https://techfreedom.org Tue, 26 May 2026 19:55:05 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://techfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Logo_TF-Icon-36x36.png https://techfreedom.org 32 32 FCC Has No Constitutional Authority Over TV Ratings Systems https://techfreedom.org/fcc-has-no-constitutional-authority-over-tv-ratings-systems/ Tue, 26 May 2026 19:55:00 +0000 https://techfreedom.org/?p=9090 Last week, TechFreedom filed comments in response to the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) Notice of Inquiry (NOI) on whether any changes can or should be made to the current ratings system. The Commission has no authority to ask such a question, let alone do anything about it. How lawful content is labeled is a matter for private actors to decide, not the government.

“The Commission has no authority for this inquiry,” said Berin Szóka, President of TechFreedom. “The Telecommunications Act of 1996 allowed the Commission to create TV ratings guidelines for sexual, violent, or other indecent material only if it found, within one year, that the television industry had failed to adopt an adequate voluntary ratings system—a finding it never made. While agencies can typically revisit past decisions, this law gave the Commission only a narrow, one-time authority to make a specific finding within a specific time window. If Congress had intended the Commission to have discretion to revisit this question, to trigger an amendment to the U.S. Code years or even decades later, it would have said so—expressly.”

“This inquiry is offensive to the First Amendment,” warned Szóka. “Parents have many tools to determine whether television content is appropriate for their children; such information is often freely available online. Parents have every right to make their own decisions about content for their own children. But the government has no right to make such choices; it does not get to slap warning labels on protected speech, even if some parents would prefer it to do so. This Notice is a thinly veiled coercive threat against speech disfavored by the Commission. The Commission should leave this area of fraught, complex, First Amendment protected speech alone.”

“That the Commission contemplates only labeling speech does not change the analysis,” concluded Szóka. “Labeling is a form of compelled speech, which the government has extremely limited ability to mandate. Even if the Commission never prescribes its own rating guidelines, this inquiry will chill speech about politically controversial topics around gender identity. Warning parents that ‘gender identity themes’ might be present in children’s programming implicitly suggests that the Commission considers some gender expressions inappropriate for children.”

###

Read these comments and share them on Twitter and Bluesky. We can be reached for comment at media@techfreedom.org. Read our related work, including:

About TechFreedom: 

TechFreedom is a nonprofit, nonpartisan technology policy think tank. We work to chart a path forward for policymakers towards a bright future where technology enhances freedom, and freedom enhances technology.

]]> Virginia Screen Time Law Is a Substantial Burden on Speech, TechFreedom Tells Fourth Circuit https://techfreedom.org/virginia-screen-time-law-is-a-substantial-burden-on-speech-techfreedom-tells-fourth-circuit/ Tue, 26 May 2026 15:25:43 +0000 https://techfreedom.org/?p=9087 Last week, TechFreedom filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to affirm a district court order blocking Virginia’s Senate Bill 854, which requires social media platforms to verify every user’s age and to cap minors under 16 at one hour of use per platform per day. TechFreedom’s brief explains why the Act is subject to strict scrutiny under the First Amendment, which it cannot meet.

“SB 854 is clearly subject to strict scrutiny,” said Andy Jung, Associate Counsel at TechFreedom. “Virginia’s law spares powerful, institutional speakers like the Washington Post and ESPN while targeting the comparatively powerless—the people for whom social media is the best outlet to spread a message. This a textbook speaker- and content-based regulation of speech, picking winners and losers in the marketplace of ideas. No matter how loudly Virginia insists otherwise, online age verification, implemented in service of an hourly meter, is a substantial burden on speech.”

“Supreme Court precedents applying intermediate scrutiny are of no help to Virginia,” Jung continued. “Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton concerned pornography obscene to minors, a category of speech historically unprotected for children and, going forward, only partially protected for adults. TikTok v. Garland was a national-security case addressed in an emergency posture that the Court itself stressed was narrow and limited to a foreign-adversary-controlled platform. And Turner Broadcasting System v. FCC concluded that the speaker-based distinction before it was not content-based, for reasons not present here. None of these cases gives Virginia cover to age-verify, meter, or ration the sixty-first minute of fully protected social-media speech.”

“Virginia’s alarmism about the harms and perils of social media is the latest in a long line of tech-driven moral panics,” Jung concluded. “As with past panics, rhetoric has run far ahead of the evidence. But even if social media were as risky as Virginia suggests, Virginia would still have to comply with the First Amendment. SB 854 does not do so.” 

The case is NetChoice v. Jones, No. 26-1252 (4th Cir.).

