Senior Advocate of the Federal Communications Commission today explained why the FCC’s theory can be presented At the request of President Donald Trump For a new interpretation of a law that provides legal protection for social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook.
Critics Plan by FCC President Ajit Boy From both Left And OK Section 230 of the Communications Code of Conduct states that the FCC has no authority to review, giving legal immunity to online sites that block or modify the content posted by users. Thomas Johnson, FCC general adviser, said those critics were wrong The blog post was posted on the FCC website today.
Johnson noted that the Communications Code of Conduct was passed by Congress as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which is an amendment to the Communications Act of 1934, which established and regulated the FCC. Johnson also referred to Section 201 (b) of the Communications Act, which empowered the FCC to “recommend such terms and conditions as may be necessary in the public interest to comply with the provisions of this Act.”
Johnson explained why FCC Section 230 could be reviewed:
The Supreme Court has twice considered whether the power to make general rules of the FCC under section 201 (b) adopted in 1938 extends to amendments to the 1996 Act. Both times, the court does it. Writing for the Court in Iowa Application Board, And using his trademark prose, Judge Scolia wrote that the rule “means what it says: the FCC has the power to make rules to enforce the rules”. [the 1934] Law. “The Court explained,” The clear fact is that the 1996 Act was passed, not as an independent law, but as an amendment, and therefore in part, [the 1934] The law shows that Congress wanted the Commission to have the power to make rules over all its rules. ” City of Arlington The court affirmed that the case has the power to make rules for the Commission. “[o]f Of course … extends to areas added after the law. “From these authorities, a simple conclusion is as follows: As Section 230” is included in the aftermath of the Act “, it is the FCC’s power to make provision 201 (b).
The FCC is still wrong, critics say
One problem with quoting Section 201 as part of the well-known Title II of the Communications Act is that this section applies to general carriers. Pi FCC in 2017. Justified the repeal of the Net Neutrality Rules Claiming that the commission There is no power Although the courts were specifically to restrict broadband providers as general carriers under Title II Ruled that the FCC had such authority. Now, some authority on social media sites is demanding FCC Title II, which is not classified as a common carrier.
But John Bergmeyer, director of public knowledge law at the Consumer-Advocacy Committee, disagreed. Today he told RC, “201 is associated with common servers, not information services. Of course 1996 is part of the revisions. [Communications] Play. But both 201 (a) and (b) address the duties of common carriers directly. “
Johnson wrote in his blog post that “at the end of section 201 (b) the general grant of power to make rules does not refer to general carriers; it empowers the Commission to make rules necessary in the public interest. The provisions of this Act are ‘without merit.’
However, the general-carrier regulation is the title of all text in the single-paragraph section 201 (b), which leads to the statement quoted by Johnson. Here’s how it works in law FCC website:
However, Johnson provided another citation to support the FCC case. U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Round in 2008 “Under control Section 201 (b) empowered the Commission to interpret ambiguous provisions in the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, “Johnson wrote.” In particular, the law applies to cable operators under its terms, not to general carriers. The court justified … It is sufficient that the 1992 Act amended the Communications Act and incorporated the provisions relating thereto. The same rationale applies to section 230. “