The Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires that the government keep this type of data confidential when it is collected by the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission.
But the FCC goes another way—one that violates the Constitution, as courts already found in two prior FCC cases.
This is no benign disclosure regime either.
The evidentiary record makes clear that the FCC has chosen to publish these scorecards for one and only one reason—to ensure that businesses are targeted and pressured into making decisions based on a person’s race and gender.
Let’s start with the FCC’s track record of pressuring broadcasters into discriminating on the basis of race and gender in violation of the equal protection guarantees of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
In Lutheran Church, the court reviewed an earlier FCC effort to use the same scorecard at issue here.
The court determined that the FCC’s decision in that case to mandate that broadcasters compare their employees with the general population in their area across race and gender categories operated to “pressure license holders to engage in race-conscious hiring.”
The court then concluded that the FCC had violated the Constitution because its “regulations pressure stations to maintain a workforce that mirrors the racial breakdown of their [area].”
After that court loss, the FCC went back to the drawing board. But it drew up the same plan — to pressure broadcasters into hiring based on race and gender in violation of the Constitution.
As with the first set of rules, these second ones made clear that if a broadcaster’s workforce did not demonstrate that its outreach or recruitment efforts were reaching the entire community, then the FCC expected the broadcaster to modify those efforts and in some cases face an FCC investigation.
Focusing on how those rules would operate in the real world, the court found that the FCC’s regulations did more than encourage broad outreach—they made clear that “the agency with life and death power over the licensee is interested in results, not process, and it is determined to get them.”
The FCC's approach “clearly does create pressure to focus recruiting efforts upon women and minorities” in violation of the Fifth Amendment, the court determined.
Thus, the FCC secured a second and deserved L.
The FCC's history of unconstitutional conduct is not a trivial matter.
The Supreme Court has stated that “[d]istinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.”
Likewise, the Supreme Court has written that racial classifications “threaten to stigmatize individuals by reason of their membership in a racial group and to incite racial hostility.”
The FCC takes an ostrich-like approach to this third go around with rules that pressure broadcasters.
The FCC simply asserts that “we find no basis to conclude that the demographic data on a station’s annual Form 395-B filing would lead to undue public pressure.”
No evidence?
The record is overflowing with it.
For instance, one filer states:
“We, the undersigned investors, with collective assets under management or advisement of approximately $266 billion, write to urge the . . . [FCC] to require the disclosure of equal opportunity employment statistics among the companies it regulates” because doing so “allows market participants to assess whether companies stand by their public commitments to pursue diversity, equity and inclusion.”
You don’t have to read between the lines on that one.
It is obvious to everyone what is going on here—or it should be.
By requiring the public disclosure of these race & gender scorecards, the FCC is ensuring that broadcasters will be targeted—and pressured—by activist groups, media campaigns, & predictably the government itself.
Indeed the only justifications the FCC offers for publicly posting these scorecards are what we would call pure pretext in the discrimination context.
First, the FCC claims that it is publishing these scorecards to “increase the likelihood that erroneous data will be discovered and corrected.”
But that makes no sense. How exactly does the FCC anticipate that a member of the public will verify the reported race, ethnicity, and gender of particular employees at a business—including those that the FCC now says can report as gender non-binary?
It doesn’t. And, in any event, I don’t think the FCC should be encouraging people to engage in that type of conduct.
For another, the FCC argues that it is publicly disclosing this demographic data to eliminate the risk that it might leak out accidentally one day.
What?
That is like deciding to scuttle a ship to avoid the risk that it might spring a leak someday.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is a clear and blatant effort to evade the FCC's Equal Time rule.
The purpose of the rule is to avoid exactly this type of biased and partisan conduct - a licensed broadcaster using the public airwaves to exert its influence for one candidate on the eve of an election.
Unless the broadcaster offered Equal Time to other qualifying campaigns.
In the 2016 cycle, President Obama’s FCC Chair made clear that the agency would enforce the Equal Time rule when candidate Trump went on SNL.
NBC stations publicly filed Equal Opportunity notices to ensure that all other qualifying candidates could obtain Equal Time if they sought it.
Stations did the same thing when Clinton appeared on SNL.
Federal law requires that broadcasters provide comparable time and placement to all legally qualified candidates when the Equal Time rule is triggered.
With only days before the election, NBC appears to have structured this appearance in a way that evades these requirements.
What comparable time and placement can they offer all other qualifying candidates ?
Brazil’s decisions to ban X and freeze Starlink assets are part of a growing crackdown on free speech. But they also violates Brazil’s own laws.
Today, I wrote my regulatory counterparts in Brazil to address these unlawful actions.
*****
Dear ANATEL President Baigorri,
The FCC and ANATEL, the lead communications regulatory agencies in the U.S. and Brazil, have had a long-standing relationship—one built on reciprocity, respect for the rule of law, and our shared status as independent agencies established by law to operate without undue influence from the partisan political branches of our governments.
The sectors we regulate stand to benefit from continuing a partnership based on adherence to those foundational principles. Indeed, you recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the FCC’s Chairwoman that further formalized the FCC and ANATEL relationship.
Nonetheless, I am compelled to address with you today the cascading set of apparently unlawful and partisan political actions that your agency has been carrying out against businesses with U.S. ties, including your own threat to pull Starlink’s licenses and authorizations to operate in Brazil.
These punitive actions—backed publicly by the Lula Administration—are already reverberating broadly and shaking confidence in the stability and predictability of Brazil’s regulated markets. In fact, U.S. business leaders are now openly questioning whether Brazil is on the path to becoming an uninvestable market.