###

Find this brief on our website, and share it on Twitter and Bluesky. We can be reached for comment at media@techfreedom.org. Read our related work, including:

About TechFreedom:

TechFreedom is a nonprofit, nonpartisan technology policy think tank. We work to chart a path forward for policymakers towards a bright future where technology enhances freedom, and freedom enhances technology.

]]> FCC Addresses Critical Spectrum Needs for Commercial Space Development https://techfreedom.org/fcc-addresses-critical-spectrum-needs-for-commercial-space-development/ Tue, 12 May 2026 12:21:55 +0000 https://techfreedom.org/?p=9076 Yesterday, TechFreedom filed comments in response to the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NRPM) regarding Spectrum Abundance for Weird Space Stuff. TechFreedom supports the Commission’s efforts to provide much-needed spectrum for innovative space enterprises and commends its disciplined approach.

“The NPRM recognizes the magnitude of the problem and importance of this proceeding,” said James E. Dunstan, TechFreedom’s Senior Counsel. “Thirty years ago, Congress granted the FCC auction authority that defined the highest and best use of spectrum as how much someone was willing to pay the government, resulting in the reallocation and auction of substantial spectrum to terrestrial wireless services. Today, the exponentially growing need for commercial spectrum for space operations—not telecommunications services—is threatening to delay or destroy America’s commercial space industry.”

“The FCC is a spectrum agency, not a space operations agency,” continued Dunstan. “Just four years ago, the previous FCC issued a Notice of Inquiry as a first step in regulating in-space servicing, assembly, and manufacturing (ISAM). Yet the focus of that proceeding was on regulating space operations, not providing spectrum for ISAM. That approach exceeded the Commission’s statutory authority. In a Goldilocks moment, the present NPRM is just right. The emphasis is on finding spectrum to fuel America’s breakout onto the High Frontier, not seeking to devise rules for rendezvous proximity operations (RPO). As the Eighth Circuit recently found in striking down the prior FCC’s digital discrimination framework, in a post-Loper Bright world, agencies are not free to interpret their statutory authority as they see fit.”

“The NPRM proposes some short-term fixes that might provide sufficient spectrum for the next few years,” Dunstan concluded. “But more than figuring out how to tinker with a few MHz here and there, the Commission should be bold—establishing a new space telemetry and telecommand service (STTS) and allocating to it specific spectrum for space operators who are not also providing a telecommunications service. Further, working with NTIA, we must rethink how space spectrum can be allocated to best lead us forward, as America quickly transitions from a space-by-government to a space-by-government and commercial partner model of operations.”

###

Find these comments on our website, and share them on Twitter and Bluesky. We can be reached for comment at media@techfreedom.org. Read our related work, including:

About TechFreedom: TechFreedom is a nonprofit, nonpartisan technology policy think tank. We work to chart a path forward for policymakers towards a bright future where technology enhances freedom, and freedom enhances technology.

]]> Webinar: The Future of Federal AI Preemption https://techfreedom.org/upcoming-webinar-the-future-of-federal-ai-preemption/ Tue, 05 May 2026 15:58:42 +0000 https://techfreedom.org/?p=9070

We’re excited to announce the eleventh installment of our “Tech in the Courts” webinar series, presented by TechFreedom and Washington Legal Foundation. The event is on Wednesday, May 13, 2026, at 1:00 p.m. ET.

The federal government’s approach to AI preemption is undergoing a notable shift, with momentum moving from executive branch actions—such as President Trump’s December executive order—to congressional initiatives like the National AI Legislative Framework. Our panel of experts will discuss the potential implications of this transition and the future of AI governance.

Click here for more details and to register

Click here for Washington Legal Foundation’s announcement.

###

Find the event registration and release on our website, and share it on Twitter, Bluesky, and LinkedIn. We can be reached for comment at media@techfreedom.org. Read our related work, including:

About TechFreedom:TechFreedom is a nonprofit, nonpartisan technology policy think tank. We work to chart a path forward for policymakers towards a bright future where technology enhances freedom, and freedom enhances technology.

]]> No Novel Liability for App Stores, TechFreedom Tells Ninth Circuit https://techfreedom.org/no-novel-liability-for-app-stores-techfreedom-tells-ninth-circuit/ Fri, 17 Apr 2026 15:26:58 +0000 https://techfreedom.org/?p=9065 Today, TechFreedom filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to reverse a district court order that refused to dismiss a lawsuit against app stores. The lawsuit accuses the app stores of running illegal gambling services. But the app stores merely provide payment processing on a neutral basis, including to apps that allegedly violate gambling laws. The plaintiffs seek to subject online services to a form of liability that their offline counterparts have never faced.

