Latest news with #CommunicationsActof1934
Politico
16 hours ago
- Business
- Politico
Trump derides copyright and state rules in AI Action Plan launch
Trump's comments were a riff as his 28-page AI Action Plan did not wade into copyright and administration officials told reporters the issue should be left to the courts to decide. Trump also signed three executive orders. One will fast track federal permitting, streamline reviews and 'do everything possible to expedite construction of all major AI infrastructure projects,' Trump said. Another expands American exports of AI hardware and software. A third order bans the federal government from procuring AI technology 'that has been infused with partisan bias or ideological agendas,' as Trump put it. Luminaries of the AI industry attended Trump's speech, including Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, Advanced Micro Devices CEO Lisa Su and Palantir CTO Shyam Sankar. Trump echoed tech companies' complaints about state AI laws creating a patchwork of regulation. 'You can't have one state holding you up,' he said. 'We need one common sense federal standard that supersedes all states, supersedes everybody.' His Action Plan includes directions to the Office of Management and Budget to limit AI-related funding to states with regulation that might hinder the funding's 'effectiveness.' It also directs the Federal Communications Commission to check whether state AI regulations interfere with the agency's ability to carry out its duties under the Communications Act of 1934. Civil rights advocates and tech critics raised alarms over the plan's approach to federal permitting and oversight rollbacks, and its close alignment with the tech industry.
New York Post
07-06-2025
- Business
- New York Post
Ex-NY Young Republicans leader Gavin Wax gets nod for FCC spot
WASHINGTON — The former leader of New York's Young Republicans was endorsed Saturday by an outgoing member of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to fill his vacancy. FCC commissioner Nathan Simington told The Post in a phone interview Saturday that Gavin Wax, 31, 'would be a great' replacement and had been hearing 'buzz' about a potential nomination from President Trump. 'I don't want to get ahead of the president,' said Simington, who has served at the FCC since the Senate confirmed him as Trump's pick in December 2020, before adding: 'Trump has been very smart and creative with his picks in general. And he seems willing to look outside of, I guess, the establishment … or Beltway insiders.' 4 FCC commissioner Nathan Simington told The Post in a phone interview Saturday that Gavin Wax, 31, 'would be a great' replacement and had been hearing 'buzz' about a potential nomination from President Trump. AP Simington, who previously served as an associate at law firms like Mayer Brown as well as in a senior advisory role at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, is departing the FCC after his term expired last year and he stayed on in the intervening months as a holdover. Wax is currently serving under the Republican appointee as chief of staff and senior adviser at the FCC. If confirmed, he would be the youngest-ever FCC commissioner since 1945, when Democrat Charles Denny was confirmed at age 32. 'I came in as someone whose experience was primarily on the international trading side of wireless finance, and so I've been reading a lot of telecom reg[ulations],' he explained. 'Gavin and I have collaborated on a lot of writing, and I think the common thread of tying it together is a desire to take a fresh look at telecom.' 4 Simington is departing the FCC after his term expired last year and he stayed on in the intervening months as a holdover. AP 'Gavin has spent a lot of effort with me thinking through questions of 5G industrialization. … I would expect [him] to focus on what it means to get smart manufacturing up and running at high scale in the United States,' he added. The two co-authored an op-ed in the conservative Daily Caller last month calling for 'DOGE-style' reforms at the FCC to do away with 'outdated practices that burden consumers, broadcasters, and taxpayers alike.' Established as part of the Communications Act of 1934, the five-member FCC regulates TV, radio, internet, satellite and cable industries, approves licensing and auctions off the use of spectrum for services like 5G. 4 'I don't want to get ahead of the president,' said Simington. 'And he seems willing to look outside of, I guess, the establishment … or Beltway insiders.' AFP via Getty Images As for his work chairing the Young Republicans, Simington noted: 'The commission is an organization of 1,600 people. … I have to say when I got Gavin's resume, the line items about the sizes of the events that he had organized and put on … my response was, this guy can clearly do things that I would find very challenging.' Wax hosted the group's annual holiday gala in previous years. Trump was the keynote speaker for the event in 2023. The FCC currently has two Republican commissioners including Simington and two Democratic commissioners. 4 Wax hosted the group's annual holiday gala in previous years. Trump was the keynote speaker for the event in 2023. Kevin C. Downs Democratic Commissioner Geoffrey Starks announced that he was stepping down Friday, leaving another vacancy. Olivia Trusty was previously nominated as the third Republican to serve on the panel of commissioners and is in the process of being confirmed by the Senate. Chairman Brendan Carr, a Republican, has led a series of reforms at the agency since Trump returned to the White House, including targeting diversity practices at Verizon and hinting at broader changes to so-called 'Section 230' protections for big tech companies. The latter has been the subject of furious debate by Republicans due to the liability shield it provides the platforms, even as some Facebook admitted to taking advantage of the tool to censor Americans' views online during the COVID-19 pandemic. Neither the White House nor Wax immediately responded to requests for comment.
USA Today
19-05-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
Republicans appeal to morality with porn ban bill. Will it turn off their base?
