FEED Validator

for Atom and RSS and KML

Congratulations!

This is a valid RSS feed.

Recommendations

This feed is valid, but interoperability with the widest range of feed readers could be improved by implementing the following recommendations.

line 30, column 0: Use of unknown namespace: com-wordpress:feed-additions:1 (11 occurrences) [help]
```
<site xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">169489720</site>	<item>
```
line 53, column 0: content:encoded should not contain iframe tag (3 occurrences) [help]
```
<iframe src="https://www.buzzsprout.com/2315966/episodes/17869436-from-fr ...
```
line 237, column 0: content:encoded should not contain data-recalc-dims attribute (12 occurrences) [help]
```
<figure class="aligncenter size-large"><a href="https://deals.techdirt.com/s ...
```
line 237, column 0: content:encoded should not contain decoding attribute (12 occurrences) [help]
```
<figure class="aligncenter size-large"><a href="https://deals.techdirt.com/s ...
```
line 535, column 0: content:encoded should not contain data-type attribute (5 occurrences) [help]
```
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[It&#8217;s probably too much to ask,  ...
```
line 535, column 0: content:encoded should not contain data-id attribute (5 occurrences) [help]
```
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[It&#8217;s probably too much to ask,  ...
```

Source: http://feeds.techdirt.com/techdirt/feed

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
>
<channel>
<title>Techdirt</title>
<atom:link href="https://www.techdirt.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
<link>https://www.techdirt.com</link>
<description></description>
<lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2025 22:49:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
<language>en-US</language>
<sy:updatePeriod>
hourly </sy:updatePeriod>
<sy:updateFrequency>
1 </sy:updateFrequency>

