According to a study by the left wing group Public Citizen, the Trump Administration has halted one third of investigations and enforcements actions against “big tech.” This pullback from the overly aggressive antitrust enforcement of the Biden years will help grow the American economy—benefiting not just businesses but also workers and consumers. Unfortunately, the Trump Administration seems to have forgotten that the First Amendment applies to big tech companies too.
For example, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently approved the merger of Skydance Media and Paramount Studios, which, among other properties, owns CBS. Shortly before the FCC approved the deal, Paramount agreed to pay $16 million dollars to settle a lawsuit by President Trump alleging that 60 Minutes edited their interview with then-Vice President and Democrat presidential nominee Kamala Harris to make her appear more coherent and knowledgeable. 60 Minutes claimed the edits were made to make the interview fit within the allotted time and pointed out that they showed the unedited version on CBS’s Face the Nation—as well as making it available online.
The lawsuit challenging CBS for altering the interview parallels FCC Chair Brendan Carr’s redefinition of what it means for a holder of a federally granted broadcast license to act in the “public interest.” According to Carr, the public interest requirement gives the FCC power to monitor broadcast programs to ensure they are accurate, fair, and balanced.
It is highly doubtful, to say the least, that when Congress gave the FCC power to ensure broadcasters were acting in the public interest that they for intended the FCC to be a federal “fact checker.” Another part of the deal was that the new company would appoint a bias monitor. As the name suggests, the job is to “receive and evaluate” any complaints of bias at the network. The FCC’s announcement of the approval of the Skydance-Paramount deal highlighted the creation of the bias monitor. Contrary to internet rumors, the omnibus man will not be selected by the FCC nor will he report to President Trump. However, since the bias monitor was created as part of the deal to get the merger approved, it is not unreasonable to suspect that he will be expected to police any news stories that may be perceived as unfavorable to the Trump Administration. It thus raises serious First Amendment issues.
The FCC is not the only agency whose actions run afoul of the First Amendment. District Court Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan recently ruled that the agency violated the First Amendment when it requested information from progressive “media watchdog” group Media Matters regarding their contact with other progressive organizations—as well as advertising placement businesses. The purpose of this is to see whether Media Matters is coordinating adviser boycotts of sites that allow “misinformation” and “hate speech.” In other words, conservative, libertarian, and pro-Trump news and opinions. Judge Sooknanan’s decision recognized that Media Matters was engaging in First Amendment protected activities. She also noted that prior to being appointed FTC Chair, Andrew Ferguson expressed an interest in investigating progressive groups that were organizing “pressure” campaigns to get social media companies to silence right-of-center views.
Boycotts have a long and distinguished history in the United States. Examples include the civil right era use of boycotts to fight Jim Crow laws; the agricultural unions' boycott of grapes and other produce picked by non-union labor; boycotts of foods imported from the Soviet Union and other communist countries; boycotts of advertisers of “offensive” programming; and the boycotts of apartheid era South Africa. Ironically, the most successful boycotts in recent times have been by conservatives protesting woke companies. In fact, one can even think of the Boston Tea Party as the first boycott!
Judge Sooknanan said that the FTC’s investigation of Media Matters “should alarm all Americans when the government retaliates against individuals or organizations for engaging in constitutionally protected public debate.” This is especially the case if, as Judge Sooknanan suggested, the investigation was a retaliatory act. Those who dislike Media Matters should consider the fact that, if history is any guide, the Democrats will retake the White House in 2028 or 2032. Unless the judge’s decision is upheld by the courts, a future FTC will use this precedent against conservative sites. This is why it is vital that conservatives oppose any efforts to infringe on the First Amendment— even when done by an administration we support— against our ideological enemies.
