Former heavyweight champion Evander Holyfield will once again step into the pay-per-view boxing ring this Saturday night (Sept. 11) to fight former UFC mixed martial arts champion Vitor Belfort, with former President Donald Trump providing commentary for the PPV event.

Holyfield -- who last fought professionally in 2011 -- replaces former boxing champion Oscar De La Hoya, who pulled out of the fight last week due to a positive COVID-19 diagnosis. The fight card also features a boxing match between mixed martial arts legends Anderson Silva and Tito Ortiz.

Also Read: Triller Looking To Shake Up PPV Category

Trump and his son Donald Trump Jr. are scheduled to provide fight commentary during the multi-fight PPV card, according to industry sources. Purchasers of the $49.99 event will be able to access the Trump commentary on the multiple secondary audio programming (SAP) service, according to sources.

With former President Donald Trump’s impeachment acquittal by the United States Senate, the door remains ajar for Trump to run again in 2024, as many of his supporters are encouraging him to do.

But there was a more conclusive prohibition that was meted out against him only days before — namely a resolution passed by the SAG-AFTRA National Board that preemptively denied any potential readmission application to the talent union by Trump. His SAG-AFTRA membership enabled Trump to host The Apprentice and its successor series, The Celebrity Apprentice, which provided massive public exposure for more than a decade that he leveraged for his successful 2016 White House bid.

As SAG-AFTRA president Gabrielle Carteris noted, “Preventing Donald Trump from ever rejoining SAG-AFTRA is more than a symbolic step. It is a resounding statement that threatening or inciting harm against fellow members will not be tolerated. An attack against one is an attack against all.” The union’s membership includes virtually all the television journalists who covered Trump while he was in office, some of whom he called the “enemy of the people.”

Facing a disciplinary hearing, Trump already had voluntarily relinquished his membership on Feb. 4, a day before it was to be held. In his resignation letter, the former president expressed pride in his movie and television work, capped off by “one of the most successful shows in television history, The Apprentice.”

The Apprentice premiered on NBC during the 2003-2004 television season. It finished seventh among all primetime network programs then. The series dropped to number 11 in its second season, and continued an annual downward slide to number 113 by the 2010-11 television season, its last (the highest ratings ranking for The Celebrity Apprentice, which then ran with Trump as host until 2015, was No. 48).

One suspects that when the Donald J. Trump Presidential Library is finally opened, there may be a whole wing devoted to The Apprentice, since it looms so large in Trump’s own list of lifetime achievements. Trump earned more than $200 million from the series and its spinoff over 14 seasons, and millions more from enhanced product licensing, as his name and image became more profitable. It would not be surprising to see both a replica Oval Office and a reconstructed boardroom set with a wall of video screens in the background playing episode clips on an endless loop.

His TV career prospects have been permanently shattered by the SAG-AFTRA board resolution. Starting a much-rumored Trump TV network from scratch or acquiring an existing cable network such as One America News Network might not offer much regular screen time either, if it was covered by SAG-AFTRA rules; even if not, the ability to attract top on-air union talent would be severely limited by these rules. 

In short, Trump’s September 2005 declaration to host Billy Bush on his Access Hollywood bus hot-mic moment that went viral again and again — “When you’re a star, they let you do it” — no longer will ring true. The only people who still might agree with this boast are those senators who voted for acquittal at the impeachment trial, along with those who supported the outcome. Their hope is that whatever is left in its wake, the show must go on.

Stuart N. Brotman is the former president and CEO of The Museum of Television & Radio, now known as the Paley Center for Media.

TV news was ready for a hectic, and historic, day Jan. 6, with Congress scheduled to certify Joe Biden’s presidential election, President Trump addressing his diehard supporters on the Ellipse and a pair of Democrats winning their blockbuster Senate races in Georgia. But news gatherers turned to a different story, one that will be a dark part of American history for the length of our lifetimes, when bedlam broke loose at the Capitol. 

The Congressional session to certify the Electoral College votes began at 1 p.m., as many networks covered the affair. A little after 2 p.m. Wolf Blitzer said on CNN that “protestors are getting assertive” as Trump supporters approached the Capitol following the president’s speech near the White House. 

Viewership picked up as the mob entered the historic building. Barricades were pushed past, doors were smashed with metal rods and windows were broken. Reporters mentioned that shots were fired. 

Blitzer’s colleague Jake Tapper called it “a disgraceful moment in American history.”

As the violence progressed, anchors and reporters struggled to find the proper verbiage--insurrection, sedition--for the transgressions happening before them. “It is hard not to look at this and not feel that there is at least, and not to be hyperbolic, but to feel there are some elements of a coup attempt in what we’re watching right now,” said NBC News anchor Lester Holt. 

At 4:30 p.m., President Trump released a video, reiterating that the election was stolen, but urging his supporters to head home. “I know your pain, I know you’re hurt,” Trump said. “But you have to go home now, we have to have peace. We have to have law and order, we have to respect our great people in law and order.”

On Fox News, Bill Hemmer anchored coverage through 6 p.m., when Bret Baier took over. Congressional correspondent Chad Pergram said, “This is the most significant breach of an American government institution since the Battle of Bladensburg -- Aug. 24th, 1814, when the British came and burned the Capitol and also burned the White House. We have never had an instance of an incursion inside the U.S. Capitol building to this degree since that time. Let's be clear, the mob upended American democracy today as they try to count the Electoral College.”

The broadcast nets went live in primetime. On CBS News, anchor Norah O’Donnell went live at 10 p.m. “An angry mob of supporters of President Trump convened on the U.S. Capitol, overwhelming law enforcement,” she said. “This is an image inside what is called the Capitol Crypt. As those supporting the president sought to storm the House and Senate chambers, but what can only be viewed as an attempt to not only to thwart the democratic process but also an effort incited by the president of the United States to try one last effort to overturn the presidential election.”