“The plaintiffs want to create a cause of action out of thin air,” said Corbin K. Barthold, Director of Appellate Litigation at TechFreedom. “They allege at most that app stores aid and abet apps that are themselves allegedly illegal. But none of the laws they invoke permits aiding-and-abetting liability. Such liability exists only where a legislature creates it. Otherwise we are governed not by legislators, but by plaintiffs’ lawyers.”

“In any event, the app stores have done nothing wrong,” Barthold continued. “Three recent Supreme Court decisions confirm—each by a vote of 9-0, no less—that a defendant who provides a neutral, generally available service to the public is not an aider and abettor merely because that service is misused by some customers. Social-media platforms are not liable for hosting terrorists. Gun manufacturers are not liable for selling guns through ordinary channels. Internet service providers are not liable for supplying access to copyright infringers. And so: app stores are not liable for processing payments.”

“The app stores do not design the casino apps, operate the games, set the odds, or touch the digital chips,” Barthold concluded. “They simply offer the same standardized payment service to every developer on the platform. To call that aiding and abetting would be to impose secondary liability on the everyday provision of general commercial services—exactly the result the Supreme Court has thrice forbidden.”

The cases are Wilkinson, et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 25-7916 (9th Cir) and Custodero, et al. v. Apple Inc., No. 25-7917 (9th Cir).

###

Find this brief and release on our website, and share it on Twitter and Bluesky. We can be reached for comment at media@techfreedom.org. Read our related work, including:

About TechFreedom:

TechFreedom is a nonprofit, nonpartisan technology policy think tank. We work to chart a path forward for policymakers towards a bright future where technology enhances freedom, and freedom enhances technology.

]]> “Breaking Down” the FCC’s Assembly Line Model for Satellite Licensing https://techfreedom.org/breaking-down-the-fccs-assembly-line-model-for-satellite-licensing/ Thu, 09 Apr 2026 15:23:00 +0000 https://techfreedom.org/?p=9057 Yesterday, TechFreedom published a new paper exploring the developing conflict between the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) desire to create an “assembly line” for processing satellite applications and the reality of deploying megaconstellations.

“Creating an efficient assembly line for satellite applications will be challenging,” said James E. Dunstan, TechFreedom’s Senior Counsel. “Like Henry Ford’s assembly line, satellite deployment would require every step—design, manufacturing, licensing, launch—to be meticulously coordinated. But even on a perfect assembly line, the process fails if products start to pile up because of an inability to deliver. Without firm rules requiring deployment, the FCC’s assembly line process will be choked by paper applications for hundreds of thousands—or even millions—of satellites that can’t possibly be deployed.”

“Megaconstellations present a situation that could crush the assembly line,” warned Dunstan. “As constellation sizes grow, potentially up to a million satellites, the ability to deploy half of the constellation within the six-year milestone window of the Commission’s rules will be impossible. In all likelihood, megaconstellation license holders will have to go back to the FCC to seek a waiver of the interim deployment rule, requiring 50% of the satellites to be launched within six years after license grant.”

“There are several solutions the Commission should consider,” Dunstan concluded. “The least desirable path would be to maintain the status quo—either freezing constellation sizes to those satellites launched at the end of six years or continuing to grant extensions. The Commission could also consider just scrapping the deployment milestones, but that would completely defeat the purpose of deterring unrealistic applications. Finally, the Commission should study a ‘cap and defer’ option, whereby licenses are modified to cap the number of satellites at those deployed during the first six years, and deferring all undeployed satellites to a later processing round. But something must be done before the processing line breaks down.” 

###

Find this paper, “When the Assembly Line Breaks Down: Reassessing FCC Licensing of Next-Generation Satellite Systems” on our website, and share it on Twitter and Bluesky. We can be reached for comment at media@techfreedom.org. Read our related work, including:

About TechFreedom: TechFreedom is a nonprofit, nonpartisan technology policy think tank. We work to chart a path forward for policymakers towards a bright future where technology enhances freedom, and freedom enhances technology.

]]> AI Outputs Are Protected by the First Amendment, TechFreedom Explains in New Paper https://techfreedom.org/ai-outputs-are-protected-by-the-first-amendment-techfreedom-explains-in-new-paper/ Mon, 23 Mar 2026 12:48:00 +0000 https://techfreedom.org/?p=9044 Today, TechFreedom published a new paper, “AI + 1A: Why the First Amendment Protects Artificial Intelligence,” by Corbin K. Barthold, the organization’s Internet Policy Counsel. The paper pushes back on the many kneejerk attempts by legislatures to regulate the content of large language models such as ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini.

