.

                    • Lacks the words amendment and constitution.

                      Not sure what point you're trying to make.

                • The argument isn't whether agencies are under the control of the executive, the argument is over your ridiculous claim that it takes a constitutional amendment for Congress to eliminate a federal agency.

                  Please cite where I said that. You cannot, can you?

                  The OP said: "If it's an area that needs to be regulated federally (which I think it is) then Congress needs to do it directly." To which I responded, Congress as defined by the Constitution cannot do that. That is an administrative or Executive Branch function. To do that directly requires changing the role of Congress from legislation to administration and requires an Amendment.

                  I need present only one example to the contrary to disprove your ignorant claim. You got two.

                  What are you examples? You have failed to cite one example.

                  Why you ignore these examples and continue to try and support an unsupportable position is beyond me. Your sorry attempt to change the subject doesn't help you one little bit.

                  That has fuck-all to do with the argument at hand. But since you asked, here. [wikipedia.org]

                  None of those agenc

                  • Please cite where I said that. You cannot, can you?

                    The OP said: "If it's an area that needs to be regulated federally (which I think it is) then Congress needs to do it directly." To which I responded, Congress as defined by the Constitution cannot do that. That is an administrative or Executive Branch function. To do that directly requires changing the role of Congress from legislation to administration and requires an Amendment.

                    Uh huh. Well, when you remove 80% of OP's post, you kinda lose a little context, don't you? OP proposed "disband the FCC". In fact, he said it twice. If that wasn't the part of the post you were challenging, you could have quoted the part you were challenging in your response. But you didn't. In fact, when I responded with "an amendment isn't required to disband the FCC" you could have mentioned then that that wasn't what you were talking about. But you didn't. When I gave you examples of Congress e

    • The FCC needs to be disbanded. If it's an area that needs to be regulated federally (which I think it is) then Congress needs to do it directly. Abdicating their authority to an unelected board of "experts" who aren't accountable to anyone is not the job of government. Congress needs to be having open debates on the floors of the House and Senate about this stuff. DISBAND THE FCC!

      You have no clue how our government works. Congress created the FCC [wikipedia.org] to do just what they are doing.

      If you do not like what they are doing, well vote out the current members of Congress.

      Have nice day.

    • Re:Disband the FCC (Score:4, Informative)

      by cpt kangarooski ( 3773 ) on Friday June 12, 2020 @02:54PM (#60176772) Homepage

      The FCC needs to be disbanded.

      What a genuinely stupid idea.

      Congress can't legislate in fine detail on a myriad of technical subjects, and no one wants them to, despite everyone agreeing that such regulation is necessary. For example, do you want Congressmen to decide the mandatory maintenance items for aircraft, because you also want to disband the FAA? I know I wouldn't want to be in a plane -- or under one -- in those circumstances.

      The authority to regulate comes from Congress and they can delegate the task of working out the details to administrative agencies, and this has not been a matter of debate for almost a hundred years. Congress can still override regulations they dislike, and can modify the delegation of powers to the agency, reform it, etc. as they like. In the meantime, we get to live in a society that's more complex than some villages with blacksmiths.

    • > Abdicating their authority to an unelected board of "experts" who aren't accountable to anyone is not the job of government. Congress needs to be having open debates on the floors of the House and Senate about this stuff.

      That's what the FCC is saying here.
      It's the same thing they said about network neutrality. People have different definitions of what that even means.

      The FCC board decided that if Congress wants something that someone thinks makes things more fair, Congress should pass a law, saying wh

    • > unelected board of "experts" who aren't accountable to anyone is not the job of government

      Let me make sure I understand your argument:

      You are saying that it is a bad thing that people who actually know what they are talking about get to make rules. And on top of that, it's also a bad thing that people who have no idea about that topic can't override them due to purely political reasons?

      Ok, you run with that. But not the scissors.

    • Congress created the FCC, with a specific mandate so that it can focus on enforcing laws and regulations around communication. By doing so congress delegates this work, so congress can focus on other elements of running the country.

      The current notion of disbanding or defunding elements of the government is dangerous and gives more power to those who would do harm. Reforming with the goal of fixing specific problems is fine, but removing a department without a suitable replacement is damaging.

  • Tomorrow's News (Score:5, Funny)

    by samwichse ( 1056268 ) on Friday June 12, 2020 @02:48PM (#60176740)

    Tomorrow's News:

    "Federal Communications Commissioner Mike O'Rielly resigned from his post on short notice. His interim replacement, ___________, has been a long-time supporter of President Trump."