CBS News chief Washington correspondent Major Garrett added, “This has to be the breaking point. This has to be the moment with which Republicans of conscience say this and no more. Not one inch more. We are done.”

On Newsmax, Bernard Kerik suggested the riot was not that big a deal, according to the NY Times. “You have six to 10 people who entered the building,” he said. “OK, deal with it.”

The Capitol coup remained a massive story the morning of January 7. The networks reported that VP Mike Pence banged his gavel close to 4 a.m., concluding the Congressional proceedings. They also reported that four had died in the melee, including a woman who was shot by a U.S. Capitol Police officer. “What a dark day we are in right now after this assault on the heart of our democracy,” said ABC News White House correspondent Cecilia Vega. “Joe Biden’s win, finally official.” 

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell was on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, calling what happened “a national disgrace.”

Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar  appeared on CBS This Morning. “It is a tipping point for these people that have stood by [Trump] for way too long, allowed him to go after people, divide people,” she said. “And finally, last night, when they saw the fruits of everything they had done and all of the enabling literally invading the temple of our democracy, desecrating it right in front of their eyes.”

Donald Trump has proved himself to be uniquely ill-suited to the challenges of his job and to this difficult moment in history, a moment whose difficulty is, in part, of his own making. 

The president has systematically undercut the other branches of government that
are meant to be the checks and balances on his power. 

At a time when the country is politically divided, he sows even more division with tweets and statements that often have a problematic relationship to the truth, on the order of a distant cousin several times removed. The truth matters, and what the president says matters not just to him, but an entire country.

His attacks on the media, including his assertions that reporters are enemies of the people in league with his opponents and could, perhaps, use a good roughing-up by his supporters, have consequences he either doesn't acknowledge or tacitly approves.

Back in the weeks before the 2016 election, the Committee to Protect Journalists declared then-presidential candidate Donald Trump a threat to press freedom “unknown in modern history.” He has done nothing as president to leaven that harsh assessment.

The president pathologically refuses to accept responsibility or criticism, and appears to weigh everything by whether he can take credit for it as a personal “win” or reframe defeat as victory. Those who can’t concede their mistakes can’t learn from them and can’t help repeating them.

Taking a page from the Nixon White House, then rewriting it for the digital age, President Trump has used his position to try to get back at a host of perceived media enemies, whether it is suggesting the AT&T-Time Warner merger should be blocked because he doesn't like CNN, or threatening broadcast licenses when a story airs that rubs him the wrong way, or going after social media with a broad brush dipped in vitriol, or taking his marbles and going home when, after contracting COVID-19, he backs out of a  virtual televised debate.

Trump promised to be more presidential than any president. That definition apparently includes obstructing a national referendum on race relations by preventing any government contractor, and there are many of them in the communications business, from conducting diversity training classes that even suggest there is a history of systemic racism or sexism in this country. There has obviously been a big push by industry, including cable and broadcasting, to address that undeniable racism — discrimination, for example — has prevented minorities from having access to broadcast licenses and the boardrooms and back rooms where secondary deals, and billions of dollars,
were made.

In an executive order issued Sept. 22, the president called it a “pernicious and false belief” that the country is “an irredeemably racist and sexist country.” The order requires clauses in government contracts preventing diversity training that includes that belief. The “irredeemably” in that order is an overstatement meant to shield the order from the condemnation it so richly deserves. Diversity training is all about the belief that the country is redeemable through education and understanding, followed by a collective acceptance of responsibility for past action or inaction, ideally then followed by a commitment to create a fairer and more just society for all. The president’s order attempts to short-circuit that process.

We applaud NCTA-The Internet & Television Association for standing up to the president and that executive order. It signed on to a letter earlier this month that said the president’s order was disconnected from reality, that reality being “ongoing racial inequality and inequities in America.”

On the issue we are, selfishly, most interested in — a vigorous and free press — as we have said on this page before, the media is hardly above criticism in the passion play of Donald Trump’s rise to the highest office in the land. But that is a separate issue from this president's petty and dangerous digital broadsides in rally speeches and mean tweets, which would be troubling in times without a pandemic and a racial reckoning.

We said back in April the president needs to stop. He hasn’t. It is time for the voters to escort him out.

Fresh Start? 

But we want to end on a hopeful note. At the end of last week’s hearings on a new Supreme Court nominee, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, who was strongly opposed to both the nominee and the timing of the Republican-backed effort to place her on the court ASAP, called the hearings some of the best she has ever participated in and praised Chairman Lindsey Graham for the way they had been conducted. She said it left her with some hope for bipartisan legislation on other topics in the future. For his part, Graham told Feinstein she was a “joy to work with.” He also said whatever happens in the presidential election, if he returned to the Senate he was committed to “starting over” and trying to find common ground.

Whoever returns to Congress and the White House after the Nov. 3 referendum on the last four years on 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. and the Hill, may it be so.

President Donald Trump is focused on eliminating what he sees as systemic bias, but it has nothing to do with racism.

Under a Trump executive order, the Federal Communications Commission for the first time would have a defined role in regulating edge providers. It’s a big change from the FCC’s hands-off approach during the previous administration, when the “gatekeeper” tag was put on internet service providers — and not on the companies that use those connections to offer their own services, like Google, Facebook or Twitter, which were basically untouchable from a regulatory perspective.

While there is bipartisan support for finding a way to ensure there is some government oversight of the most transformative technology perhaps in human history — including support from cable broadband providers — the president’s focus on online content he does not like threatens to add a layer of speech regulation that could dull the edge and even compromise its role as a marketplace of ideas.