Republicans appeal to morality with porn ban bill. Will it turn off their base? | Opinion For a party that, until recently, struggled to connect with younger voters, it's a risky move to send the message: 'We trust you with guns – but not with Google' Show Caption Hide Caption Can legislation combat the surge of nonconsensual deepfake porn? Deepfake porn is now targeting middle school and high schoolers. Lawmakers are trying to fight it. Are you worried about paying your bills? Affording health care? Or watching democracy crumble like a Nature Valley granola bar? Well, never fear, Utah Senator Mike Lee is here to protect you from the real threat: your incognito tab. Yes, Lee and fellow Republican Rep. Mary Miller's Interstate Obscenity Definition Act would criminalize all pornography. The bill would create a national definition of obscenity under the Communications Act of 1934 and amend the Supreme Court's 1973 "Miller Test" for determining what qualifies as obscene. Content could be deemed obscene if it depicts or describes "actual or simulated sexual acts with the objective intent to arouse, titillate or gratify the sexual desires of a person." That's a definition so wide it could sweep up a whole lot of HBO shows with it. Aiming at base instincts could target prime GOP base Beyond that glaringly wide net of a definition, this seems like just another virtue signaling culture war proposal that will never actually make it to President Donald Trump's desk. But, then again, who knows. One of Project 2025's many goals was to permanently criminalize all pornography. So if this legislation were to actually gain momentum, we could witness the GOP alienate one of its newly secured voting blocs: chronically online young men. Since the November 2024 election, the conversation about young men's shift to the right has been written about ad nauseum. So much so, "manosphere" is likely in the running for Webster's 2025 Word of the Year. Opinion: The left trashes men endlessly. It's no wonder they chose Trump. We know that young men helped elect Trump. They're enmeshed in online political discourse. And yes – many of them are consumers of exactly the content this bill targets. The modern right wing movement has spent years cultivating this audience: through podcasts, YouTube influencers, "anti-woke" crusades and appeals to grievance politics. These young men have been told, repeatedly, that their frustrations with feminism, social progress and a rapidly changing culture are valid – and that the right will fight for them. But this bill does the opposite. It tells them: You, too, are the problem. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. It's hard to overstate how deeply ingrained online adult content is in the digital ecosystem these voters inhabit. Platforms like OnlyFans, PornHub and other streaming sites have become – whether we like it or not – a major outlet for young men who feel disconnected from traditional relationships and left behind economically. Taking that away, without offering anything in its place, is a recipe for alienation and backlash. And it's not just about habits or personal freedom. This is a policy so extreme that it risks turning a culture war into a self-inflicted political wound. Banning all porn doesn't just raise enormous First Amendment concerns – it invites backlash from libertarians, moderates, and yes, the online foot soldiers of the "anti-woke" movement. Opinion: This liberal influencer calls Democrats 'smug, disinterested.' He's right. Moral posturing means we don't have to address real issues Instead of focusing on real issues – economic insecurity, mental health, loneliness, sex education – this proposal feels like a distraction. A symbolic gesture that ignores root causes in favor of moral posturing. There are serious debates to be had about online content, consent, exploitation and mental health. But making millions of Americans potential criminals for what they watch in the privacy of their homes isn't policy. It's performative politics. And for a party that, until recently, struggled to connect with younger voters, it's a risky move to send the message: "We trust you with guns – but not with Google." The question isn't whether porn is good or bad. The question is whether the government should be the arbiter of morality and obscenity in the digital age. And if the GOP insists on fighting that battle, they may find their greatest casualty isn't just the adult entertainment industry – it's part of their own voter base. Kristin Brey a columnist for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, where this column originally appeared.
Indianapolis Star
17-05-2025
- Politics
- Indianapolis Star
Pornhub is offline in Indiana. Republicans want to ban porn everywhere.
