President-elect Donald Trump has chosen Brendan Carr, a current Republican commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), to serve as its chairman. Trump described Carr as “a warrior for free speech,” but Carr’s interpretation of free speech raises concerns about government interference in the editorial decisions of social media platforms and broadcasters.
Here’s what you need to know about Carr’s agenda and what his appointment could mean for Big Tech, traditional media, and freedom of expression.
Targeting Big Tech and Section 230
Carr has been a vocal critic of large tech companies like Facebook, Google, and Twitter, accusing them of suppressing diverse political viewpoints. He believes the FCC has a role in “reining in Big Tech” and has supported rolling back Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields social media platforms from liability for user-generated content while allowing them to moderate content in good faith.
Carr’s proposed changes include:
- Limiting Section 230 protections: Carr argues that courts have interpreted Section 230 too broadly, and he supports FCC regulations to narrow its scope.
- Introducing Texas-style laws: He backs legislation preventing platforms from “censoring” content based on political viewpoints, similar to laws passed in Texas and Florida. However, the Supreme Court has recently ruled that such laws may violate the First Amendment.
- Transparency requirements: Carr suggests mandating social media platforms to clarify their terms of service and provide clear appeals processes for content moderation decisions.
While some conservatives support Carr’s stance, others argue that regulating private platforms in this way infringes on their First Amendment rights. Legal experts predict that many of Carr’s proposals could face significant challenges in court.
Broadcast Media: A Special Focus
Carr has also weighed in on traditional media, particularly broadcast networks, which are subject to FCC regulation. He has hinted at revisiting rules around “broadcast news distortion” and “equal time” to ensure fair coverage.
Key points:
- Carr expressed concerns about bias in broadcast media, citing examples like CBS’s editing of an interview with Vice President Kamala Harris and the perceived unequal treatment of Trump during debates.
- He supported Trump’s claims that networks like ABC and Saturday Night Live were unfairly favoring Democrats, suggesting they violated FCC rules.
Legal scholars note that broadcasters are held to different standards than other media due to outdated regulations stemming from the “scarcity” of public airwaves. Critics argue that this rationale no longer applies in the digital age and that FCC oversight of content could pose a threat to press freedom.
Challenges to Free Speech
Carr’s approach to regulating Big Tech and broadcasters raises broader questions about free speech:
- Supporters believe his policies could curb the perceived dominance of liberal viewpoints on social media and ensure fairness in traditional media.
- Critics warn that government intervention in content moderation and editorial decisions undermines the First Amendment, which protects private companies’ right to make these choices independently.
Carr has been particularly critical of companies he accuses of participating in a “censorship cartel,” calling for their influence to be dismantled. However, his regulatory ambitions could exceed the FCC’s legal authority, as highlighted by recent Supreme Court rulings limiting executive agency powers.
Looking Ahead
Carr’s tenure as FCC chairman could reshape the landscape of media and online communication. If his proposals move forward, they are likely to face legal challenges, especially concerning First Amendment protections.
For now, Carr’s appointment signals a continuation of Trump’s focus on regulating Big Tech and addressing perceived bias in traditional media. How far these efforts go—and whether they succeed—will depend on the courts, Congress, and public opinion.