While the order focuses on social media, law firm Wiley Rein says all the participants in online communication will be impacted by “broad and long-term legal and policy effects.”

For example, the president’s directive to develop model legislation for states to enforce his speech policies could work against efforts, backed by ISPs, to create a uniform federal approach to online privacy and commerce.

Related: Section 230: The Protection Section

Trump, in an executive order issued in May, directed the National Telecommunications & Information Administration to file a petition with the FCC, which it dutifully did late last month, to step into the regulation of web content. The FCC would be empowered to require Facebook and Google to publicly explain how they moderate their content, as well as the warnings they place on user posts like the ones Twitter placed on the president’s tweets, which would be considered content generated by the platform and not subject to the Section 230 immunity from civil liability over third-party content, an immunity the president is targeting.

Trump has long said he was looking for a way to keep social media platforms from censoring conservative speech in general. More recently, he has been critical of what he sees as political censorship of his own posts by Twitter, posts that the White House has said are official presidential statements. So, it is clearly personal.

No less a Silicon Valley maven than Facebook chairman and CEO Mark Zuckerberg has conceded there are legitimate concerns about liberal bias, but he does not think it is systemic and has said that is certainly not the case with his company.

FCC commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, a Democrat, said Trump’s order attempts to enlist the agency in becoming what she calls the speech police, a business she doesn’t want to be in.

The White House explained the move this way: “In a country that has long valued freedom of expression, it is not acceptable for a limited number of online platforms to hand-pick speech that Americans may access and convey. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power. They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.”

Regulations Look Inevitable

Some form of regulation of Big Tech appears inevitable. Last month’s hearing in the House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee with the CEOs of Facebook, Amazon, Apple and Alphabet (Google) was pretty much a proverbial case of “the beatings shall commence.” Democratic leaders said the big tech firms were too powerful, that the power had corrupted them and that they needed to be regulated and, in some cases, broken up.

Related: Ordering Up Online Regulation

Even though plenty of Democrats, including at last month’s hearing, have criticized Section 230 — or have even called for its elimination — the president’s linkage of the issue with his attacks on Twitter and other sites had some of those pausing to push back with one hand, even as they shake a big regulatory stick with the other.

Questions about whether or not websites still should enjoy blanket immunity from liability have been asked by everyone from conservative Republicans, who share Trump’s suspicions about the suppression of conservative voices, to the Democratic author of the Communications Decency Act’s Section 230 (see box). Section 230 is the law that says social-media platforms bear no civil liability for most of the speech posted on their sites and gives those platforms the freedom to remove content, or not, as they choose.

Immunity under Section 230 of the 1996 law is what allowed those sites to grow from the garage to the sprawling campus, but also, the law’s critics say, allowed them to avoid the legal consequences of the hate speech, fake news, Russian election meddling and sex trafficking that finds its way onto their sites.

Social media sites argue, and with reason, that if they are liable for the millions or billions of posts they host, or for moderating them according to the perceived preferences of their community, it will be hard to sustain their business model.

But these social-media communities have become so large and powerful that what they allow or don’t allow to be posted on their sites, or how they moderate those posts, can change the national conversation and impact many millions. Many in Washington have been saying that with that power comes responsibility — responsibility that Section 230 has allowed them to dodge, unlike news publishers that are subject to such civil liability.

While the president wants the FCC get involved with social-media content calls, that could be a big ask. As influential telcom law firm Wiley Rein pointed out in a note to clients about the executive order, the FCC recently rejected a petition to investigate broadcast coverage of the president, with the explanation that the regulator is not “a roving arbiter of broadcasters’ editorial judgments.” The executive order essentially asks it to become an arbiter of edge provider content calls.

A Bipartisan ‘Techlash’

There are no easy answers. But Democrats and Republicans have clearly been moving toward regulation, or at least heightened oversight and perhaps changes in the antitrust laws to capture the speed of tech innovation and consolidation, fueled by bipartisan concerns over issues like privacy and third-party marketing of user data. While Republicans criticize social media for allegedly censoring speech, Democrats argue the sites don’t do enough to keep disinformation, including deceptive campaign ads, off their platforms.

One Big Tech critic speaking on background said social media platforms are clearly hoping that the executive order takes some of the pressure off. But he also said the “techlash” has its own momentum, likening it to a big rock rolling down a mountain with “gravity on its side.” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the author of Section 230, said at a hearing last year that the whole point of the section was to have a “shield and a sword,” and the sword hasn’t been used. But following the president’s executive order, Wyden came to the defense of Section 230 and how it has been functioning.

“Efforts to erode Section 230 will only make online content more likely to be false and dangerous,” Wyden said. “Section 230 does not prevent internet companies from moderating offensive or false content. And it does not change the First Amendment of the Constitution.”

Other prominent Democrats have weighed in with questions about Section 230. Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden apparently agrees with Trump that the section should go, telling The New York Times back in January that the section should be revoked, saying “it is propagating falsehoods.”

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has also called for an end to the “sweetheart deal” of Section 230. He had an unusual congressional ally in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who tried, unsuccessfully, to exclude Section 230 language from the USMCA trade deal among the United States, Mexico and Canada, calling the section a “gift to big tech.” She was joined in that effort to keep Section 230 from spreading by Reps. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and Greg Walden (R-Ore.).

Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) are political poles apart. But they teamed up earlier this year on a bill that would amend Section 230 to say that the section's immunity for online platforms from civil liability for third-party content does not extend to child exploitation, meaning Facebook or Twitter could be held liable for posts that illegally exploit children. If that passes, it could open the door to other changes and the prospect of the death of Section 230 by a thousand cuts.