<site xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">169489720</site> <item>
<title>Ctrl-Alt-Speech: From ‘Free Speech’ To ‘Flag This’</title>
<link>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/18/ctrl-alt-speech-from-free-speech-to-flag-this/</link>
<comments>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/18/ctrl-alt-speech-from-free-speech-to-flag-this/#respond</comments>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Masnick]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2025 22:49:43 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[1]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[bluesky]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[meta]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[tiktok]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[twitter]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[x]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[charlie kirk]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[content moderation]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[nepal]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[social media]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[uk]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.techdirt.com/?p=517780&preview=true&preview_id=517780</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Ctrl-Alt-Speech is a weekly podcast about the latest news in online speech, from Mike Masnick and Everything in Moderation‘s Ben Whitelaw. Subscribe now on Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Spotify, Pocket Casts, YouTube, or your podcast app of choice — or go straight to the RSS feed. In this week’s round-up of the latest news in online […]]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<a href="https://ctrlaltspeech.com/">Ctrl-Alt-Speech</a> is a weekly podcast about the latest news in online speech, from Mike Masnick and <a href="https://www.everythinginmoderation.co/">Everything in Moderation</a>‘s Ben Whitelaw. 
Subscribe now on <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ctrl-alt-speech/id1734530193">Apple Podcasts</a>, <a href="https://overcast.fm/itunes1734530193">Overcast</a>, <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/1N3tvLxUTCR7oTdUgUCQvc">Spotify</a>, <a href="https://pca.st/zulnarbw">Pocket Casts</a>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLcky6_VTbejGkZ7aHqqc3ZjufeEw2AS7Z">YouTube</a>, or your podcast app of choice — or go straight to <a href="https://feeds.buzzsprout.com/2315966.rss">the RSS feed</a>.
<iframe src="https://www.buzzsprout.com/2315966/episodes/17869436-from-free-speech-to-flag-this?client_source=small_player&iframe=true" loading="lazy" width="100%" height="200" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" title="Ctrl-Alt-Speech, From 'Free Speech' To 'Flag This'"></iframe>
In this week’s round-up of the latest news in online speech, content moderation and internet regulation, Mike and Ben cover:
<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><a href="https://www.theverge.com/news/776187/charlie-kirk-shooting-videos-platforms-meta-youtube">How platforms are responding to the Charlie Kirk shooting</a> (The Verge)</li>
<li><a href="https://www.newsweek.com/bluesky-chariie-kirk-assassination-warning-2128023">Bluesky Issues Warning to Any Users Celebrating Charlie Kirk Assassination</a> (Newsweek)</li>
<li><a href="https://www.wired.com/story/right-wing-activists-are-targeting-people-for-allegedly-celebrating-charlie-kirks-death/">Right-Wing Activists Are Targeting People for Allegedly Celebrating Charlie Kirk’s Death</a> (Wired)</li>
<li><a href="https://www.wired.com/story/charlie-kirk-shot-videos-spread-social-media/">Charlie Kirk Was Shot and Killed in a Post-Content-Moderation World</a> (Wired)</li>
<li><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/17/technology/britain-facial-recognition-digital-controls.html">Has Britain Gone Too Far With Its Digital Controls?</a> (New York Times)</li>
<li><a href="https://publicknowledge.org/the-censorship-alarm-is-ringing-in-the-wrong-direction/">The Censorship Alarm Is Ringing in the Wrong Direction</a> (Public Knowledge)</li>
<li><a href="https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/16/tech/tiktok-ban-extension-trump">We now know who the new owners of TikTok will be – if Trump gets his deal done with Xi</a> (CNN)</li>
<li><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/11/world/asia/nepal-protest-genz-discord.html">Nepal’s Social Media Ban Backfires as Politics Moves to a Chat Room</a> (New York Times)</li>
</ul>
]]></content:encoded>
<wfw:commentRss>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/18/ctrl-alt-speech-from-free-speech-to-flag-this/comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">517780</post-id> </item>
<item>
<title>X And Canada Fight Over Takedowns And They’re Both Wrong</title>
<link>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/18/x-and-canada-fight-over-takedowns-and-theyre-both-wrong/</link>
<comments>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/18/x-and-canada-fight-over-takedowns-and-theyre-both-wrong/#comments</comments>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Masnick]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2025 20:47:15 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[x]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[canada]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[elon musk]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[equustek]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[global takedowns]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[jurisdiction]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[ncii]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.techdirt.com/?p=517233</guid>
<description><![CDATA[A Canadian tribunal’s $72,000 fine against X for refusing to globally remove non-consensual intimate images (NCII) exposes a fundamental tension that courts have been dodging for years: When can one country order worldwide content takedowns, and when should platforms comply regardless of legal compulsion? Unfortunately, almost all the commentary on the case is ignoring those […]]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[A Canadian tribunal’s $72,000 fine against X for refusing to globally remove non-consensual intimate images (NCII) exposes a fundamental tension that courts have been dodging for years: When can one country order worldwide content takedowns, and when should platforms comply regardless of legal compulsion?
Unfortunately, almost all the commentary on the case is ignoring those tensions and going for the easy layup of just framing it as “Elon Musk ignoring the law again.” That’s a fun framing, but it’s too easy for this particular case.
It actually presents two distinct questions that are getting dangerously conflated: whether Canada has jurisdiction to demand global removals, and whether X should remove credibly reported NCII as basic platform governance. Getting this distinction right matters—not just for this case, but for the future of cross-border content regulation.
The British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal apparently ordered X and other platforms to remove an intimate image of a woman identified as “TR” back in March. But X chose to geofence the content rather than delete it entirely—blocking Canadian users from seeing it while leaving it accessible to the rest of the world. <a href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/elon-musks-x-faces-canadian-fine-not-removing-non-consensual-intimate-images-2025-09-09/">The tribunal wasn’t having it</a>:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
Regehr dismissed that argument, noting X’s position would call into question whether British Columbia’s law overstepped the province’s authority under Canada’s constitution.
“I have no authority to consider constitutional arguments,” he wrote. “The question about X’s compliance is a very simple one. I ordered internet intermediaries, which includes X, to remove the intimate image. X received the order, but it did not remove the intimate image. Instead, it did something less. X did not comply with the protection order.”
</blockquote>
This hits on a fundamental tension that’s been brewing in internet law for decades: can one country’s courts order global takedowns, and when should they?
Canada actually has some history here. In the troubling landmark Equustek case, the Supreme Court of Canada made a radical departure from traditional jurisdictional limits, ruling that BC courts <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2017/06/28/canadian-supreme-court-says-fine-to-censor-global-internet-authoritarians-hollywood-cheer/">could issue worldwide injunctions</a> against Google, requiring global de-indexing of websites. The Court essentially argued that the borderless nature of the internet justifies borderless judicial authority—a breathtaking expansion of territorial jurisdiction that upended decades of international law principles.
But that decision was controversial precisely because of its extraterritorial reach. Google <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2017/07/28/google-asks-us-court-to-block-terrible-canadian-supreme-court-ruling-global-censorship/">challenged the order</a> in U.S. courts, where judges found it conflicted with U.S. law and principles of international comity. The result? A jurisdictional standoff that highlighted <a href="https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2107&context=facsch_lawrev">how messy cross-border enforcement gets</a> when courts start issuing global orders.
The jurisdictional issues the Equustek case raised haven’t been resolved—they’ve just been papered over by companies generally complying rather than fighting every single order. But X’s approach here suggests those tensions are far from settled.
This case actually presents two distinct issues that shouldn’t be conflated:
First, the jurisdictional question: Should a Canadian provincial tribunal be able to order a global takedown? X’s argument that it would comply within Canadian jurisdiction but not globally is actually pretty reasonable from a legal standpoint. Countries generally can’t impose their laws extraterritorially, and expecting every platform to comply with the most restrictive jurisdiction’s rules worldwide creates a race to the bottom for global speech.
Second, the trust and safety question: Separate from what Canada can legally compel, there’s the other issue: should X be taking down credibly reported NCII as part of basic platform governance? Here the answer seems pretty obvious—most platforms do remove NCII when properly reported because it’s harmful, often illegal, and violates their terms of service.
The tribunal seemed to dodge the first question entirely, with the judge explicitly saying, “I have no authority to consider constitutional arguments.” But dismissing jurisdictional concerns doesn’t make them go away—it just kicks the can down the road.
X’s geofencing response was legally defensible but ethically questionable. The tribunal’s global order was ethically motivated but legally problematic. Neither approach really serves the interests of victims or the broader internet ecosystem.
What makes this case particularly notable is how rare such jurisdictional standoffs have become. The shift toward comprehensive regulatory frameworks—from the EU’s Digital Services Act to various national online harms bills—has largely eliminated the need for case-by-case civil litigation. Platforms now face systematic compliance requirements rather than ad hoc court orders.
But X’s willingness to fight this particular battle suggests we may be entering a new phase where at least some platforms are more selective about which jurisdictional claims they’ll accept. The question, though, is where this all ends up. And whether or not the idea of a global, not fractured, internet can survive.
]]></content:encoded>
<wfw:commentRss>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/18/x-and-canada-fight-over-takedowns-and-theyre-both-wrong/comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">517233</post-id> </item>
<item>
<title>The World’s Most Popular Porn Site Is a Government Agent Now. Does It Matter?</title>
<link>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/18/the-worlds-most-popular-porn-site-is-a-government-agent-now-does-it-matter/</link>
<comments>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/18/the-worlds-most-popular-porn-site-is-a-government-agent-now-does-it-matter/#comments</comments>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Riana Pfefferkorn]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2025 19:00:22 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[aylo]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[pornhub]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[4th amendment]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[adult content]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[consent decree]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[csam]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[expectation or privacy]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[ftc]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[orin kerr]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[privacy]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[terms of service]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.techdirt.com/?p=517682</guid>
