Huber (Manhattan Institute for Policy Research) recounts the history of telecommunications and its regulation over the last century, arguing that the FCC should have been abolished years ago because it has protected monopolies, over priced services, curtailed free speech, and undermined privacy. He proposes that sensible telecommunications policies evolve through common law and not through government imposition of inflexible regulatory mandates. For general readers. Annotation copyrighted by Book News, Inc., Portland, OR
Review of Foreign Ownership Policies for Common Carrier and Aeronautical Radio Licensees (US Federal Communications Commission Regulation) (FCC) (2018 Edition) The Law Library presents the complete text of the Review of Foreign Ownership Policies for Common Carrier and Aeronautical Radio Licensees (US Federal Communications Commission Regulation) (FCC) (2018 Edition). Updated as of May 29, 2018 In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) modifies the policies and procedures that apply to foreign ownership of common carrier, aeronautical en route and aeronautical fixed radio station licensees. The Commission found that the new measures will reduce regulatory costs and burdens imposed on wireless common carrier and aeronautical applicants, licensees and spectrum lessees, provide greater transparency and more predictability with respect to the Commission's foreign ownership filing requirements and review process, facilitate investment in U.S. telecommunications infrastructure and capacity, while continuing to protect important interests related to national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade policy. This book contains: - The complete text of the Review of Foreign Ownership Policies for Common Carrier and Aeronautical Radio Licensees (US Federal Communications Commission Regulation) (FCC) (2018 Edition) - A table of contents with the page number of each section
As the Supreme Court has recognized, social media sites like Facebook and Twitter have become important venues for users to exercise free speech rights protected under the First Amendment. Commentators and legislators, however, have questioned whether these social media platforms are living up to their reputation as digital public forums. Some have expressed concern that these sites are not doing enough to counter violent or false speech. At the same time, many argue that the platforms are unfairly banning and restricting access to potentially valuable speech. Currently, federal law does not offer much recourse for social media users who seek to challenge a social media provider's decision about whether and how to present a user's content. Lawsuits predicated on these sites' decisions to host or remove content have been largely unsuccessful, facing at least two significant barriers under existing federal law. First, while individuals have sometimes alleged that these companies violated their free speech rights by discriminating against users' content, courts have held that the First Amendment, which provides protection against state action, is not implicated by the actions of these private companies. Second, courts have concluded that many non-constitutional claims are barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. ยง 230, which provides immunity to providers of interactive computer services, including social media providers, both for certain decisions to host content created by others and for actions taken "voluntarily" and "in good faith" to restrict access to "objectionable" material. Some have argued that Congress should step in to regulate social media sites. Government action regulating internet content would constitute state action that may implicate the First Amendment. In particular, social media providers may argue that government regulations impermissibly infringe on the providers' own constitutional free speech rights. Legal commentators have argued that when social media platforms decide whether and how to post users' content, these publication decisions are themselves protected under the First Amendment. There are few court decisions evaluating whether a social media site, by virtue of publishing, organizing, or even editing protected speech, is itself exercising free speech rights. Consequently, commentators have largely analyzed the question of whether the First Amendment protects a social media site's publication decisions by analogy to other types of First Amendment cases. There are at least three possible frameworks for analyzing governmental restrictions on social media sites' ability to moderate user content. Which of these three frameworks applies will depend largely on the particular action being regulated. Under existing law, social media platforms may be more likely to receive First Amendment protection when they exercise more editorial discretion in presenting user-generated content, rather than if they neutrally transmit all such content. In addition, certain types of speech receive less protection under the First Amendment. Courts may be more likely to uphold regulations targeting certain disfavored categories of speech such as obscenity or speech inciting violence. Finally, if a law targets a social media site's conduct rather than speech, it may not trigger the protections of the First Amendment at all.
In 2009, a bipartisan Knight Commission found that while the broadband age is enabling an info. and commun. renaissance, local communities in particular are being unevenly served with critical info. about local issues. Soon after the Knight Commission delivered its findings, the FCC initiated a working group to identify crosscurrent and trend, and make recommendations on how the info. needs of communities can be met in a broadband world. This report by the FCC Working Group on the Info. Needs of Communities addresses the rapidly changing media landscape in a broadband age. Contents: Media Landscape; The Policy and Regulatory Landscape; Recommendations. Charts and tables. This is a print on demand report.