Are you worried about paying your bills? Affording health care? Or watching democracy crumble like a Nature Valley granola bar? Well, never fear, Utah Sen. Mike Lee is here to protect you from the real threat: your incognito tab. Yes, Lee and fellow Republican Rep. Mary Miller's Interstate Obscenity Definition Act would criminalize all pornography. Opinion: As Pornhub exits Indiana, online porn is still easy to find The bill would create a national definition of obscenity under the Communications Act of 1934 and amend the Supreme Court's 1973 'Miller Test' for determining what qualifies as obscene. Content could be deemed obscene if it depicts or describes 'actual or simulated sexual acts with the objective intent to arouse, titillate or gratify the sexual desires of a person.' That's a definition so wide it could sweep up a whole lot of HBO shows with it. Beyond that glaringly wide net of a definition, this seems like just another virtue signaling culture war proposal that will never actually make it to President Trump's desk. But, then again, who knows. One of Project 2025's many goals was to permanently criminalize all pornography. So if this legislation were to actually gain momentum, we could witness the GOP alienate one of its newly secured voting blocs: chronically online young men. Since the November 2024 election, the conversation about young men's shift to the right has been written about ad nauseum. So much so, 'manosphere' is likely in the running for Webster's 2025 Word of the Year. We know that young men helped elect Trump. They're enmeshed in online political discourse. And yes — many of them are consumers of exactly the content this bill targets. The modern right wing movement has spent years cultivating this audience: through podcasts, YouTube influencers, 'anti-woke' crusades and appeals to grievance politics. These young men have been told, repeatedly, that their frustrations with feminism, social progress and a rapidly changing culture are valid — and that the right will fight for them. But this bill does the opposite. It tells them: You, too, are the problem. It's hard to overstate how deeply ingrained online adult content is in the digital ecosystem these voters inhabit. Platforms like OnlyFans, PornHub and other streaming sites have become — whether we like it or not — a major outlet for young men who feel disconnected from traditional relationships and left behind economically. Taking that away, without offering anything in its place, is a recipe for alienation and backlash. And it's not just about habits or personal freedom. This is a policy so extreme that it risks turning a culture war into a self-inflicted political wound. Banning all porn doesn't just raise enormous First Amendment concerns — it invites backlash from libertarians, moderates, and yes, the online foot soldiers of the 'anti-woke' movement. Instead of focusing on real issues — economic insecurity, mental health, loneliness, sex education — this proposal feels like a distraction. A symbolic gesture that ignores root causes in favor of moral posturing. There are serious debates to be had about online content, consent, exploitation and mental health. But making millions of Americans potential criminals for what they watch in the privacy of their homes isn't policy. It's performative politics. Opinion: Trump secured the border. Legal battles distract from his success. And for a party that, until recently, struggled to connect with younger voters, it's a risky move to send the message: 'We trust you with guns— but not with Google.' The question isn't whether porn is good or bad. The question is whether the government should be the arbiter of morality and obscenity in the digital age. And if the GOP insists on fighting that battle, they may find their greatest casualty isn't just the adult entertainment industry — it's part of their own voter base.
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Bill to ban porn is moral pandering that swipes at bros who went right
Are you worried about paying your bills? Affording health care? Or watching democracy crumble like a Nature Valley granola bar? Well, never fear, Utah Senator Mike Lee is here to protect you from the real threat: your incognito tab. Yes, Lee and fellow Republican Rep. Mary Miller's Interstate Obscenity Definition Act would criminalize all pornography. The bill would create a national definition of obscenity under the Communications Act of 1934 and amend the Supreme Court's 1973 'Miller Test' for determining what qualifies as obscene. Content could be deemed obscene if it depicts or describes 'actual or simulated sexual acts with the objective intent to arouse, titillate or gratify the sexual desires of a person.' That's a definition so wide it could sweep up a whole lot of HBO shows with it. Beyond that glaringly wide net of a definition, this seems like just another virtue signaling culture war proposal that will never actually make it to President Trump's desk. But, then again, who knows. One of Project 2025's many goals was to permanently criminalize all pornography. So if this legislation were to actually gain momentum, we could witness the GOP alienate one of its newly secured voting blocs: chronically online young men. Since the November 2024 election, the conversation about young men's shift to the right has been written about ad nauseum. So much so, 'manosphere' is likely in the running for Webster's 2025 Word of the Year. We know that young men helped elect Trump. They're enmeshed in online political discourse. And yes — many of them are consumers of exactly the content this bill targets. The modern right wing movement has spent years cultivating this audience: through podcasts, YouTube influencers, 'anti-woke' crusades and appeals to grievance politics. These young men have been told, repeatedly, that their frustrations with feminism, social progress and a rapidly changing culture are valid — and that the right will fight for them. But this bill does the opposite. It tells them: You, too, are the problem. It's hard to overstate how deeply ingrained online adult content is in the digital ecosystem these voters inhabit. Platforms like OnlyFans, PornHub and other streaming sites have become — whether we like it or not — a major outlet for young men who feel disconnected from traditional relationships and left behind economically. Taking that away, without offering anything in its place, is a recipe for alienation and backlash. And it's not just about habits or personal freedom. This is a policy so extreme that it risks turning a culture war into a self-inflicted political wound. Banning all porn doesn't just raise enormous First Amendment concerns — it invites backlash from libertarians, moderates, and yes, the online foot soldiers of the 'anti-woke' movement. Instead of focusing on real issues — economic insecurity, mental health, loneliness, sex education — this proposal feels like a distraction. A symbolic gesture that ignores root causes in favor of moral posturing. There are serious debates to be had about online content, consent, exploitation and mental health. But making millions of Americans potential criminals for what they watch in the privacy of their homes isn't policy. It's performative politics. Opinion: We asked readers about arrest of Milwaukee Judge Dugan. Here's what you said. And for a party that, until recently, struggled to connect with younger voters, it's a risky move to send the message: 'We trust you with guns— but not with Google.' The question isn't whether porn is good or bad. The question is whether the government should be the arbiter of morality and obscenity in the digital age. And if the GOP insists on fighting that battle, they may find their greatest casualty isn't just the adult entertainment industry — it's part of their own voter base. Kristin Brey is the "My Take" columnist for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: GOP porn bill says we trust you with guns but not Google | Opinion