Blumenthal said Section 230 provides a unique, near-absolute immunity from legal consequences for “certain companies and activities.” The bill would remove that exemption from companies that did not earn it. (It is, appropriately, called the EARN IT Act.)

But the president’s call for remaking Section 230 has forced pushback.

Pallone joined with other Democratic legislators to stand up for Big Tech. “Online platforms should enforce their codes of conduct to combat disinformation, even when it is spread by right-wing extremists and the president himself, but the president has made clear he wants the internet to cower in fear,” he said.

And following Trump’s order, Blumenthal tweeted: “Whatever the criticisms I may have of current law, this Executive Order is an authoritarian attack against freedom of expression and accountability. This Executive Order is egregiously excessive, with clearly malevolent intent to suppress free speech. It is a blatant attempt to use the full power of the United States government to force private companies to lie for the president.”

It’s not just Democrats who are pushing back on the president. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), a conservative who agrees there is anti-conservative bias — though he has also argued against siccing the Justice Department on Google and other Big Tech companies — told Fox News Channel the order would be “just terrible precedent long-term.” Lee said social media platforms were not “the government's tool to play with.”

The Committee for Justice, a Republican-backed Washington, D.C., nonprofit group, pointed out that there are legitimate concerns that “content moderation policies on certain social media platforms have a disparate impact on conservative expression and sometimes result in outright anti-conservative bias,” including Twitter’s “singling out” of the president, according to committee president Curt Levey.

But Trump’s approach to those issues had Levey sounding more like Democratic FCC commissioner Rosenworcel following the executive order’s release. “Government regulation of private companies’ content moderation policies is a greater threat than the problem it seeks to address,” Levey said.

Republican FCC member Michael O’Rielly’s public raising of the First Amendment issues with regulating social media may have cost him his renomination, which the president has withdrawn.

Pushback on Both Sides

While the immediate pushback on the president from Democrats provided some hope in Silicon Valley that the regulatory tide might be turning, some of the highest-profile Democrats remained resolute.

The Biden campaign told The Verge his position in support of eliminating Section 230 has not changed, and Pelosi said that the president’s order was a “desperate distraction,” but also continued to hammer the edge, saying: “Social media platforms have sold out the public interest to pad their corporate profits. Their business model is to make money at the expense of the truth.”

And the president wants to know just how much money. He gave federal agencies until June 27 to report on what they are spending on online advertising and marketing, and on which platforms. The Justice Department will now determine which of those are “problematic vehicles for government speech,” meaning government dollars.

Related: FCC As Edge Regulator

But the principal problematic vehicle is the executive order itself, said Jon Epstein, a partner at law firm Hall Estill, who has advised clients on the risks of social media. "The EO is troubling to those who believe that the Section 230 protections are necessary and that use of the platforms should not be censored based on government officials’ political viewpoints.

“During his campaign and since he was elected, President Trump has engaged in a heated conflict with reporters and media platforms who have criticized or questioned him,” Epstein continued. “[W]e are on the verge of the battle that the President appears to have sought.”

The FCC commissioners are definitely divided over President Trump's executive order on getting the FCC involved in regulating online platforms.  

The President issued an executive order Thursday (May 28) directing the National Telecommunications & Information Administration, the White House's chief communications policy advisor, to propose an FCC rulemaking to "clarify the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content" is not protected from liability because it is deceptive and thus violates the platform's terms of service. 

Related: Trump Issues Social Media Executive Order

One one side is Democrat Jessica Rosenworcel, who was quick to criticize the proposal.  

“This does not work," she said. "Social media can be frustrating. But an Executive Order that would turn the Federal Communications Commission into the President’s speech police is not the answer. It’s time for those in Washington to speak up for the First Amendment. History won’t be kind to silence.” 

Fellow Democrat Geoffrey Starks was not as definitive, but suggested there were other things the Trump Administration should be prioritizing. 

“I’ll review the final Executive Order when it’s released and assess its impact on the FCC, but one thing is clear: the First Amendment and Section 230 remain the law of the land and control here," he said. "Our top priority should be connecting all Americans to high quality, affordable broadband. The fight against COVID-19 has made closing the digital divide—and helping all Americans access education, work, and healthcare online—more critical than ever. We must keep our focus on that essential work.”  

Related: Trump Threatens to Shut Down Social Media 

Republican Brendan Carr was solidly behind the President, whose order he suggested was workable.  

"President Trump’s Executive Order on Online Censorship is welcome news!," he said. "I look forward to receiving the Administration’s petition for rulemaking and taking action." 

Carr said he welcomed guidance on "the scope of the unique and conditional set of legal privileges that Congress conferred on social media companies but not other set of speakers in Sec. 230." 

Republican Michael O'Rielly had no comment on the order's release, but did tweet on news of the draft earlier in the day, asking everyone to "take a deep breath, but adding that the President "has right to seek review of [a] statute’s application," adding: "As a conservative, I’m troubled voices are stifled by liberal tech leaders. At same time, I’m extremely dedicated to First Amendment which governs much here." 

FCC chairman Ajit Pai did not show his hand, only saying: "This debate is an important one. The Federal Communications Commission will carefully review any petition for rulemaking filed by the Department of Commerce," which is basically saying the FCC will do its job. 

Comments continued to pour in Thursday (May 28) after President Donald Trump signed an executive order that would get the federal government involved in regulating social media posts. The reviews were generally not positive.  

The Democratic leadership of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, which oversees the FCC, was dismayed by the President's action, saying the President presented a clear and present danger to democracy. 

Related: White House Signals Order is About Conservative Speech Bias

“With this Executive Order, the President is lashing out to punish social media platforms that are seeking to stop the dissemination of misinformation," said Committee Chairman Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-N.J.), Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) and Consumer Protection and Commerce Subcommittee Chair Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) "His actions pose a clear and present threat to our democracy, far beyond his usual rantings.  