<description><![CDATA[On Monday, I published a two-part blog post about the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) settlement with Aylo, parent company of Pornhub. The FTC’s complaint alleged that Aylo violated federal consumer protection law by allowing child sex abuse material (CSAM) and non-consensual pornography (which I’ll call NCII) on its various sites, despite claiming it didn’t. The […]]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[On Monday, I published a two-part blog post about the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/pornhubmindgeekaylo">settlement</a> with Aylo, parent company of Pornhub. The FTC’s <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/AyloGroupLtd-et-al-Complaint.pdf">complaint</a> alleged that Aylo violated federal consumer protection law by allowing child sex abuse material (CSAM) and non-consensual pornography (which I’ll call NCII) on its various sites, despite claiming it didn’t. The resulting <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/AyloGroupLtd-et-al-StipOrder.pdf">order</a>, now approved by a Utah federal judge, imposes a bunch of requirements to make Aylo clean up its act.
In <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/15/the-trump-ftcs-war-on-porn-just-ensured-that-accused-csam-offenders-will-walk-free/">part 1</a>, I discussed the lurking Fourth Amendment problem with the “content review” provisions of that order. (<a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/15/the-ftcs-settlement-with-aylo-this-isnt-really-about-fighting-csam-and-revenge-porn/">Part 2</a> explained why this isn’t really about fighting CSAM and NCII; it’s a power grab over free speech online by the Trump FTC.) The tl;dr: by forcing Aylo to scan every uploaded file to check if it’s CSAM or NCII, the FTC has turned Aylo into an agent of the government for purposes of the <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6102826977251195448">Fourth Amendment</a>, making all those scans warrantless searches.
Warrantless searches are typically considered unreasonable and thus unconstitutional, unless <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7579764187541399947">consent</a> or some other exception to the warrant requirement applies. The usual remedy for unconstitutional searches is <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=589965672959279882">suppression</a>. Consequently, I said in part 1, any evidence turned up in the scans ought to be inadmissible in any resulting prosecutions of the accused uploaders.
A couple of readers challenged my assumption about the outcome by raising a provocative question: Doesn’t the order also force waiver of the reasonable expectation of privacy in file uploads, dooming any motion to suppress? That is, even if the world’s most popular porn site – one of the world’s most popular websites, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-visited_websites">period</a> – is now an agent of the U.S. federal government: does it matter? 
The FTC Order Purports to Make Aylo Users Waive All Privacy Rights in Uploads
In response to a suppression motion based on the content review mandate I quoted in <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/15/the-trump-ftcs-war-on-porn-just-ensured-that-accused-csam-offenders-will-walk-free/">part 1</a>, prosecutors will point out a different provision that requires Aylo to (1) notify users that uploaded files will be searched for CSAM and NCII, and (2) include a waiver of “any privacy rights” in that notice.
Per the <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/AyloGroupLtd-et-al-StipOrder.pdf">order</a> (at pp. 13-16), for any file uploaded by “Content Partners” (meaning professional porn companies) or “Models” (meaning any other “third-party individual or entity that uploads” content to an Aylo site besides Content Partners), Aylo must not make the content available unless they:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
Provide a notice and a consent checkbox for each piece of Content to the uploader of the Content, which the uploader must review and endorse prior to submitting Content for review. The notice and checkbox will inform the uploader that Defendants will review Content prior to its publication and may report actual or suspected CSAM or [NCII] to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children or to relevant law enforcement. The notice and consent checkbox will inform the uploader that if the Content is approved for publication it will be made public and that the uploader is waiving any privacy rights they may have previously had in the Content by submitting Content for Defendants’ review…
</blockquote>
The FTC is trying to use Aylo to do something the government would have a very hard time doing directly. Via a consent order, it’s making Aylo force its users (models and content partners) to consent to a search of their uploaded files and waive all privacy rights therein. This would allow future prosecutors to invoke either the consent exception to the warrant requirement, or to argue that Aylo’s scans aren’t a Fourth Amendment “search” in the first place, even if there’s no dispute that Aylo is a government agent. (In Fourth Amendment law, a “search” <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1170760837547673255">only</a> “occurs when the government infringes upon ‘an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to consider reasonable.’”)
The question, then, is: Can they do that? Will that work? I think there are good arguments for “no,” but the real answer is probably “I guess we’ll find out once CSAM defendants start filing motions to suppress.”
The notice-and-consent language that Aylo ultimately implements will be subject to a fact-specific analysis if it’s ever challenged in court. As the Second Circuit recently <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3591133840776475951">noted</a>, courts have shied away from the question of “whether terms of service pertaining to content review might ever be so broadly and emphatically worded as to categorically extinguish internet service users’ reasonable expectations of privacy in the contents of their [files], even as against the government.” “It may well be that such terms, as parts of ‘[p]rivate contracts[,] have little effect in Fourth Amendment law because the nature of those [constitutional] rights is against the government rather than private parties,’” that court continued, quoting from a recent <a href="https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/penn_law_review/vol172/iss2/1/">law review article</a> by my Stanford colleague Orin Kerr. But, in the case before it, there was no need for “categorical conclusions,” because the specific terms in question didn’t extinguish the defendant’s “reasonable expectation of privacy in that content as against the government.”
In Kerr’s article, he argues that “Terms of Service can define relationships between private parties, but private contracts cannot define Fourth Amendment rights.” Kerr’s article expresses skepticism that language purporting to authorize a service provider to act as the government’s agent and search the user’s data would be effective, even assuming the user saw and understood that language (and users typically don’t read TOS). He thinks that court decisions to the contrary are wrongly decided.
The Aylo situation has some twists from the cases and hypotheticals Kerr discusses. Which is to say that I don’t think this particular fact pattern has, uh, happened before. (Because, as my first post discussed, the government <a href="https://cyber.fsi.stanford.edu/io/news/cybertipline-report">usually</a> tries very hard to avoid the impression that it’s making platforms scan for CSAM!) What is the result where the private platform is already an agent of the government thanks to the FTC order? What if the user didn’t know that? Does it affect the “reasonableness” analysis if the user thinks they’re giving consent to a private company, not to the government? After all, the “notice and consent” disclosures do not require Aylo to disclose that the company is under an FTC order (which compels the user’s upload to be reviewed) and that’s why the user is being shown the notice and consent flow in the first place.
Is the notice-and-consent language the order requires “emphatically worded” enough to “categorically extinguish” Aylo uploaders’ reasonable expectation of privacy? Does it procure valid consent to an otherwise problematic search? Is the notice-and-consent language’s wording irrelevant, and the dispositive factor is that the uploader intended the file to be publicly viewable on a porn site, not to attach it to a private email message or add it to a private cloud storage account?
This is all complicated. Needlessly complicated. None of this was necessary.
The Aylo Order Will Add Needless Work in Criminal Cases
Maybe a future court will decide that the “make your users waive their privacy rights” language in one part of the Aylo order cures the Fourth Amendment problem created by the content review mandate in another part of the order. Maybe suppression motions will ultimately fail when made by defendants accused of uploading CSAM/NCII to Aylo. But criminal defense lawyers will still file them (as they must, ethically, and should, to make the government meet its burden). Prosecutors will have to make specific arguments in every case for why the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy. There will probably be arguing over whether the “waiver of privacy” language in the Aylo order actually holds up. There may be discovery involved. Courts will have to decide all those motions.
We can also expect to see suppression motions citing the Aylo order in other CSAM/NCII cases that didn’t originate on Aylo sites. In <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/15/the-trump-ftcs-war-on-porn-just-ensured-that-accused-csam-offenders-will-walk-free/">my</a> <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/15/the-ftcs-settlement-with-aylo-this-isnt-really-about-fighting-csam-and-revenge-porn/">previous</a> blog posts, I talked about how the FTC regulates by consent decree; the Aylo order signals to other platforms (and not just adult sites) that they’d better scan uploads for CSAM/NCII, or they might catch a case too. The Aylo order opens the door for criminal defendants caught by scans on other platforms to argue that those scans aren’t voluntary (even if they used to be), rather they’re induced by the FTC. They’ll try to subpoena documents and witnesses from the platform, looking for proof. And in those cases, there won’t be any order that Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutors can cite that purports to make that platform make its users waive their privacy rights. Will those suppression motions work? Maybe, maybe not. But criminal defense attorneys will try, because, god love ‘em, they’ll throw a lot of stuff at the wall to see what sticks, and sometimes, bless them, <a href="https://b3law.com/all-cases-list/tire-chalking-is-a-violation-of-the-fourth-amendment/">something</a> does.
All of this is work nobody would need to do if the FTC hadn’t put all this problematic language into the order with Aylo. When drafting the terms of that order, it would have been so easy not to manufacture any Fourth Amendment issues.
Erase the Fourth Amendment Online with This One Weird Trick!
But then, maybe that’s the point. The FTC apparently believes it has the power to enter orders making online platforms search every single file uploaded to the service and report any illegal material that turns up (as per pp. 34-35 of the Aylo order, duplicating what’s <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2258A">statutorily required</a> for CSAM anyway)… and, because they’d also be forced to notify users of the searches and obtain users’ “consent,” that’s A-OK. Government-mandated disclosures would be all that’s needed to wipe away users’ constitutional rights not to be subjected to warrantless surveillance conducted, at the FTC’s behest, by what looks like a private company but is actually an agent of the government (likely unbeknownst to the user).
Having used this theory on a major porn site, the FTC can later apply the same approach the next time they go after a Big Tech company – many of which are already under decades-long <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings">consent decrees</a> with the FTC over prior incidents (often alleged privacy or data security issues), making them potentially susceptible to additional enforcement actions. And that’s how the Trump FTC will try to use its orders with companies, not just to <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/15/the-ftcs-settlement-with-aylo-this-isnt-really-about-fighting-csam-and-revenge-porn/">control speech online</a>, but to get rid of Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights online in an era where the Supreme Court has been <a href="https://harvardlawreview.org/blog/2018/06/future-proofing-the-fourth-amendment/">deeply skeptical</a> of the <a href="https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R43586.pdf">third-party doctrine</a>. I sure hope Professor Kerr is right.
