Instantly become a color expert with the Nix Mini 3 Color Sensor. This portable device puts all paint fan decks in your pocket, offering access to over 200,000 brand-name paint colors and essential color codes like RGB, HEX, and CMYK. Perfect for designers, contractors, and homeowners. The Mini 3 features Bluetooth connectivity, Debris and splash resistance, and free access to the Nix Toolkit app for precise and convenient color matching. This newest version improves accuracy with 3x enhanced resolution over the Mini 2 and significant improvements to battery life and Bluetooth connectivity. The Nix Mini 3 ensures reliable color management for any project. Additionally, it matches premium libraries like Pantone, RAL, and NCS with monthly or annual subscription options. It’s on sale for $69.97 for a limited time.
Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.
I don’t understand sycophancy. Never have. I don’t know what it gets you in the long run other than a reputation for subservience. That’s worth nearly nothing in the open market. The only people who will hire you are people most people would never want to work for.
And yet, that is pretty much the entirety of the GOP under Trump: a massive collection of doormats the current president won’t even remember stepping on moments later. Sucking up to a goldfish brain like Trump makes you a fool, rather than the savvy pol you imagine yourself to be.
Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) called for an investigation Thursday into Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson for attending the Grammy Awards, where various artists criticized Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
[…]
“Americans deserve a Supreme Court that is impartial and above political influence,” Blackburn wrote on social platform X. “When a Justice participates in such a highly politicized event, it raises ethical questions. We need an investigation into Justice Jackson’s ability to remain impartial.”
First things fucking last, Justice Jackson was not a presenter, nor was she a “participant” in any of the ICE criticism delivered by Grammy-nominated artists like Bad Bunny, Billie Eilish, and Justin Vernon. She was also not involved in any way with the production of the Grammy Awards ceremony, further removing her from anything that might be deemed “impartial.”
But beyond any of that is the fact that Justice Jackson had a perfectly legitimate, non-political reason to be there:
Jackson was nominated in the Best Audio Book, Narration and Storytelling Recording category for her memoir “Lovely One.”
Jackson didn’t win (she lost to the Dalai Lama which, if you’re going to lose, is probably a loss you’ll never complain about publicly) but she was nominated. That alone gave her a reason to be there. The anti-ICE content may have been personally enjoyable, but she wasn’t there to soak up the stuff being said by others.
Not that it matters to the performative doormats currently employed as GOP politicians. Sen. Blackburn immediately started banging away on her keyboard and decided to take her disgruntled Grammy Awards forum comments to the next level by sending them off to Chief Justice John Roberts:
I write today regarding recent reporting about Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s attendance at the Grammy Awards in Los Angeles, California, on Sunday, February 1, and the ethical questions raised by her attendance at such a highly politicized event. For the following reasons, I urge you to conduct a thorough investigation into Justice Jackson’s attendance at this event and whether her presence at such an event complies with the obligation that a Supreme Court justice “act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.”
While it is by no means unheard of or unusual for a Supreme Court justice to attend a public function, very rarely—if ever—have justices of our nation’s highest Court been present at an event at which attendees have amplified such far-left rhetoric. Many of the attendees wore lapel pins that read “ICE OUT,” an anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) adage. One Grammy winner that evening opened his acceptance speech by stating, “Before I say thanks to God, I’m going to say ‘ICE out,’” which was received with thunderous applause by the crowd. Another award recipient that evening noted in her acceptance speech that “No one is illegal on stolen land,” going on to say that “we need to keep fighting and speaking up and protesting . . . And f*** ICE, that’s all I’m gonna say.” These statements were just two of many polarized, highly charged anti-law enforcement sentiments from that evening. It is important to note that Justice Jackson was present in the audience throughout the event.
Wow. Harsh words from someone who couldn’t be bothered to speak up while Justice Clarence Thomas received millions of dollars’ worth of gifts from right-wing benefactors over the past two decades. She was oddly quiet when it was revealed Justice Thomas’s wife was pushing election conspiracy theories. Truly an unexpected amount of yelling from someone who had nothing to say when Justice Alito’s wife was flying pro-Trump flags at Alito’s home.
Oh. Wait. Blackburn has something to say about both of those things in this letter to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court:
Unlike these meritless claims against Justice Alito and Justice Thomas, there are serious questions regarding Justice Jackson’s participation in such a brazenly political, anti-law enforcement event and her ability to remain an impartial member of the Supreme Court.