"Online platforms should enforce their codes of conduct to combat disinformation, even when it is spread by right wing extremists and the President himself, but the President has made clear he wants the internet to cower in fear. This retribution is a perfect example of how authoritarian governments, like the Chinese, silence free speech, and the result will be the continued growth of misinformation, hate speech and tribalism online and in our communities.  

“We will be watching the FTC and FCC, both independent agencies created by Congress, as well as social media platforms to ensure they are acting in the American people’s best interest and not simply appeasing a self-aggrandizing bully," they said.  

For his part, FCC chairman Ajit Pai said that the FCC would seriously review any petition by the Commerce Department for action on social media regulation. 

"Tech companies make it possible for us all to stay connected, doctors to tend patients remotely, policymakers to communicate with constituents, and students and employees to learn and work from home," said Jason Oxman, president of tech group ITI. "These tools thrive with a diversity of viewpoints and are more important than ever.

"Today's executive order expresses that the First Amendment is the bedrock of American democracy, while at the same time threatening to undermine it by endorsing government censorship of speech. The ability of U.S. citizens to post content online, and of companies to take good faith efforts and offer tools to promote the safe use of that content, is protected by the Constitution and by existing law." 

"We oppose today's unconstitutional, ill-considered executive order," said Consumer Technology Association President Gary Shapiro. "The free speech protections in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act are the legal underpinning of our vibrant U.S. online economy and our nation's global digital leadership. America's internet companies lead the world and it is incredible that our own political leaders would seek to censor them for political purposes. These same politicians extensively advertise on them and just a few minutes online will reveal these platforms contain a multitude of political views. Section 230 protects these companies as well as any start-up website which hosts others' speech - from community bulletin boards to social media sites to the Fox News comments section. 

"This executive order also conflicts with existing law. The President does not have the legal authority to add new laws for the FCC to follow. That is the role of Congress with legislation - sent to the President. The President is also trying to create new law by declaring private companies are the equivalent of 'public forums' for speech purposes. In the American system, private companies - not government - decide the 'rules of the road' for running their platforms, including what speech they host. 

"Our nation's pro-free speech, low-touch regulation philosophy is part of what makes American innovators the most successful in the world. Companies can innovate without fear of being sued repeatedly over third-party content. Likewise, consumers have the power of choice - they can decide which platforms to use or even start their own.  

"Today's announcement will burden innovators, reduce our international competitiveness and promote wasteful trial lawyer lawsuits. While we support legitimate efforts to protect and enhance free speech, this executive order is not the answer."

“This executive order amounts to an unconstitutional effort to intimidate online platforms into censoring free expression and promoting only the administration’s views," said Sharon Bradford Franklin, policy director at New America’s Open Technology Institute. "Section 230 is a law enacted by Congress, and the president cannot amend a statute by issuing an executive order.  

“While the public must hold tech companies accountable for their decisions regarding what content to allow on their platforms, the government cannot dictate how companies make these decisions," Franklin said. "The order outlines a series of tactics designed to impose the weight of government authority to direct what content may appear online. Such a campaign to control what speech may appear online violates the First Amendment and seriously undermines the free expression interests that it protects." 

“Claims of systemic bias by social media companies are a fiction intended to pressure companies into making content moderation decisions more favorable to the Administration," said CCIA President Matt Schruers. "Setting regulators upon the private sector to achieve that end is a grave misuse of government resources in a time of national crisis.

“In light of threats including the ongoing pandemic, policymakers have asked digital services to do more to address misinformation online and companies have responded, as Twitter did with one of the President’s tweets this week. Companies rely upon Section 230 to take these steps. Today’s effort to unilaterally reinterpret that law by Executive Order undermines efforts to remove misinformation during a public health crisis, and is not only unlawful, but irresponsible.”

One person celebrating was Republican FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr. "President Trump’s Executive Order on Online Censorship is welcome news!," he tweeted. "I look forward to receiving the Administration’s petition for rulemaking and taking action."

With a stroke of a pen, and the attorney general by his side, President Donald Trump struck his most public blow at the social media sites he has long argued are biased against conservatives. 

Such alleged bias has been the subject of Hill hearings and presidential tweets. Even Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg concedes there is reason for concern about such bias in Silicon Valley, though no systemic bias, at least at his company. 

The President signed an executive order Thursday (May 28) that would enlist the FCC in trying to weed out alleged censorship of conservative speech by labeling it deceptive and thus a violation of an online content providers terms of service. It would also direct the government not to spend ad dollars on sites determined to be violating those terms.  

"My executive order calls for new regulations under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to make it that social media companies that engage in censoring or any political conduct will not be able to keep their liability shield," he said. "That's a big deal. They have a shield, they're not gonna have a shield."

He said online platforms "are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse."

As an independent agency, the FCC is not subject to executive orders, so the National Telecommunications & Information Administration would be charged with asking the FCC to implement new rules allowing the FCC to judge under what conditions restricting access to content can be considered a violation of an online platform's terms of service. Currently the FCC does not regulate social media sites, or ISPs beyond their terms of service. 

"This debate is an important one," said FCC chair Ajit Pai, who signaled the FCC would definitely pay attention to NTIA's filing. "The Federal Communications Commission will carefully review any petition for rule making filed by the Department of Commerce."

While social media have a legal liability protection--via Sec. 230 of the Communications Decency Action--the draft says that does not apply to deceptive actions restricting online content or in violation of its terms of service. 

Related: Trump Threatens to Shut Down Social Media 

The President had signaled some action was coming on social media Wednesday (May 28), citing among other things Twitter's application of a fact-checking tag to the President's tweets that mail-in ballots were bogus and an effort to rig the upcoming election and Google's admission that is had been deleting Chinese-language phrases critical of the Chinese Communist Party (Google said it was a mistake being corrected).  