Conclusion
Maybe the Aylo order won’t end up letting a bunch of accused CSAM and NCII defendants go free, like I <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/15/the-trump-ftcs-war-on-porn-just-ensured-that-accused-csam-offenders-will-walk-free/">feared</a>. Maybe, instead, it’s how the Trump administration tees up a future court challenge with the goal of getting a ruling that severely harms our Fourth Amendment rights online. If that’s the order’s secret purpose, then the FTC’s power grab is even worse <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/15/the-ftcs-settlement-with-aylo-this-isnt-really-about-fighting-csam-and-revenge-porn/">than I thought</a>.
The DOJ has spent years making its “terms of service beat the Fourth Amendment” argument in response to CSAM suppression motions. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor">Hanlon’s Razor</a> says not to ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence. That’s what I did in my <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/15/the-trump-ftcs-war-on-porn-just-ensured-that-accused-csam-offenders-will-walk-free/">first</a> blog post, assuming the FTC order was the work of attorneys who know consumer protection law but not the niceties of the Fourth Amendment. But now I wonder whether the DOJ’s fingerprints aren’t actually all over this order. It might be time to grudgingly come around to a remark someone made to me: that the FTC’s order is a work of “evil genius.”
]]></content:encoded>
<wfw:commentRss>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/18/the-worlds-most-popular-porn-site-is-a-government-agent-now-does-it-matter/comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">517682</post-id> </item>
<item>
<title>Jimmy Kimmel’s Firing Comes As Feckless TV Networks Lobby Trump To Destroy Remaining Media Consolidation Limits</title>
<link>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/18/jimmy-kimmels-firing-comes-as-feckless-tv-networks-lobby-trump-to-destroy-remaining-media-consolidation-limits/</link>
<comments>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/18/jimmy-kimmels-firing-comes-as-feckless-tv-networks-lobby-trump-to-destroy-remaining-media-consolidation-limits/#comments</comments>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Karl Bode]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2025 17:47:30 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[1]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[abc]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[cbs]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[disney]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[nexstar]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[paramount]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[sinclair broadcasting]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[skydance]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[tegna]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[brendan carr]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[censorship]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[consolidation]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[firing]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[free speech]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[jimmy kimmel]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[journalism]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[media]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[mergers]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[propaganda]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.techdirt.com/?p=517705&preview=true&preview_id=517705</guid>
<description><![CDATA[As Mike just got done noting, our major media companies continue to respond to authoritarianism by being pathetic and feckless little shitweasels. First with the ABC and CBS bribery payments to our mad idiot king, and most recently exemplified by ABC’s firing of Jimmy Kimmel because he gave Republicans a sad. Who could have imagined […]]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[As <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/17/cowardly-disney-caves-to-brendan-carrs-bogus-censorial-threats-pulling-jimmy-kimmel/">Mike just got done noting</a>, our major media companies continue to respond to authoritarianism by being pathetic and feckless little shitweasels. First with the <a href="https://apnews.com/article/abc-trump-lawsuit-defamation-stephanopoulos-04aea8663310af39ae2a85f4c1a56d68">ABC</a> and <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/07/03/institutional-failure-cbs-wimps-out-pays-trump-16-million-bribe-to-settle-baseless-lawsuit/">CBS bribery payments</a> to our mad idiot king, and most recently exemplified by ABC’s firing of Jimmy Kimmel because he gave Republicans a sad. Who could have imagined the “free speech” “anti-cancel culture” folks were liars?
Mike mentioned this a bit, but one of the main reasons our major media networks are being extra feckless on free speech is because they’re lobbying the Trump administration to approve a massive new wave of harmful media consolidation. Which will lead to even more of the fecklessness we’re seeing now.
The Ellison family needed Trump FCC approval for its plan to merge Paramount, Skydance, CNN, Time Warner, CBS, Bari Weiss’ Free Press, and TikTok into <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/16/cbs-paramount-and-the-ellisons-look-to-buy-time-warner-in-latest-destructive-major-media-megadeal/">one giant right wing piece of shit</a>. But ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox have also been lobbying the Trump FCC to eliminate some of the last remaining media consolidation limits Trump hasn’t killed yet: <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2023/03/23/big-four-networks-push-fcc-to-further-erode-media-consolidation-limits/">rules prohibiting the “big four” networks from merging</a>.
Their <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/103032271310333/1">argument in filings at the agency</a> has generally been that the modern media space is just so gosh-darned competitive, that it makes no sense to worry about media consolidation limits. That’s gibberish, in part because as you can see everywhere you look, there are real and very obvious harms in letting giant tech, telecom, and media companies consolidate under the ownership of morally repugnant oligarchs.
It harms the diversity of journalism coverage, it harms competition, and it generally results in a monolithic, shittier culture dominated by white, male, c-tier podcasting comedians. And the consolidated power structure, if you hadn’t noticed, is more easily exploited by authoritarian zealots. 
At the same time the big four networks are pushing to merge, what’s left of our local broadcasters are <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/28/gop-friendly-local-news-broadcasters-plan-more-harmful-mergers-after-trump-destroys-whats-left-of-media-consolidation-limits/">desperately trying to consolidate as well</a>. The right wing affiliate owner of many ABC networks that was first to fold under threats from FCC boss Brendan Carr, Nexstar (who also owns the feckless DC gossip rag The Hill), is currently looking for FCC approval for their $6.2 billion merger with Tegna.
After that deal gets approved, I strongly suspect Nexstar will look to merge with Sinclair Broadcasting, another right wing company that has spent decades dressing up propaganda as local news, made famous by either <a href="https://youtu.be/GvtNyOzGogc?si=QiaYxDjGYfnQpOdA">this John Oliver segment</a> or this seven-year-old Deadspin video:
<figure class="wp-block-embed is-type-video is-provider-youtube wp-block-embed-youtube wp-embed-aspect-16-9 wp-has-aspect-ratio">
<div class="wp-block-embed__wrapper">
<iframe title="Sinclair's Soldiers in Trump's War on Media" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_fHfgU8oMSo?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
</div>
</figure>
Their goal really is to consolidate national media as well as what’s left of local broadcast “news” under the ownership of one right wing company. These companies get to dominate local and national media, and Republicans get to leverage that power to spread party propaganda and censor critics. It’s quite the unholy symbiosis. 
And this is just the start. I suspect ultimately, as the AI hype bubble pops, tech, media, and telecom companies will look to unprecedented consolidation across industries to drive tax breaks and additional brief stock bumps. And authoritarians are going to exploit all of it to centralize their information warfare and propaganda efforts in a bid to quell public backlash to shitty, unpopular policies. 
Understanding this is central to the public understanding why our already pathetic major media institutions are being even more pathetic than usual. Yet if you pluck pretty much <a href="https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=81be61c3dad309e5&rlz=1C1VDKB_enUS1150US1150&sxsrf=AE3TifOvUYMSLqj7hwiSeuN7tXoMVmaBfg:1758195289209&q=Kimmel&tbm=nws&source=lnms&fbs=AIIjpHxU7SXXniUZfeShr2fp4giZ1Y6MJ25_tmWITc7uy4KIejIPgyyGM1YJJNz-u26A7UQjdzW_3QjQoz5M3kGxMbP-FZ6MQ67vwFBuh1vV6W1I8o1QudOERuBtTIn-sHkPlFYiVcA9Gt4AnMkJBMRWzvyuSgNisENhm0yKU0PhJllq3xn0BKnQe0LB3Fce2ndI_Sou_4hD0bcWEz3ptxT7sgkSLtBhKw&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj00KLtm-KPAxXoHzQIHSYYBlkQ0pQJegQIGBAB&biw=2400&bih=789&dpr=1.6">any of the major media stories about Kimmel’s firing from the newswires</a>, the consolidation stuff is either buried in a single paragraph halfway down the page or not mentioned at all; itself an indictment of letting major media companies consolidate under the ownership of a handful of rich, right wing billionaires.
I’m beating a dead horse on this but media academics and experts have warned us about this, constantly, for literally the last fifty years. The United States, at every conceivable point, ignored those warnings and did the exact opposite. Now the check is coming due and the folks who could never quite seem to grasp why these sorts of media limits were necessary are getting an ugly crash course on their importance. 
And I’m not sure it’s not too late.
]]></content:encoded>
<wfw:commentRss>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/18/jimmy-kimmels-firing-comes-as-feckless-tv-networks-lobby-trump-to-destroy-remaining-media-consolidation-limits/comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">517705</post-id> </item>
<item>
<title>Daily Deal: CoursesDigest</title>
<link>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/18/daily-deal-coursesdigest/</link>
<comments>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/18/daily-deal-coursesdigest/#respond</comments>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daily Deal]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2025 17:43:00 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[1]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[daily deal]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.techdirt.com/?p=517749&preview=true&preview_id=517749</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Master the most in-demand IT skills with CoursesDigest’s expertly crafted online courses. Whether you’re aiming for industry-recognized certifications or expanding your tech expertise, our structured learning paths are designed to help you succeed. CoursesDigest is an official partner with CompTIA, Microsoft, AWS, Cisco, and others. No matter your professional background, CoursesDigest provides a tailored path […]]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Master the most in-demand IT skills with <a href="https://deals.techdirt.com/sales/lifetime-access-to-coursesdigest?utm_campaign=affiliaterundown">CoursesDigest</a>’s expertly crafted online courses. Whether you’re aiming for industry-recognized certifications or expanding your tech expertise, our structured learning paths are designed to help you succeed. CoursesDigest is an official partner with CompTIA, Microsoft, AWS, Cisco, and others. No matter your professional background, CoursesDigest provides a tailored path to elevate your career in the ever-evolving world of technology. It’s on sale for $30.
<div class="wp-block-image">
<figure class="aligncenter size-large"><a href="https://deals.techdirt.com/sales/lifetime-access-to-coursesdigest?utm_campaign=affiliaterundown"><img data-recalc-dims="1" decoding="async" src="https://i0.wp.com/cdnp2.stackassets.com/59b64a9e82070e54c798be44515f57885ac7730b/store/a6cb4f68fbd31f72e91afb82bedeaf0abb94dc5c1b9954565e4298fabc85/product_345672_product_shots1.jpg?ssl=1" alt=""/></a></figure>
</div>
Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.
]]></content:encoded>
<wfw:commentRss>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/18/daily-deal-coursesdigest/comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">517749</post-id> </item>
<item>
<title>Facebook Flooded With Agitslop Of AI Grief Farming About Charlie Kirk</title>
<link>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/18/facebook-flooded-with-agitslop-of-ai-grief-farming-about-charlie-kirk/</link>