“Attacks on AI-generated speech are attacks on you,” said Barthold. “The Supreme Court has held, over and over, that Americans have the right to encounter and judge ideas. AI outputs are information, and the public has a constitutional right to receive them. The move to curtail that right rests on the assumption that citizens cannot be trusted to think for themselves. That is not how this country works.”

“The panic over AI is the latest in a long line of panics over new communications technologies,” Barthold continued. “Change prompts fear, and fear spurs calls for censorship. But the panic is likely to pass, just as the others did. Judges should avoid distorting First Amendment principles in a manner that will someday look overblown and silly. Meanwhile, both conservatives and liberals should recoil at the image of a government controlled by their political opponents dictating what AI can and cannot say.”

“The government needs to be more careful in how it regulates AI outputs,” Barthold concluded. “Most of the regulatory proposals now circulating—such as bans on AI companions for minors or sweeping prohibitions on AI-provided expert advice—are content-based restrictions that trigger and fail strict scrutiny. There are interstices in which a state might act consistent with the First Amendment, but they are narrow—and legislatures are not finding them.”

###

Find this paper on our website, and share it on X (formerly Twitter) and Bluesky. We can be reached for comment at media@techfreedom.org. Read our related work, including:

About TechFreedom:

TechFreedom is a nonprofit, nonpartisan technology policy think tank. We work to chart a path forward for policymakers towards a bright future where technology enhances freedom, and freedom enhances technology.

]]> FCC Threats Against Broadcasters Violate the First Amendment https://techfreedom.org/fcc-threats-against-broadcasters-violate-the-first-amendment/ Fri, 20 Mar 2026 13:32:11 +0000 https://techfreedom.org/?p=9036 Today, TechFreedom was joined by 80+ scholars of the First Amendment, communications, and technology law, veterans of the Federal Communications Commission, and civil society organizations dedicated to free speech in a letter detailing why FCC Chairman Carr’s latest threats against broadcasters constitute unconstitutional jawboning, especially in light of the administration’s call for treason prosecutions.

“These threats are unlawful jawboning,” said Berin Szóka, President of TechFreedom. “They rest on no statutory authority and no legitimate government interest. The Communications Act explicitly prohibits the Commission from exercising any ‘power of censorship’ or interfering with the right to free speech. In Moody v. Netchoice (2024), the Supreme Court firmly rejected government attempts to ‘un-bias’ private speech, noting that ‘there are few greater than allowing the government to change the speech of private actors in order to achieve its own conception of speech nirvana.’”

“Vague conceptions of ‘fake news,’ ‘news distortion’ and the ‘public interest’ violate the First Amendment,” warned Szóka. “These claims are so ambiguous that they enable seriously arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. In FCC v. Fox Television Stations (2012), the Court found the Commission’s amorphous and inconsistent policy regarding ‘indecency’ in broadcasting to be unconstitutionally vague as applied to the plaintiffs’ broadcasts. There, as here, ‘precision and guidance are necessary so that those enforcing the law do not act in an arbitrary or discriminatory way’ and ‘rigorous adherence to those requirements is necessary to ensure that ambiguity does not chill protected speech.’”

“The Commission must repeal its unconstitutional news distortion policy,” continued Szóka. “Chairman Carr’s unsupported claim that unnamed broadcasters are engaged in unspecified ‘hoaxes,’ combined with his invocation of the news distortion policy, is plainly unconstitutional: it aims to do something the Supreme Court has forbidden—correcting bias or balancing speech—while its vagueness makes good-faith compliance impossible and invites arbitrary enforcement. Last year, former Chairs, Commissioners and other veterans of the FCC of both parties—mostly Republicans—asked the Commission to renounce that policy but leave in place the broadcast hoax rule. Their petition was simply ignored.”

“The FCC should withdraw its equal opportunities rule threats,” concluded Szóka. “Specifically, the Commission should rescind the Public Notice recently issued by the Media Bureau that ‘encourages’ television broadcasters, cable operators, and programmers to consult with the Commission before interviewing political candidates—exactly what the Commission said was not necessary in 2003. The Notice is presumptively unconstitutional because it does not apply to radio broadcasters, radio shows or cable programmers. If the Bureau determines that a television programmer does not qualify for the ‘bona fide news interview’ exemption to the FCC’s equal opportunities rule, it would have to make equal airtime available to all rival candidates upon request.”

###

Read this letter on our website and find it on X and Bluesky. We can be reached for comment at media@techfreedom.org. Read our related work, including:

About TechFreedom: 

TechFreedom is a nonprofit, nonpartisan technology policy think tank. We work to chart a path forward for policymakers towards a bright future where technology enhances freedom, and freedom enhances technology.