The President said Thursday that if he were able to legally shut down Twitter, he would do it.

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey tweeted this week that the platform would continue to fact check election-related speech: 

[embed]https://twitter.com/jack/status/1265837138114830336[/embed]

The order said that online platforms can't be allowed to be the arbiters of the speech Americans can access, which the draft calls fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic and a dangerous power in the hands of social media. 

Related:  White House: Social Media Order is About Anti-Conservative Bias 

Among the troubling practices it cites are flagging content as inappropriate even though it does not violate terms of service, as well as making unannounced policy changes that disfavor particular viewpoints and deleting content/accounts without warning, explanation or redress.  

Those are the main complaints conservatives have leveled against social media platforms they say are censoring conservative speech. 

Related: Trump Social Media Order Draws Crowd 

"As President I will not allow the American people to be bullied by these giant corporations," he said at the signing ceremony. 

Asked if he would give up his Twitter account, the President said no, he would continue to use it to "refute fake news." 

Attorney General Bill Barr said at the Oval Office ceremony that folks from both parties agree that Sec. 230 has been stretched too far. He said it is now allowing behemoths to engage in censorship of information. He said they are now publishers.  

He called the executive order a strong step toward the original understanding of Sec. 230. Barr said DOJ was preparing federal legislation. He said social media companies had engaged in "bait and switch" by billing themselves as free public forums then becoming powerful purveyors of their own speech.

While the White House can't order the FCC to regulate social media, independent agencies, headed by chairs of the same party as the President, can and have honored the spirit of such directives, as the FCC did back in 2011, when President Barack Obama issued an executive order that government agencies had to conduct cost/benefit analysis of regulations. 

Related: Trump Draft Order Enlists FCC in Social Media Regulation 

In that case, Obama issued two executive orders, one saying government agencies needed to submit regulatory review plans to the White House, a second to clarify that although independent agencies like the FCC and FTC were not subject to that order, they were encouraged to do so, at least to the extent of "publishing" a plan of action for reviewing their regs according to a qualitative and quantitative cost-benefit analysis of their impact on jobs and the economy. 

"The First Amendment must be the unwavering beacon in any discussion of governmental actions that would have the effect of limiting speech," said Media Institute president Richard Kaplar of Trump executive order. "Freedom of speech and press are the cornerstones of our democracy – and cannot be overlooked or lightly dismissed."

The order is reprinted below:

EXECUTIVE ORDER

- - - - - - -

PREVENTING ONLINE CENSORSHIP

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy. Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution. The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.

In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet. This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power. They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators. 

The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology. Today, many Americans follow the news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms. As a result, these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square.

Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see. 

As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet. Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities, our town halls, and our homes. It is essential to sustaining our democracy.

Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse. Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms "flagging" content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse.

Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician's tweet. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets. Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called "Site Integrity" has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.

At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans' speech here at home, several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China. One United States company, for example, created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for "human rights," hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance. It also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military. Other companies have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese government that spread false information about China's mass imprisonment of religious minorities, thereby enabling these abuses of human rights. They have also amplified China's propaganda abroad, including by allowing Chinese government officials to use their platforms to spread misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.

As a Nation, we must foster and protect diverse viewpoints in today's digital communications environment where all Americans can and should have a voice. We must seek transparency and accountability from online platforms, and encourage standards and tools to protect and preserve the integrity and openness of American discourse and freedom of expression.

. . . (a) It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet. Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c). 47 U.S.C. 230(c). It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.

Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a "publisher" of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation. As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability "protection" to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in "'Good Samaritan' blocking" of harmful content. In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material. The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a "forum for a true diversity of political discourse." 47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3). The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.

In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from "civil liability" and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable "on account of" its decision in "good faith" to restrict access to content that it considers to be "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable." It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that -- far from acting in "good faith" to remove objectionable content -- instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree. Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike. When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct. It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider. 

(b) To advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section, all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230(c) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard. In addition, within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify:

(i) the interaction between subparagraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of section 230, in particular to clarify and determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph (c)(2)(A) may also not be able to claim protection under subparagraph (c)(1), which merely states that a provider shall not be treated as a publisher or speaker for making third-party content available and does not address the provider's responsibility for its own editorial decisions;

(ii) the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not "taken in good faith" within the meaning of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) of section 230, particularly whether actions can be "taken in good faith" if they are:

(A) deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider's terms of service; or

(B) taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and

(iii) any other proposed regulations that the NTIA concludes may be appropriate to advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section.

. . . (a) The head of each executive department and agency (agency) shall review its agency's Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms. Such review shall include the amount of money spent, the online platforms that receive Federal dollars, and the statutory authorities available to restrict their receipt of advertising dollars.

(b) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall report its findings to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

(c) The Department of Justice shall review the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by each online platform identified in the report described in subsection (b) of this section and assess whether any online platforms are problematic vehicles for government speech due to viewpoint discrimination, deception to consumers, or other bad practices.

. . . (a) It is the policy of the United States that large online platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the critical means of promoting the free flow of speech and ideas today, should not restrict protected speech. The Supreme Court has noted that social media sites, as the modern public square, "can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard." Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1737 (2017). Communication through these channels has become important for meaningful participation in American democracy, including to petition elected leaders. These sites are providing an important forum to the public for others to engage in free expression and debate. Cf. PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 85-89 (1980).

(b) In May of 2019, the White House launched a Tech Bias Reporting tool to allow Americans to report incidents of online censorship. In just weeks, the White House received over 16,000 complaints of online platforms censoring or otherwise taking action against users based on their political viewpoints. The White House will submit such complaints received to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

(c) The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, pursuant to section 45 of title 15, United States Code. Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities' public representations about those practices.