<comments>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/18/facebook-flooded-with-agitslop-of-ai-grief-farming-about-charlie-kirk/#comments</comments>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Masnick]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2025 16:20:15 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[facebook]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[meta]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[agitslop]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[ai]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[ai slop]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[charlie kirk]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[content moderation]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.techdirt.com/?p=517661</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Last year, there was some talk about how AI-generated wacky images—summed up generally as “shrimp Jesus” as an example of one of the most bizarre—were taking over Facebook. It was only a matter of time until this sort of AI slop nonsense went political in some form or another. Starting last Friday, people began to […]]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Last year, there was some talk about how AI-generated wacky images—summed up generally as “shrimp Jesus” as an example of one of the most bizarre—were <a href="https://theconversation.com/from-shrimp-jesus-to-fake-self-portraits-ai-generated-images-have-become-the-latest-form-of-social-media-spam-226903">taking over Facebook</a>. It was only a matter of time until this sort of AI slop nonsense went political in some form or another.
Starting last Friday, people <a href="https://bsky.app/profile/sethcotlar.bsky.social/post/3lyot2ctkt22u">began to report</a> that Facebook was being overwhelmed with obviously fake reports of famous or semi-famous people making some sort of “heartfelt” announcement regarding <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/11/the-murder-of-charlie-kirk-didnt-help-anyone/">the death of Charlie Kirk</a>. The phenomenon represents a perfect storm: a politically divisive event, genuine public emotion, and AI content generation tools all converging into what can only be described as profitable grief porn. Here are a bunch I’ve collected:
<div class="wp-block-image">
<figure class="aligncenter"><img data-recalc-dims="1" decoding="async" src="https://i0.wp.com/lex-img-p.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/img/9a07f57c-b08d-4d5f-834f-0baff22c7a37-RackMultipart20250914-141-dzah4y.png?ssl=1" alt=""/></figure>
</div>
<div class="wp-block-image">
<figure class="aligncenter"><img data-recalc-dims="1" decoding="async" src="https://i0.wp.com/lex-img-p.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/img/caa21e74-5f6f-4163-a60f-e7761b09ed40-RackMultipart20250914-209-rvs1e3.png?ssl=1" alt=""/></figure>
</div>
<div class="wp-block-image">
<figure class="aligncenter"><img data-recalc-dims="1" decoding="async" src="https://i0.wp.com/lex-img-p.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/img/9efd5640-4cda-4b9a-9981-fe45052a9747-RackMultipart20250916-134-ggkguy.png?ssl=1" alt=""/></figure>
</div>
<div class="wp-block-image">
<figure class="aligncenter"><img data-recalc-dims="1" decoding="async" src="https://i0.wp.com/lex-img-p.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/img/2eba60b3-4c15-4252-93d1-66e43a7b0980-RackMultipart20250916-152-7rc7it.png?ssl=1" alt=""/></figure>
</div>
<div class="wp-block-image">
<figure class="aligncenter"><img data-recalc-dims="1" decoding="async" src="https://i0.wp.com/lex-img-p.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/img/5aa5136c-7747-4ac0-881e-c4388641d1bc-RackMultipart20250916-161-53cxw.png?ssl=1" alt=""/></figure>
</div>
<div class="wp-block-image">
<figure class="aligncenter"><img data-recalc-dims="1" decoding="async" src="https://i0.wp.com/lex-img-p.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/img/bdb070be-7ff8-4496-acba-600fca04b2e9-RackMultipart20250916-128-vgyhhj.png?ssl=1" alt=""/></figure>
</div>
<div class="wp-block-image">
<figure class="aligncenter"><img data-recalc-dims="1" decoding="async" src="https://i0.wp.com/lex-img-p.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/img/356d2b20-ac61-4a3b-ad06-9466dba6c4a3-RackMultipart20250916-175-7rc7it.png?ssl=1" alt=""/></figure>
</div>
<div class="wp-block-image">
<figure class="aligncenter"><img data-recalc-dims="1" decoding="async" src="https://i0.wp.com/lex-img-p.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/img/4ae57459-2130-43b2-8922-088c6d3818cd-RackMultipart20250916-152-f7ff37.png?ssl=1" alt=""/></figure>
</div>
<div class="wp-block-image">
<figure class="aligncenter"><img data-recalc-dims="1" decoding="async" src="https://i0.wp.com/lex-img-p.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/img/b6422ba5-16e0-422a-bd40-fe4180bf73d2-RackMultipart20250916-203-36ubad.png?ssl=1" alt=""/></figure>
</div>
<div class="wp-block-image">
<figure class="aligncenter"><img data-recalc-dims="1" decoding="async" src="https://i0.wp.com/lex-img-p.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/img/6f588dc5-b91e-4a49-9e28-778d736c2566-RackMultipart20250916-142-q6f42o.png?ssl=1" alt=""/></figure>
</div>
<div class="wp-block-image">
<figure class="aligncenter"><img data-recalc-dims="1" decoding="async" src="https://i0.wp.com/lex-img-p.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/img/13bb9cbb-0d50-46a8-b216-72e25e22fa97-RackMultipart20250916-203-lja08c.png?ssl=1" alt=""/></figure>
</div>
These are just the few that people posted in response to my and Seth Cotlar’s (linked above) threads on Bluesky about this.
What’s particularly insidious about this phenomenon is how it represents the natural evolution of engagement farming. These aren’t random trolls—they’re likely monetized operations taking advantage of Facebook’s ad revenue sharing or affiliate marketing programs. Grief and outrage drive engagement, engagement drives ad revenue, and AI tools have made it trivially easy to manufacture both at scale.
The engagement farmers profit. Meta profits. It’s just the public that loses out.
The template is depressingly simple: take a polarizing figure’s death, generate fake statements from celebrities that will appeal to different political tribes, slap together some AI-generated images, and watch the shares roll in. Each fake post becomes a little cash machine, harvesting clicks from people who want to believe their favorite celebrity shares their political views.
This is “engagement hacking” taken to its logical extreme—using AI to manufacture the emotional responses that social media algorithms reward most handsomely.
Gosh, it sure would be nice if Facebook hadn’t decided to <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/01/08/the-good-the-bad-and-the-stupid-in-metas-new-content-moderation-policies/">seriously dial back</a> its content moderation and fact-checking efforts, huh? Facebook gets flooded with obviously fake political content about a highly politicized event. It’s almost like having systems to identify and label false information might actually serve a purpose beyond alleged political censorship.
Lead Stories, one of the leading fact-checking orgs that Mark Zuckerberg fired earlier this year, has been <a href="https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2025/09/fact-check-nfl-stars-did-not-make-300000-donations-to-charlie-kirk-family.html">keeping busy debunking</a> a <a href="https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2025/09/fact-check-ed-sheeran-rest-in-peace-charlie-kirk-adele.html?utm_source=bluesky&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=post">bunch of these</a>, but the organization admits that <a href="https://bsky.app/profile/mschenk.bsky.social/post/3lypkd2f7mc2u">there are too many to cover</a>, and it’s mostly targeting “the most viral ones.”
Eliot Higgins, from Bellingcat, indicated that Russian troll farms were a bit slow to react to the Kirk shooting, but after a couple of days, <a href="https://bsky.app/profile/eliothiggins.bsky.social/post/3lypgl23dzk2e">they went all in</a>, though it sounds like a different kind of campaign than the one people said was flooding Facebook.
This uncertainty points to one of the most challenging aspects of the current information environment: the complete inability to distinguish between foreign influence operations and domestic monetization schemes. When the methods, tools, and even content are essentially identical, attribution becomes nearly impossible from the outside.
The Russian campaigns Higgins describes appear to be more sophisticated influence operations aimed at sowing discord. But the Facebook flood looks more like the work of random opportunistic entrepreneurs who’ve discovered that fake celebrity grief statements are a reliable way to generate ad revenue. The end result—massive amounts of false information flooding the information ecosystem—is the same regardless of motivation.
This convergence of foreign influence tactics and domestic profit motives creates a kind of disinformation perfect storm. Bad actors don’t need to coordinate; they just need to follow the same incentive structures that reward viral misinformation.
I’ve seen a few people online refer to it as “agitslop,” which is a fun portmanteau of agitprop and AI slop. The term perfectly captures how political propaganda has merged with algorithmic content farming—it’s agitation optimized for engagement rather than ideology, slop designed to trigger shares rather than change minds.
I have no idea if anyone is actually believing any of this, though it does blend in with real stories like Coldplay’s Chris Martin <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2025/09/14/chris-martin-charlie-kirk-coldplay-tribute/86156601007/">actually doing something</a> along those lines (though in more limited fashion).
But it should serve as another reminder that the information ecosystem is full of garbage and nonsense, and everyone needs to be skeptical about what they believe—especially when it confirms what we want to hear about celebrities sharing our political views.
]]></content:encoded>
<wfw:commentRss>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/18/facebook-flooded-with-agitslop-of-ai-grief-farming-about-charlie-kirk/comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">517661</post-id> </item>
<item>
<title>The Trump FCC’s CBS ‘Truth Nanny’ Is Unsurprisingly A Trump Lackey Who Has No Idea How Journalism Works</title>
<link>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/18/the-trump-fccs-cbs-truth-nanny-is-unsurprisingly-a-trump-lackey-who-has-no-idea-how-journalism-works/</link>
<comments>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/18/the-trump-fccs-cbs-truth-nanny-is-unsurprisingly-a-trump-lackey-who-has-no-idea-how-journalism-works/#comments</comments>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Karl Bode]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2025 12:28:00 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[1]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[cbs]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[paramount]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[skydance]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[brendan carr]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[disinformation]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[fcc]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[first amendment]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[free speech]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[journalism]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[kenneth weinstein]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[media]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[propaganda]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[truth]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.techdirt.com/?p=517378&preview=true&preview_id=517378</guid>
<description><![CDATA[You might recall that one of the conditions of the FCC’s approval of The Ellison family’s $8 billion acquisition of CBS was that the agency would install a “ombudsman” at the network to ensure CBS journalism was appropriately feckless and deferential to our mad, idiot king. This was particularly ironic given decades of whining by […]]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[You might recall that one of the conditions of the FCC’s approval of The Ellison family’s $8 billion acquisition of CBS was that the agency would <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/12/trump-fcc-installs-babysitter-at-cbs-to-ensure-the-network-kisses-king-donalds-ass/">install a “ombudsman” at the network</a> to ensure CBS journalism was appropriately feckless and deferential to our mad, idiot king. 
This was particularly ironic given decades of whining by Republicans about stuff like the “fairness doctrine,” and other short-lived government attempts to set acceptable contours for journalistic speech. But it probably also wasn’t necessary: there’s every indication that CBS under the Ellison “leadership” is going to be <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/09/with-looming-cbs-hire-of-bari-weiss-two-of-the-four-major-u-s-networks-will-now-be-right-wing-propaganda-mills/">repurposed by folks like Bari Weiss to be right wing propaganda</a>.