]]> Event: The Culture War, FTC Investigations & the First Amendment https://techfreedom.org/upcoming-event-the-culture-war-ftc-investigations-the-first-amendment/ Tue, 17 Mar 2026 13:39:08 +0000 https://techfreedom.org/?p=9021

Before he was appointed Federal Trade Commission Chair, Andrew Ferguson promised he would “Fight Wokeness.” He said he would “Hold Big Tech Accountable and Stop Censorship,” “Fight back against the trans agenda,” and “Investigate and prosecute collusion on … advertiser boycotts.” Under his leadership, the FTC has opened investigations into each. A federal district court recently blocked an administrative subpoena sent to Media Matters, a non-profit that researches online harms, but the FTC has appealed. Courts are hearing motions to quash similar investigations into NewsGuard, which help advertisers protect their brands from being associated with hate speech or misinformation. Similar litigation is brewing over the FTC’s investigations into providers of gender-affirming care. The FTC has threatened Apple News and other tech companies with legal action for alleged political bias—and has open investigations into the editorial practices of all large tech companies.

Join us for a discussion of how the First Amendment limits the agency’s consumer protection and competition powers. Are these legitimate investigations or is the FTC jawboning over speech it doesn’t like? Will courts block these investigations? Could the FTC ultimately prevail on the merits? Does the FTC have the power to regulate private “censorship”? 

Date: Monday, March 30, 2026
Time: 12:00–2:00 pm ET
Location: Georgetown University Law Center, McDonough 5th Floor Faculty Lounge
Address: 600 New Jersey Ave NW, Washington, DC 20001

Click here for more details and to register (in-person event only).

Click here for Georgetown’s announcement.

Lunch will be served at noon, followed by the below panels:

Panel 1: Current Developments (12:10 pm to 1:00 pm)

Panel 2: What Will Courts Do? (1:10 pm – 2 pm)

###

Find this event registration on our website. We can be reached for comment at media@techfreedom.org. Read our related work, including:

About TechFreedom: TechFreedom is a nonprofit, nonpartisan technology policy think tank. We work to chart a path forward for policymakers towards a bright future where technology enhances freedom, and freedom enhances technology.

]]> For Innovative Space Activities, Mission Authorization Is the Right Model, but Congress Must Act https://techfreedom.org/for-innovative-space-activities-mission-authorization-is-the-right-model-but-congress-must-act/ Fri, 13 Mar 2026 17:51:01 +0000 https://techfreedom.org/?p=9016 Today, TechFreedom submitted comments to the Department of Commerce’s Office of Commercial Space (OSC) on its framework to establish a “Mission Authorization” regulatory regime for innovative space activities. While the framework is sound, OSC lacks statutory authority to implement it. 

“A mission authorization structure will help the U.S. lead in space,” said James E. Dunstan, TechFreedom’s Senior Counsel. “The success of America is a direct result of a society and government that values, promotes, and most importantly, protects, the concepts of innovation, invention, and entrepreneurship. The notion of ‘permissionless innovation’ runs deep in the American psyche and must serve as a critical starting point for how to regulate the activities of Americans in space. We’ve long supported a light-touch regulatory regime for space activities and applaud the fundamental structure of the Department of Commerce’s framework, which closely resembles the concepts of ‘Mission Registration’ or ‘Mission Certification’ we’ve long advocated”

“Unfortunately, there is no clear statutory framework under which Commerce can proceed,” warned Dunstan. “Congress has certainly provided a role for the Department of Commerce when it comes to space activities. What Congress did not bestow on the OSC, however, is actual rulemaking authority to create rules such as those contemplated in the OSC’s Draft Concept. The OSC may be operating under the assumption that Executive Order (EO) 14335 itself provides the necessary authority. Unfortunately, it does not. A failure to anchor a regulatory structure to clear statutory authority introduces grave risks in the inherently international realm of outer space.”

“The proposed framework is workable, but other significant issues exist,” Dunstan concluded. “Even with ‘firm deadlines,’ the approach to interagency review looks suspiciously like the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) regime—one of the true ‘four letter words’ of commercial space. American commercial space companies were subject to an interagency black-box process which defied transparency, timelines, or logic. Applicants waited and waited. Those that were denied lacked any sort of appeals process. A regulatory regime modeled after ITAR will not gain support in the commercial space community and will fail to keep America in the lead on the High Frontier.”

###

Find these comments on our website, and share them on Twitter and Bluesky. We can be reached for comment at media@techfreedom.org. Read our related work, including:

About TechFreedom: TechFreedom is a nonprofit, nonpartisan technology policy think tank. We work to chart a path forward for policymakers towards a bright future where technology enhances freedom, and freedom enhances technology.

]]>