(d) For large online platforms that are vast arenas for public debate, including the social media platform Twitter, the FTC shall also, consistent with its legal authority, consider whether complaints allege violations of law that implicate the policies set forth in section 4(a) of this order. The FTC shall consider developing a report describing such complaints and making the report publicly available, consistent with applicable law. 

. . . (a) The Attorney General shall establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The working group shall also develop model legislation for consideration by legislatures in States where existing statutes do not protect Americans from such unfair and deceptive acts and practices. The working group shall invite State Attorneys General for discussion and consultation, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.

(b) Complaints described in section 4(b) of this order will be shared with the working group, consistent with applicable law. The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following:

(i) increased scrutiny of users based on the other users they choose to follow, or their interactions with other users;

(ii) algorithms to suppress content or users based on indications of political alignment or viewpoint; 

(iii) differential policies allowing for otherwise impermissible behavior, when committed by accounts associated with the Chinese Communist Party or other anti-democratic associations or governments; 

(iv) reliance on third-party entities, including contractors, media
organizations, and individuals, with indicia of bias to review content; and

(v) acts that limit the ability of users with particular viewpoints to earn money on the platform compared with other users similarly situated.

. . . The Attorney General shall develop a proposal for Federal legislation that would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order.

. . . For purposes of this order, the term "online platform" means any website or application that allows users to create and share content or engage in social networking, or any general search engine.

. . . (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,
May 28, 2020.

###

Citing Michael Pack's renomination as CEO of the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM) and other nominations not acted on by the Senate, President Trump vowed to unilaterally adjourn both the House and Senate and make recess appointments.  

The Senate (and House) customarily hold pro-forma, gavel in, gavel out, sessions while it is not in session to prevent recess appointments by the President. 

But in his COVID-19 press conference, the President complained about Senate inaction on his nominees. 

Complete Coverage of the Coronavirus Pandemic's Impact on Industry

He picked Pack's renomination as example of one needlessly held up.

USAGM oversees Voice of America, which Trump attacked during the press conference. He said what was coming out of VOA was "disgusting." 

He complained that the Senate had exited until early May and how the pro-forma sessions in the interim had prevented him from using his recess appointment authority. 

He said if the Senate did not vote or formally adjourn, he would adjourn both the Senate and House, saying the pro forma sessions were "a phony dereliction of duty." He said maybe no one had ever done that before, but he was going to do it.  

Trump said some of the nominees could be dealing with the pandemic if they were installed and that the country could not afford that inaction during a crisis. 

"We are going to do it. We need people for this crisis and don't want to play any more political games," he said.  

A federal court has granted a C-SPAN request for live audio of the court's Oct. 23 hearing on the effort to force President Donald to release his financial records (Trump V. Vance), according to Fix the Court. 

The request to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals came in a tag team effort among C-SPAN, FTC, and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP), said FTC's Gabe Roth, all of which support opening up the federal courts to audio and video coverage. 

"The clerk of the court responded to the letter by saying that I should work with C-SPAN on a live audio request since C-SPAN successfully requested live audio for an earlier Trump case back in August," said Roth. "So, I reached out to C-SPAN, asked them to make a live audio request, which they did, and I heard today from them that the request was granted." 

The August case was a previous Second Circuit hearing on Trump's financial records. 

Fix the court also said it will be pushing for live audio of November death penalty arguments in the eleventh Circuit, as well as of the Dec. 12 arguments on the emoluments clause and Trump in the Fourth. That is the constitutional clause that is supposed to prevent federal officeholders from taking gifts, payments or other things of value from foreign governments or their leaders without the express consent of Congress.

WASHINGTON — Allies of President Donald Trump have ramped up attacks on the mainstream media, following the lead of a president who has dismissed those news outlets as "fake news" and "enemies" out to get him, but not without strong pushback from media defenders.

A chilling "parody" video showing Trump shooting and stabbing people representing major media outlets and political opponents worshipping inside the "Church of Fake News" took the demonization of Trump critics to a new level. It was reportedly shown at a conference in Miami attended by Donald Trump Jr. and former press secretary Sarah Sanders.

"Given the ongoing threats and incendiary rhetoric targeting the media, and in light of last year's shooting at the Capital Gazette that killed five, such a video sends a dangerous message that could encourage violence against journalists," Committee to Protect Journalists executive director Joel Simon said.

Donald Trump Sr. condemned the video sight unseen, according to current White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham, but as The Washington Post editorial page pointed out last week, "Mr. Trump has set the tone for it with language and ideology that encourages hate, disrespect and violence." 

The White House is drafting an Executive Order that would give the Federal Communications Commission oversight on what social media operators can allow on their websites, and increase the Federal Trade Commission's investigative powers and ability to sue offending companies. The proposal would significantly restrict protections of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Reports from CNN and Politico about the Executive Order draft emerged just as the White House hosted a Friday meeting of technology companies to explore online violent rhetoric and images. President Donald Trump signaled plans for such an effort to crackdown on liberal bias online during a "social media summit" (mostly for conservative "journalists and influencers") on July 11.

Related: Trump Looks to Enforce Fairness on Social Media 

CNN reported that it reviewed a summary of the proposed Executive Order, tentatively (and somewhat counter-intuitively) titled "Protecting Americans from Online Censorship." A White House official declined to discuss the draft. According to CNN, the summary claims that the White House has received more than 15,000 complaints of social media platforms censoring American political discourse.

The plan would give the FCC authority to identify social media sites that do not qualify for the 'good-faith immunity" of Section 230, according to CNN. The proposal also calls for the FCC to develop new regulations to clarify how and when social media websites can remove or suppress content.