After some delays, CBS <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/08/business/media/cbs-news-ombudsman-kenneth-weinstein.html">recently hired Kenneth Weinstein</a> to be the “ombudsman.” Weinstein had been the head of the faux-academic right wing Hudson Institute “think tank,” and has absolutely no experience in journalism whatsoever. He’ll report to Paramount President Jeff Shell, who was <a href="https://www.npr.org/2023/04/23/1171525533/nbcuniversal-ceo-jeff-shell-inappropriate-relationship">fired by Comcast back in 2023 for sexual harassment</a>:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
“Mr. Weinstein, who has no experience overseeing news coverage, was an unexpected choice for the role. He will report to Jeff Shell, the new president of CBS’s parent company, Paramount, which recently merged with the Hollywood studio Skydance.”
</blockquote>
Of course Weinstein isn’t supposed to have any expertise in journalism. His expertise is bullshit and the flimsy veneer of intellectual credibility; pretending that the installation of a truth nanny at CBS has anything to do with journalism, and isn’t just a flimsy ploy by authoritarians to trample free speech and the First Amendment under the pretense that they just really care a whole lot about free speech. 
To be clear, CBS, even before the Ellison acquisition, had <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/cbs-news-exec-says-hiring-more-republicans-expect-midterm-win-2022-3">already been shifting its editorial window rightward to please authoritarians</a>. Now under the Ellison family — <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/09/with-looming-cbs-hire-of-bari-weiss-two-of-the-four-major-u-s-networks-will-now-be-right-wing-propaganda-mills/">and the purported looming leadership of right wing propagandist Bari Weiss</a> — there’s absolutely every indication they’re building another unabashed right wing propaganda mill that’s probably going to be worse than Fox News.
The CBS government nanny exists to ensure that no actual journalists remaining at CBS News don’t get any crazy ideas and try to do actual journalism. Jedd Legum at Popular Information dissected Weinstein’s past online comments and found him to be an <a href="https://popular.info/p/cbs-news-hires-trump-loyalist-to">unsurprising Trump apologist</a>. Like Bari Weiss, Weinstein’s there, in part, to ensure CBS goes soft on coverage of Netanyahu’s ongoing industrialized slaughter of toddlers.
Again though, I suspect Weinstein won’t have much actual work to do; CBS ownership and management are clearly, unabashedly pro-Trump. Weinstein’s only real function will be to provide a flimsy veneer of legitimacy to the firing of any employees who try to actually do journalism critical of the duo. And because he has no actual legitimacy, I suspect he won’t even do that well. 
Repurposing CBS for use as right wing information warfare machine is one part of a much broader, pathetic failure by major media institutions in response to authoritarianism, which, this week, also involved the Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/17/the-washington-post-fires-its-last-black-opinion-columnist-for-directly-quoting-a-bigot/">firing</a> its last black female columnist <a href="https://karenattiah.substack.com/p/the-washington-post-fired-me-but?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=2bz6j">simply for quoting Charlie Kirk’s claims that black females are inferior beings</a>.
Countless mainstream media outlets, like the LA Times, CNN, NYT, and ABC (who paid Trump and <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/17/cowardly-disney-caves-to-brendan-carrs-bogus-censorial-threats-pulling-jimmy-kimmel/">gave in to his admin’s threats</a> over Jimmy Kimmel) have met the moment with utter fecklessness. It’s been so pathetic it almost feels satirical. (As an aside, people of ethics should stop funding these outlets and give their money to reputable, independent journalists).
Wealthy, (usually right wing) media owners like tax cuts, mindless deregulation, and the government rubber stamping of shitty mergers. Despite decades of furrowed-brow protestations that this doesn’t impact U.S. journalism or editorial independence, you can very clearly see with your own eyes how, when push comes to shove, that’s usually an obvious lie.
Consolidated corporate media was always going to fail us in precisely this way at the worst possible time. Media academics spent more than fifty years warning us. Advice that American media policymakers (across both sides of the aisle) ignored every single step of the way.
]]></content:encoded>
<wfw:commentRss>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/18/the-trump-fccs-cbs-truth-nanny-is-unsurprisingly-a-trump-lackey-who-has-no-idea-how-journalism-works/comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
<slash:comments>14</slash:comments>
<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">517378</post-id> </item>
<item>
<title>Cowardly Disney Caves To Brendan Carr’s Bogus Censorial Threats, Pulling Jimmy Kimmel</title>
<link>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/17/cowardly-disney-caves-to-brendan-carrs-bogus-censorial-threats-pulling-jimmy-kimmel/</link>
<comments>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/17/cowardly-disney-caves-to-brendan-carrs-bogus-censorial-threats-pulling-jimmy-kimmel/#comments</comments>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Masnick]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2025 00:36:36 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[abc]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[disney]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[nexstar]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[1st amendment]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[benny johnson]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[brendan carr]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[donald trump]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[fcc]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[free speech]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[jawboning]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[jimmy kimmel]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[licenses]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[vullo]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.techdirt.com/?p=517665</guid>
<description><![CDATA[There are multiple ways into this story, but almost all of the reporting on what’s happened claims that Disney pulled talk show host Jimmy Kimmel’s show “indefinitely” over comments that Kimmel made about Charlie Kirk. But that leads most people to assume that Kimmel said something unkind about Kirk or in some way celebrated his […]]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[There are multiple ways into this story, but almost all of the reporting on what’s happened claims that <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/17/business/media/abc-jimmy-kimmel.html">Disney pulled talk show host Jimmy Kimmel’s show</a> “indefinitely” over comments that Kimmel made about Charlie Kirk. But that leads most people to assume that Kimmel said something unkind about Kirk or in some way celebrated his death. But he did not. You can see the segment here (assuming Disney doesn’t pull it):
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/-j3YdxNSzTk?si=CwYvGrKx4vlaVTmo" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Here’s the full transcript of the relevant section, which is just a few seconds:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.
</blockquote>
He also made fun of the clip of Trump being asked how he was grieving, to which Trump responded:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
I think very good, and by the way you can see over there all the trucks, they just started construction of the new ballroom for the White House which is something they’ve been trying to get for 150 years and it’s gonna be a beauty.
</blockquote>
They also showed a clip of Trump on Fox News being asked about “revenge” and somehow twisting that to the false claim that California has no ballot boxes, and another clip about Kash Patel trying to claim he was doing a good job with the investigation into Kirk’s killing.
Literally nothing in there is celebrating Kirk’s death or speaking ill of Kirk in any way.
But the thing that the MAGA world is really desperate to avoid is having anyone suggest that Robinson might not have been indoctrinated by “leftists.” They are so desperate to blame the attack on “the left,” (despite little evidence to support that) that they decided to attack Kimmel for even pointing out that MAGA was bending over backwards to deny that the shooter was “one of them.”
In the wake of the shooting, both ends of the political spectrum rushed (in an unhealthy way) to look for evidence that the shooter was “radicalized” by extremists at the other end of the political spectrum. This often <a href="https://www.france24.com/en/americas/20250917-conservatives-liberals-doctored-photo-charlie-kirk-tyler-robinson-usa">included doctored evidence</a>. But what evidence was obtained suggested that neither story was accurate and (as is so often the case with lone shooters) his agenda had no deep political component to it, and was just <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/culture/infinite-scroll/charlie-kirk-and-tyler-robinson-came-from-the-same-warped-online-worlds">deeply steeped in online meme culture</a>. Robinson himself admitted in messages later released that he basically put meme text on bullet casings <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/16/us/politics/charlie-kirk-shooting-bullets-messages.html">for the joke of it all</a>.
In context, Kimmel’s statements were quite benign.
But that didn’t stop FCC boss Brendan Carr—who spent years pretending to be a “First Amendment warrior”—from going on yet another MAGA podcast and claiming that Disney could “lose its license” over this. Carr claimed that there was a “concerted effort to lie” about the shooter, which is just a total misrepresentation of reality.
There were, as in any chaotic breaking news story, attempts to understand what little information is revealed, and which people try to fit into the larger story. In this case, some people interpreted information that was coming out in one way, in some cases, they interpreted it a different way. And yes, confirmation bias and preconceived notions could have played into that, but that’s how breaking news always works and it’s 100% protected by the First Amendment.
Carr then suggests that the FCC can use the “public interest” obligation of public spectrum (TV and radio broadcasters, but not internet or cable TV) to threaten to pull licenses for airing Kimmel’s segment. This is beyond nonsense. As FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression) noted in a statement:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
The FCC has no authority to control what a late night TV host can say, and the First Amendment protects Americans’ right to speculate on current events even if those speculations later turn out to be incorrect. Subjecting broadcasters to regulatory liability when anyone on their network gets something wrong would turn the FCC into an arbiter of truth and cast an intolerable chill over the airwaves.
</blockquote>
Carr’s threat was pretty explicit:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
I mean, look, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct to take action on Kimmel or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.
</blockquote>
That’s a pretty direct threat to intermediaries to punish Kimmel for obviously First Amendment protected speech.
Just last year, in a 9-0 ruling in NRA v. Vullo, the Supreme Court called out how this kind of thing <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-842_6kg7.pdf">is a clear violation of the First Amendment</a>.
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
A government official can share her views freely and criticize particular beliefs, and she can do so forcefully in the hopes of persuading others to follow her lead. In doing so, she can rely on the merits and force of her ideas, the strength of her convictions, and her ability to inspire others. What she cannot do, however, is use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression….
</blockquote>
And, more explicitly:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
The Court explained that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from relying on the “threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion . . . to achieve the suppression” of disfavored speech.
</blockquote>
While Carr initially appeared to threaten Disney/ABC’s “licenses,” he knows full well that (other than a small number of owned and operated affiliates) ABC doesn’t actually have most of the licenses. Instead, it’s the local affiliates that do. But Carr directly targeted them with a threat:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
There’s action we can take on licensed broadcasters. And, frankly, it’s really sort of past time that a lot of these licensed broadcasters themselves push back on Comcast or Disney and say, listen, we are going to preempt, we’re not going to run Kimmel any more until you straighten this out because we licensed broadcasters are running the possibility of fines or license revocation from the FCC if we continue to run content that ends up being a pattern of news distortion.