ANATEL is now actively enforcing a widely criticized decision by Justice de Moraes to censor X that, according to government officials in Brazil, violates Brazil’s own Constitution and your country’s statutory prohibitions against government censorship.
To make matters worse, Justice de Moraes chose to enforce his decision by freezing the assets of Starlink—even though Starlink is a separate company with different shareholders that has broken no laws.
Justice de Moraes has failed to respect universal and basic tenets of transparency, fair notice, and due process.
Indeed, it has now been revealed that Justice de Moraes has been sending social media companies secret orders to censor the political posts of elected members of Brazil’s Congress.
“If this sounds authoritarian, it is,” the Washington Post wrote this week about Justice de Moraes’s takedown campaign. Continuing, the Washington Post stated that Brazil’s recent moves come “at a substantial cost to free expression—with mandates for removals and even arrest warrants often issued under seal and with scant reasoning to support them.”
“Brazilians shouldn’t have to put up with government suppressing political viewpoints,” it concluded.
While Justice de Moraes’s actions mirror crackdowns on free speech that are taking place across the globe, I am not writing you today based on a generalized concern about free expression—though I believe strongly that communications regulators like us should stand against this trend towards censorship. Nor am I arguing that these actions by Brazil’s government somehow violate U.S. laws on free speech …
But according to Brazilian officials and legal authorities, Brazil is now violating its own laws through arbitrary and capricious actions against X and Starlink. Indeed, the Justice de Moraes decision runs headlong into Brazil’s own Constitution, which expressly prohibits “[a]ny and all censorship of a political, ideological and artistic nature,” as well as other provisions of Brazilian law that further guarantee freedom of expression.
The serious and apparently unlawful actions against X and Starlink cannot be squared with the principles of reciprocity, rule of law, and independence that have served as the foundation of the FCC and ANATEL relationship and the basis for reciprocal foreign investment.
I am therefore requesting a meeting with you to address and resolve these issues. If you prefer, I will come to you in Brazil to do so.
The Washington Post agrees, calling Justice de Moraes’s actions “authoritarian” replete “with mandates for removals and even arrest warrants often issued under seal and with scant reasoning to support them.”
On Brazilian Justice de Moreas's order shutting down X:
The text of his 51-page decision is far more concerning and sweeping than the headlines suggest.
de Moreas’s own words make clear that he is attempting to strike a broader blow against free speech and in favor of authoritarian controls.
His opinion does not even try to hide it. He comes right out and points to Brexit and the 2016 election of President Trump as examples, in his telling, of the types of extreme “populist” outcomes that he is attempting to avoid by imposing a new censorship regime in Brazil ahead the country’s elections later this year.
But this type of censorship of a political and ideological nature is expressly prohibited by Brazil’s own Constitution.
Nonetheless, de Morea argues that free speech on X cannot be allowed to continue because the diversity of political opinions expressed on the site might influence the people of Brazil ahead of their 2024 elections. See op. at 31-32.
In other words, de Morea is arguing that free speech is a threat to democracy—a position that is as Orwellian as it is dangerous.
The opposite is true. Free speech is democracy’s check on excessive government control. Censorship is the authoritarian’s dream.
To dress up his decision, de Morea runs the warmed over playbook of labeling political speech that runs contrary to his own orthodoxy as “misinformation” and “disinformation.” But authoritarians like de Morea are not worried that people will be misled by the political messages they choose to read. He is worried that those messages will be effective.
At bottom, this decision is part of a live, ongoing, and global debate between free speech and censorship, between freedom and control. It is imperative that free speech and freedom prevail.
Or as the late NY Times editor John Oakes once said, “Diversity of opinion is the lifeblood of democracy. The minute we begin to insist that everyone think the same way we think, our democratic way of life is in danger.” Those are the stakes.
Here, de Moraes says he's banning X to influence the results of Brazil's 2024 election, arguing that the electorate might otherwise be influenced by the political views (what he calls "anti-democratic speeches") posted on X, leading to populist results.
Cites to Brexit & Trump.
The de Moraes decision runs headlong into Brazil’s own Constitution, which prohibits censorship of a political or ideological nature.
So the question is not whether his order violates free speech as a general matter, it is a question of him complying with Brazil’s own laws.
In 2021, the Biden Administration got $42.45 billion from Congress to deploy high-speed Internet to millions of Americans.
Years later, it has not connected even 1 person with those funds. In fact, it now says that no construction projects will even start until 2025 at earliest.
Meanwhile, the Biden Admin has been layering a partisan political agenda on top of this $42.45B program - a liberal wish list that has nothing to do with connecting Americans.
Climate change mandates, tech biases, DEI requirements, favoring government-run networks + more.
It gets worse
While the Biden Admin's $42.45B plan from 2021 has not resulted in even a single shovel's worth of dirt being turned, the government in 2022 revoked an award to Starlink that would have delivered high-speed Internet to 642K rural locations
After being caught allowing personnel in Beijing access to U.S. data, TikTok promised to reform its ways & wall that data off.
But of course, TikTok did not change its ways. As the WSJ found, it kept on sharing sensitive U.S. data with China. Personnel inside China have simply ignored the “Project Texas” promises that TikTok has made to U.S. lawmakers.
Or take TikTok’s decision to enable Beijing-based personnel to spy on Americans.
Initially, TikTok denied the story and claimed that the reporters lacked journalist integrity. But eventually,
TikTok was forced to confess that, yes, it had illicitly surveilled the locations of specific Americans despite its representations to lawmakers.