The rules would affect platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram, Google and other technology firms that curate content on their sites. The proposal envisions that the FTC would create a "public complaint docket" and would work with the FCC to develop a report on how tech firms curate their platforms and whether they do so in a neutral way, according to CNN's coverage.

Any company with a user base of at least one-eighth of the U.S. population would be subject to scrutiny, according to the draft.

Politico quoted an unnamed White House official as explaining that, “If the Internet is going to be presented as this egalitarian platform and most of Twitter is liberal cesspools of venom, then at least the President wants some fairness in the system.”

Analysts have pointed out that agencies will not be able to draft rules or enforce objectives without Congressional action.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), who wrote Section 230, characterized the Trump plan as "horrible" and told CNN that neither the FCC nor the FTC appear eager "to carry it out."

Sources told Washington reporters that the Executive Order has been in development for a considerable period and is subject to change; they also acknowledged that there is no timetable for issuing the Executive Order. Neither the FTC nor FCC had any immediate comment on the proposal.

Fox News Sunday anchor Chris Wallace says he is as shocked and troubled by President Donald Trump's attacks on the news media as everyone else, but he warned White House reporters against responding to the President's invective in kind.

That came in a speech Wednesday (Oct. 24) at the Media Institute's Free Speech America Gala in Washington. Wallace was accepting the Institute's Freedom of Speech Award.

"Will we look back on our coverage with pride—or regret?," he asked. "Will we say we played our role as impartial observers—or as players who crossed the line into advocacy? During a time of divisive, tribal politics—did we fall into our own tribal news coverage?"

"Having grown up in journalism—having spent half a century as a reporter—you can imagine how I felt when I saw that Trump tweet on February 17th of last year," said Wallace. “The fake news media (failing NY Times, NBC News, ABC, CBS, CNN) is not my enemy. "It is the enemy of the American people.” To say I never imagined the President of the United States would say that about a free, vigorous, adversarial press is a big understatement."

Wallace associated himself with the response to that tweet by retired Admiral Bill McRaven, former head of the U.S. Special Forces, who headed up the missions that captured Saddam Hussein and killed Osama bin Laden. "It turns out McRaven graduated from the University of Texas with a degree in journalism," Wallace said. "And here’s what he said: 'Both the President and I swore an oath to the Constitution.  And the First Amendment of that Constitution is freedom of the press. When the President says the media is the enemy of the people, to me that undermines the Constitution. So I do think it is a tremendous threat to our democracy.'"

But he said more alarming still was that the public had bought into that presidential narrative. "A Gallup Poll in June on attitudes towards the media—found 69 percent said their trust had decreased," he said. "An Axios poll found 70 percent of Americans now agree—“traditional major news sources report news—they know to be fake, false, or purposely misleading.”

Wallace said that journalists can't stop the the President's tweeting, particularly when that line of attack seems to be working so well. But the reaction of too many journalists has been to take the "exactly wrong approach" of responding to the President's bashing with attacks of their own.

He said he is fine with fact checking, "calling balls and strikes. That's our job." But he said he saw news reports coming out of the White House, both TV and print, that are more opinion than fact. "When we fall into that trap, we are playing the President's game."

But Wallace also suggested this too shall pass. "Let’s remember: Donald Trump may be larger than life. But all of us have seen Presidents come and go. They capture the spotlight—grab the nation’s attention—and then pass from the scene. And we need to think where our business will be when Mr. Trump is no longer in the White House."

Wallace said the stakes are, referring to the final column of murdered Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi, which talked about repression of free speech and press in much of the Arab world. “Arabs living in those countries are either uninformed or misinformed," Wallace said, quoting from the column. "They are unable to adequately address, much less publicly discuss, matters that affect the region and their day-to-day lives. A state-run narrative dominates the public psyche, and while many do not believe it, a large majority of the population falls victim to this false narrative.”

Wallace said he could not see that happening in the U.S. anytime soon, but said "when 70% of our fellow Americans believe major news outlets “report stories they know to be fake”—It is past time to be vigilant."

The Media Institute is a nonprofit First Amendment think tank supported by media outlets.

Comedy Central’s late night series The President Show debuted Thursday with more than 600,000 viewers, the network reported Friday.

The series, in which creator Anthony Atamanuik stars as President Donald Trump hosting his own late night show, averaged 639,000 viewers in its 11:30 time slot, up 121% versus the prior four-week time period average, according to network officials.

The weekly series, which also features Peter Grosz as Trump sidekick Vice President Mike Pence, is produced by Clone Wolf Productions and 3 Arts Entertainment.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is streaming the oral arguments in the State of Washington’s challenge to President Donald Trump's "travel ban" executive order. Washington state sued and obtained a temporary restraining order, which the Justice Department wants overturned.

The move drew praise from Fix the Court executive Director Gabe Roth, who has long pushed for greater transparency, including video and audio, in federal courts.

"There is no better way to experience the work of our federal judiciary than first-hand via modern technology.

The finer points of immigration law - and which branch ultimately gets to decide who enters the country - are complicated, and as the debate over the travel ban continues, there is value to being able to pull up a video clip of Friday's hearing in Seattle and an audio clip of today's hearing in San Francisco to tell the story - and in a much more engaging way than a transcript could," said Roth.

"As the judicial branch's role in holding the republic together grows, other federal courts should consider expanding broadcast access as the Ninth Circuit has."

The oral arguments -- being done over the phone -- began at 3 p.m. on the West Coast (6 p.m. on the East). Here is the link. UPDATE: after more than an hour, the arguments have ended, here is a link to the recording.

Washington's attorney general signaled to CNN that he would take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary, where video of oral argument is still not allowed.