</blockquote>
This is a not so subtle threat to affiliates to drop Kimmel or face fines or have their licenses pulled.
And, not surprisingly, this threat worked. Hours later, Nexstar, the largest owner of local TV stations in the US which has been <a href="https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/nexstar-tegna-merger-tv-deal-ceo-trump-b2810500.html">sucking up to Trump</a> to try to <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/28/gop-friendly-local-news-broadcasters-plan-more-harmful-mergers-after-trump-destroys-whats-left-of-media-consolidation-limits/">buy out even more</a> TV stations, announced that it would not run Kimmel’s show on their stations, and shortly after that Disney announced that it was pulling Kimmel’s show “indefinitely.”
Nexstar’s statement was utter nonsense:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
“Mr. Kimmel’s comments about the death of Mr. Kirk are offensive and insensitive at a critical time in our national political discourse,” said Andrew Alford, president of Nexstar’s broadcasting division.
</blockquote>
Except he didn’t say anything offensive or insensitive. Literally the only thing he did was point out that Trump was fairly insensitive.
So here we have a government official coercing private parties to punish or suppress disfavored speech. This is literally what the (again, unanimous) Supreme Court, just months ago, said was a clear First Amendment violation:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
… a government official cannot do indirectly what she is barred from doing directly: A government official cannot coerce a private party to punish or suppress disfavored speech on her behalf
</blockquote>
Yet that is exactly what Brendan Carr just did today. Indeed, this case presents an even clearer First Amendment violation than Vullo in multiple ways. Where Vullo required the Court to analyze implicit threats, Carr’s threat was explicit: “We can do this the easy way or the hard way.” Where Vullo involved regulatory pressure on financial intermediaries over business practices, this directly targets editorial speech—the core of First Amendment protection. And where Vullo’s coercive effect had to be inferred, here we have immediate, documented capitulation by both Nexstar and Disney.
Even if you want to claim that (laughably) Carr’s threats weren’t that explicit, in Vullo the court stated directly that the “threat need not be explicit.” But again, it was pretty explicit.
Also in Vullo, the Court finds that the reaction of the intermediaries can “confirm the communications’ coercive nature.” The fact that Nexstar immediately did what Carr suggested they should do again reinforces what everyone knows is happening here.
And even if you were to argue (ridiculously, laughably) that something Kimmel did actually does violate the law in some way that allows Carr and the FCC to take action, the Supreme Court insisted that the underlying legality of the targeted actions does not matter to the question of whether or not the coercive threats targeted speech:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
Moreover, the conceded illegality of the NRA-endorsed insurance programs does not insulate Vullo from First Amendment scrutiny under the Bantam Books framework. Indeed, the commission in that case targeted the distribution and display of material that, in its view, violated the State’s obscenity laws. Nothing in that case turned on the distributor’s compliance with state law. On the contrary, Bantam Books held that the commission violated the First Amendment by invoking legal sanctions to suppress disfavored publications, some of which may or may not contain protected speech (i.e., nonobscene material). … Here, too, although Vullo can pursue violations of state insurance law, she cannot do so in order to punish or suppress the NRA’s protected expression.
</blockquote>
But that’s what Carr clearly did here. He threatened action in order to punish or suppress (incredibly benign) speech.
To be clear, even if one believed Kimmel’s speculation about the shooter’s motivations was somehow problematic, that wouldn’t justify Carr’s response. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the remedy for “bad” speech is more speech, not government censorship. The FCC’s “public interest” obligations have never been interpreted to give commissioners the power to police late-night comedy commentary on breaking news.
It’s no secret that Jimmy Kimmel has long been a thorn in Donald Trump’s side. His job is to mock and satirize the news, and he has been making fun of Donald Trump for years.
And yet, will we see the “comedy is legal again” and “free speech absolutists” speak out against Carr’s actions here? I doubt it. Will we see the people who insisted in the past that they can mock and joke about their political opponents without punishment speak up here? Seems unlikely.
We warned that Brendan Carr was eagerly looking to become America’s top censor, and he has succeeded in that. But never let it be said that he is a defender of free speech. He is the exact opposite. He has violated his oath to defend the Constitution and he has infringed upon the First Amendment rights of Americans.
Disney’s decision to cave here is stupid, but predictable. Carr leveraged these bogus threats to get Nexstar to damage Disney, and so Disney caved. It likely decided it doesn’t need another one of these stupid culture war battles that the MAGA crowd has thrust its way over and over again over the past decade.
But this capitulation sets a dangerous precedent. If government officials can successfully threaten broadcast licenses over protected commentary, every late-night host, news anchor, and talk radio personality becomes subject to regulatory retaliation for speech that displeases those in power. Today it’s Kimmel’s mild commentary about political spin; tomorrow it could be any criticism of government officials.
The speed with which Disney folded—within hours of the threat—shows how effectively this censorship-by-proxy operates. No formal proceedings, no due process, no appeals. Just a government official making threats and corporations immediately complying to avoid regulatory harassment. This is precisely the “heckler’s veto by government proxy” that the First Amendment was designed to prevent.
As the Supreme Court ruling closed with in the Vullo case, while government officials can express their opinions, there are limits to their ability to coerce:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
Yet where, as here, a government official makes coercive threats in a private meeting behind closed doors, the “ballot box” is an especially poor check on that official’s authority. Ultimately, the critical takeaway is that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from wielding their power selectively to punish or suppress speech, directly or (as alleged here) through private intermediaries.
</blockquote>
There was a time and a place where Brendan Carr agreed with that sentiment, but apparently it’s not when he’s in power and when the speech criticizes his boss.
]]></content:encoded>
<wfw:commentRss>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/17/cowardly-disney-caves-to-brendan-carrs-bogus-censorial-threats-pulling-jimmy-kimmel/comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
<slash:comments>49</slash:comments>
<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">517665</post-id> </item>
<item>
<title>The Illiberal, Transphobic Pipe Dream Of Banning Porn Reaches Michigan Republicans</title>
<link>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/17/the-illiberal-transphobic-pipe-dream-of-banning-porn-reaches-michigan-republicans/</link>
<comments>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/17/the-illiberal-transphobic-pipe-dream-of-banning-porn-reaches-michigan-republicans/#comments</comments>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael McGrady]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2025 22:33:55 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[1]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[1st amendment]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[adult content]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[dusty deevers]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[free speech]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[josh schriver]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[michigan]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[oklahoma]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[porn]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[public morals]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[vpns]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.techdirt.com/?p=517493</guid>
<description><![CDATA[It appears that the illiberal, transphobic pipe dream of banning all pornography has reached an enterprising group of far-right Christian nationalist Republicans in Michigan who want to impose the moralistic agendas of a small few on the overwhelming majority of the people. Rep. Josh Schriver leads five other lawmakers with the recent introduction of the Anticorruption of […]]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[It appears that the illiberal, transphobic pipe dream of banning all pornography has reached an enterprising group of far-right Christian nationalist Republicans in Michigan who want to impose the moralistic agendas of a small few on the overwhelming majority of the people.
<a href="https://michiganadvance.com/2025/05/13/house-dems-aim-to-censure-rep-schriver-over-racist-statements-made-on-house-floor/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Rep. Josh Schriver</a> <a href="https://x.com/JoshuaSchriver/status/1966522965249454494" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">leads five other lawmakers</a> with <a href="https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/total-porn-ban-proposed-michigan-lawmakers" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">the recent introduction of the Anticorruption of Public Morals Act</a>, known as <a href="https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2025-2026/billintroduced/House/htm/2025-HIB-4938.htm" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">House Bill (HB) 4938</a>, to the Michigan Legislature. He presents the measure as a public decency and public safety solution to what he views as harmful speech.
The Anticorruption of Public Morals Act is as bad as it sounds. If adopted by the legislature, the bill would prohibit the distribution of depictions of sexual acts that are “real, animated, digitally generated, written, or auditory” in nature. These acts include consensual depictions of sexual behavior among one or more adults, including all forms of protected consensual expression.
This means an individual or entity that violates the provisions of the bill would be charged with a felony offense punishable by up to 20 years in prison, a fine of $100,000, or a mixture of both. Individuals and organizations that violate the bill’s language that involves more than 100 pieces of “prohibited material” are guilty of the felony charge and are punishable by 25 years in prison or $125,000. 
A provision in HB 4938 also restricts internet service providers in the state from implementing mandatory filtering technology to prevent all residents from accessing said “prohibited material.”
This language was added to build on their definition of “circumvention tools.” Rep. Schriver defines “circumvention tools” as any form of software or service designed to bypass censorship provisions. The bill explicitly highlights virtual private networks, proxy servers, or other forms of secure encryption tunneling as these “circumvention tools.” Using VPNs to access prohibited material is a no-go under HB 4938.
Consider how the lawmakers define “prohibited material,” too. According to the draft language, prohibited material is a form of expression, “that at common law was not protected by adoption of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States respecting laws abridging freedom of speech or the press.” Further, these “prohibited materials” under the bill are defined:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
“[As] depiction, description, or simulation, whether real, animated, digitally generated, written, or auditory, of sexual acts, that includes any of the following:…vaginal or anal intercourse;…fellatio or cunnilingus;…masturbation;…ejaculation or orgasm;…penetration with sexual devices;…group sex;…bondage, domination, or sadomasochism;…acts involving bodily fluids for sexual arousal;…erotic autonomous sensory meridian response content, moaning, or sensual voice content;…animated, virtual, or sexual activity generated by artificial intelligence;…depictions of characters acting or resembling minors in sexual contextsl;…[and] any other pornographic material.”
</blockquote>
Other forms of expression that are considered “prohibited material” include:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
“[A] depiction, description, or simulation, whether real, animated, digitally generated, written, or auditory, that includes a disconnection between biology and gender by an individual of 1 biological sex imitating, depicting, or representing himself or herself to be of the other biological sex by means of a combination of attire, cosmetology, or prosthetics, or as having a reproductive nature contrary to the individual’s biological sex.”