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by TypoNAM ( 695420 )

      Too bad I can't mod this to +1 Sad, but true

    • Followed by a tweet that has the word "overrated" in it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Toad-san ( 64810 )

      Wot's this then? A Republican stooge questioning the Orange One's orders? All roight now, what did you do with the real O'Rielly?

  • They don't (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Friday June 12, 2020 @02:51PM (#60176752)
    and the Author of Section 230 agrees. [forbes.com]

    I keep saying this, but S230 is the bedrock of the Internet (along with NN). We threaten it at our peril. Ask ask yourself who's pushing to repeal & reform S230 & follow the money. You won't find real free speech advocates there, you'll find the exact opposite.

  • The statute says "good faith", which isn't defined. Common practice for the last ~100 years is for executive agencies to clarify ambiguities like this through the regulatory process. There are two mechanisms for Congress to intervene if they think the executive got it wrong.

    I have strong leanings towards libertarian (without paying much attention to people who call themselves "Libertarian"). In my opinion, about 90% of the executive branch is unconstitutional, including the way Congress has deferred de f

    • Let’s be clear on how this all started. Twitter put a warning link after one of Trump’s tweets. They didn’t ban him. They didn’t censor his tweet. So Trump wants to insure he can retaliate against anyone. This isn’t about any high ideal here; it’s Trump throwing a tantrum like a child.

    • The statute says "good faith", which isn't defined.

      No, the statute says "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material...."

      That is, the action must have been taken in good faith. If a restriction on access or availability is easily circumvented but the entity taking the action honestly thought that it would work, that qualifies.

      The question as to whether to restrict access or availability is subjective. This is functiona

      • Would you make the same argument if it was the phone company - which is private property - deciding what conversations you can have on their network?

        How about if your internet service provider - which is private property - was deciding who you could talk to?

        How about if your power company - which is private property - was deciding which people are deserving of electrical service?

        How about if a hotel - which is private property - decided that it only serves Democrats?

        How about if a bank - which is private pr

        • Phone and power company no -- they're utilities that are heavily regulated, primarily due to their fundamental necessity and status as natural monopolies (i.e. the lack of competitive telephone and power infrastructure). If these sectors were redesigned so that there were lots more competition for the same customers (e.g. decouple power generation from transmission) then possibly yes, depending on just who wanted to be picky about their customers.

          ISP no, because they should also be a utility (at least with

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by q_e_t ( 5104099 )

          Would you make the same argument if it was the phone company - which is private property - deciding what conversations you can have on their network?

          No, but then it's not equivalent, as phone calls are point-to-point communications. It's like private messages on social media: you can have conversations via private message you can't have posting publicly. There are rules on what is reasonable via private message, but those also apply to the phone system too, such as conspiring to plan murders, etc.

    • The statute says "good faith", which isn't defined.

      Good faith is a legal term. It has a definition in legal matters.

      Good Faith
      A term that generally describes honest dealing. Depending on the exact setting, good faith may require an honest belief or purpose, faithful performance of duties, observance of fair dealing standards, or an absence of fraudulent intent.

      https://www.law.cornell.edu/we... [cornell.edu]

  • Deep state alert! Deep state alert! (Score:5, Funny)

    by swillden ( 191260 ) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Friday June 12, 2020 @03:09PM (#60176820) Journal

    Any government official who tries to follow the law rather than Trump's decrees is clearly an agent of the deep state and must be axed forthwith (figurative axing is acceptable, literal axing strongly preferred).

  • Trump's fucking up the country (Score:3)

    by AndyKron ( 937105 ) on Friday June 12, 2020 @03:42PM (#60176932)
    Of course not Trump and his donor friends don't know what the fuck they're doing, and all they're doing is fucking up the country.

  • I recently saw a short lecture on section 230, and what occured to me after I saw it in the context of what Trump is evidently wanting to do is that section 230 apparently *explicitly* permits a private provider of a service which enjoys that protection to engage in, at its discretion, some level of moderation of its content for purposes of things like decency, legality, preventing defamation, and terms of service adherence *without* incurring any liability for the content that others had provided using it

    • You're correct. The state of the law before Section 230, thanks to court rulings, was that if a service provider did any moderation then it was presumed to have knowledge of everything posted (because it was scanning it for moderation purposes) and therefore could be held liable for anything posted because it knowingly permitted it to be posted. That left service providers in a bind: since they couldn't possibly catch everything, and even if they did there were still going to be edge cases where someone mig

Slashdot Top Deals

A committee takes root and grows, it flowers, wilts and dies, scattering the seed from which other committees will bloom. -- Parkinson

Close