</blockquote>
The only exceptions include “scientific and medical research or instruction” or “peer-reviewed academic content.” Not only does Rep. Schriver attempt to define entire categories of speech as obscene and criminal, but he goes the extra step of attempting to criminalize and written or audiovisual existence of transgender, gender non-conforming, and/or gender diverse people.
He wants to criminalize forms of expression that affirm and contribute to the basic humanity of transgender people by saying that gender affirmation, socialization, and any other material related to the subject is pornographic, while also conflating such material with actual sexually explicit content that is produced for private use by adults and is widely considered legal.
What kind of backward ass thinking is that? Rep. Schriver is pitching a worldview so extreme that it calls for criminalizing protected forms of expression, while also wanting to institute an entire offense for speech that deals with transgender and queer subject matter.
Instead of using a position in the state legislature to accomplish something reasonable and bipartisan, Schriver’s cabal intends to force further harm onto the national conversation against a class of people who are entitled to the same First Amendment rights he proudly utilizes as a member of the rising postliberal Catholic and Catholic integralism movements that feature prominent neo-fascists and (wink) <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-catholic-integralism-234894" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">J.D. Vance</a>.
State Sen. Dusty Deevers of Oklahoma is the other high-profile case of a lawmaker wanting to upend the First Amendment in their state to ban pornography. Note that Deevers is an author of <a href="https://www.statementonchristiannationalism.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">“The Statement on Christian Nationalism and the Gospel.”</a> In this statement, Sen. Deevers calls for the abolishment of divorce, abortion, non-traditionalist culture, and “evils” like pornography.
Schriver publicly joined Deevers’ fan club in early 2024 when the porn ban in Oklahoma was first put to pen and paper. It hasn’t passed the legislature.
Rep. Schriver <a href="https://x.com/JoshuaSchriver/status/1754235671412109769" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">quoted a Rolling Stone post on X</a> criticizing Deevers, saying that “abortion is murder, porn is cancer, [and] divorce is a plague.” If bills like HB 4938 are the future of the conservative movement, then the true obscenity isn’t pornography—it’s the authoritarian urge to strip people of their rights under the guise of protecting morality: No one is protected; everyone is a criminal.
Let’s just hope this bill dies in committee and Schriver and his colleagues are reminded of how willfully ignorant they truly are.
Michael McGrady covers the tech and legal sides of the online porn business.
]]></content:encoded>
<wfw:commentRss>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/17/the-illiberal-transphobic-pipe-dream-of-banning-porn-reaches-michigan-republicans/comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
<slash:comments>26</slash:comments>
<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">517493</post-id> </item>
<item>
<title>California Lawmakers Pass A Bill That Would Ban Use of Face Masks By Law Enforcement</title>
<link>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/17/california-lawmakers-pass-a-bill-that-would-ban-use-of-face-masks-by-law-enforcement/</link>
<comments>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/17/california-lawmakers-pass-a-bill-that-would-ban-use-of-face-masks-by-law-enforcement/#comments</comments>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tim Cushing]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2025 20:33:40 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[1]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[accountability]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[california]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[dhs]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[face masks]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[ice]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[law enforcement]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[mass deportations]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[scott wiener]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.techdirt.com/?p=517298&preview=true&preview_id=517298</guid>
<description><![CDATA[It’s probably too much to ask, but I hope California law enforcement agencies will remember who to direct their hate at if this bill becomes law. It’s not the “liberals” running the state. It’s the Trump administration and its mass deportation efforts. ICE and its actions have always been controversial, but it took a group […]]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[It’s probably too much to ask, but I hope California law enforcement agencies will remember who to direct their hate at if this bill becomes law. It’s not the “liberals” running the state. It’s the Trump administration and its mass deportation efforts. ICE and its actions have always been <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/tag/abolish-ice/" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.techdirt.com/tag/abolish-ice/">controversial</a>, but it took a group of bigots serving non-consecutive terms to really <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/21/ice-boss-thinks-journalists-shouldnt-be-asking-about-masked-officers-disappearing-people/" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/21/ice-boss-thinks-journalists-shouldnt-be-asking-about-masked-officers-disappearing-people/">unleash its inherent ugliness</a>.
What we’ve been seeing since Trump’s return to office has been ICE and anti-brown people sentiment at its worst. ICE raids Home Deport parking lots, neighborhoods, and swap meets, rather than <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/07/31/ice-is-spending-more-time-targeting-the-least-dangerous-people-in-america/" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/07/31/ice-is-spending-more-time-targeting-the-least-dangerous-people-in-america/">performing targeted arrests</a> of truly dangerous undocumented immigrants. But this insistence on masking officers and hiding outward designations of their originating agency is something specifically tied to Trump’s second administration.
ICE has sowed. California law enforcement agencies <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/california-legislature-bill-law-enforcement-face-coverings/" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/california-legislature-bill-law-enforcement-face-coverings/">are now on the verge of reaping this particular whirlwind</a>, as CBS News reports. 
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB627" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Lawmakers in California passed a bill</a> on Thursday banning most local and federal law enforcement officers from covering their faces during operations, including immigration enforcement.
Senate Bill 627, known as the No Secret Police Act, was introduced by Democratic state Sens. Scott Wiener of San Francisco and Jesse Arreguin of Berkeley in June after <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/protests-immigration-raids-spread-across-us-a-look-at-many-sporadic-violence/">immigration operations ramped</a> up across the state as part of President Trump’s crackdown on <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/immigration-chicago-gregory-bovino-border-official-trump/">illegal immigration.</a> The bill will now head to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk for final approval.
</blockquote>
The <a href="https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/26091323/face-mask-bill.pdf" data-type="link" data-id="https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/26091323/face-mask-bill.pdf">bill</a> [PDF] opens up with the legislators’ refusal to allow law enforcement to take advantage of preexisting double-standard: 
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to wear a mask, false whiskers, or any personal disguise, as specified, with the purpose of evading or escaping discovery, recognition, or identification while committing a public offense, or for concealment, flight, evasion, or escape from arrest or conviction for any public offense.
This bill would make it a crime for a law enforcement officer to wear a facial covering in the performance of their duties, except as specified. The bill would define law enforcement officer as anyone designated by California law as a peace officer who is employed by a city, county, or other local agency, and any officer or agent of a federal law enforcement agency or law enforcement agency of another state, or any person acting on behalf of a federal law enforcement agency or agency of another state. The bill would make a violation of these provisions punishable as an infraction or a misdemeanor, as specified. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
</blockquote>
This won’t stop ICE and other federal officers from wearing masks while terrorizing the populace, of course. But it will at least prevent local law enforcement from blending in with Trump’s masked goon squads, which might discourage them from pitching in with questionable “round up all the brown people” raids performed by ICE and its federal partners. 
Added to the bill are a lot of official legislative declarations — ones that point out the numerous problems created by officers who choose to disguise themselves when performing their public duties.
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
 (a)[T]he routine use of facial coverings by law enforcement officers has significant implications for public perception, officer-community interactions, and accountability.
(b) Whether intentional intended or not, members of the public may experience fear or intimidation when approached by officers whose faces are obscured. This perception can heighten defensive behaviors and unnecessarily escalate situations.
(c) Facial coverings limit the visibility of facial expressions, which are essential components of nonverbal communication. In high-stress or emotionally charged interactions, the inability to read an officer’s expression may lead to misinterpretation of tone or intent, increasing the risk of conflict escalation.
(d) The visibility of an officer’s face is vital for promoting transparency, facilitating communication, and building trust between law enforcement agencies and the communities they serve.
(e) When officers are not readily identifiable, it increases the risk of impersonation by unauthorized individuals, which further undermines public trust, endangers public safety, and hinders legitimate law enforcement operations.
</blockquote>
This exposes the lie that is used most frequently by law enforcement: that masking up makes officers “safer.” It doesn’t. It creates a ton of negative side effects, many of which endanger people on both sides of the law enforcement equation. What it definitely does not do is make officers “safer.” 
On top of that, there’s the damage done to the public’s relationship with law enforcement, which has never been great. Destroying trust only takes a few self-serving actions by cops who’d rather have their power completely decoupled from any responsibility. Rebuilding this trust takes maximum effort and years of work — something almost no law enforcement agency (federal or local) is willing to do. So, the baseline is trust that has likely been irreparably damaged. And now, law enforcement seems to think the best way to do cop business is by destroying what little trust remains by dressing up like cartel death squads while enforcing civil laws pertaining to citizenship.
Cops will no doubt complain about this new mandate if it’s codified. Fuck them. They had all the time in the world to repair their relationship with the public. And if they’ve chosen to be more like ICE in its current iteration, they absolutely need to have this dubious privilege taken out of their hands. 
]]></content:encoded>
<wfw:commentRss>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/17/california-lawmakers-pass-a-bill-that-would-ban-use-of-face-masks-by-law-enforcement/comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">517298</post-id> </item>
</channel>
</rss>

If you would like to create a banner that links to this page (i.e. this validation result), do the following:

Download the "valid RSS" banner.
Upload the image to your own server. (This step is important. Please do not link directly to the image on this server.)
Add this HTML to your page (change the image src attribute if necessary):

<a href="http://www.feedvalidator.org/check.cgi?url=http%3A//feeds.techdirt.com/techdirt/feed"><img src="valid-rss-rogers.png" alt="[Valid RSS]" title="Validate my RSS feed" /></a>

If you would like to create a text link instead, here is the URL you can use:

http://www.feedvalidator.org/check.cgi?url=http%3A//feeds.techdirt.com/techdirt/feed

Home · About · News · Docs · Terms