It was a Grammy Awards ceremony, not an anti-ICE protest. That people had negative things to say about ICE is completely expected, given how many people are opposed to how this administration is handling immigration enforcement. Blackburn absolutely knows she’s comparing apples to precision-machined aftermarket car parts. But like everyone else in this despicable political party, she doesn’t care and she knows it’s going to cause at least a small percentage of the converted to pretend to be offended on her behalf.
I assume John Roberts knows this as well. Let’s hope he’ll just roll his eyes and go back to binge-watching the kind of television I assume he enjoys: the no-one-asked-for-this 2023 reboot of Night Court.
Republican Rep. Tony Gonzales from Texas went on Face the Nation on Sunday and said a lot of silly things, doing his best as a loyal Trump foot soldier to defend the indefensible, to make sense of the nonsensical, and to lie about all the rest.
However, I wanted to focus on one bit of the clip that I’ve watched over a dozen times, and still can’t figure out what Rep. Gonzales meant. And I’m writing this in hopes that some DC or Texas reporter asks Gonzales to explain. Here’s the clip:
Gonzales on Liam Ramos and his family: "They're not gonna qualify for asylum. So what do you do with all the people that go through the process and do not qualify for asylum? You deport them. I understand that 5-year-old and it breaks my heart. I also think, what about that 5-year-old US citizen?"
And here’s the transcript from CBS. I’m including a bit more than is in the clip just to get the full context of what he’s saying:
MARGARET BRENNAN: You have this facility, though, in your district, Dilley, and that is for family detentions. That’s where little five-year-old Liam Ramos from Minnesota was held before a judge, that’s the picture of him there, ordered him released. He was ordered released because his family has a pending asylum claim, a legal process. He had entered with U.S. government permission through a process that the Biden administration had deemed legal. The current administration does not. The CBPOne app. Liam’s father gave an interview to Telemundo and you read the transcript, he’s talking about this five-year-old. He’s not okay. He’s waking up at night crying. He’s worried he’s going to be taken again. It’s psychological trauma, according to the father. And the administration is still trying to deport him. Do you understand why they are so focused on this five-year-old and his dad if they did come in through the front door with U.S. government permission?
REP. GONZALES: Well, the front door was via an app that Biden knew exactly what he was doing, and he created this huge mess, and now President Trump is there to clean up.
MARGARET BRENNAN: –but he came in the front door, he wasn’t–
REP. GONZALES: –through an app–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –across the border–
REP. GONZALES: –through an app that wasn’t vetted. And bottom line is, he’s likely- they’re not going to qualify for asylum. So what do you do with all the people that go through the process and do not qualify for asylum? You deport them. I understand the five-year-old and it, you know, it breaks my heart. I have a five year old at home.I also think, what about that five-year-old U.S. citizen–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –You feel comfortable defending that?
REP. GONZALES: I feel comfortable- we have to have a nation of laws. If we don’t have a nation of laws–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –They were following the- the law that is- that is that’s the rub, is that a new administration deemed the last administration’s regulation not to be legal.
Again, there’s a lot of nonsense in there, including Gonzales trying to pretend that Liam Ramos and his father had not entered the right way and following the laws of the US for those seeking to come here just because it was “through an app.” That app was the legal process. They followed the law. They did it the right way. To magically make that out to be violating the law because the next administration no longer wants to support that path doesn’t change the underlying fact that they were doing things the legal way.
But, again, let’s leave that aside. I simply want to focus in on the question of what the fuck Gonzales meant when he said:
I understand the five-year-old and it, you know, it breaks my heart. I have a five year old at home.I also think, what about that five-year-old U.S. citizen–
What about them? Under what scenario, process, or idea is that hypothetical five-year-old US citizen harmed? I’ve been unable to think or a single possible scenario in which the US citizen five-year-old could be harmed by allowing Liam Ramos to go through the asylum process.
Perhaps Rep. Gonzales can enlighten us by completing his thought and explaining.
Seriously: what is the scenario here? Is pre-kindergarten a zero-sum game now? Does Liam Ramos’s presence in a classroom somehow harm the US citizen in the next seat?
Brennan cut him off before he could finish the thought, and nobody followed up. So we don’t know. But I’d really like someone in the DC or Texas press corps to ask him to complete that sentence. Because I can think of one very obvious way that five-year-old US citizens are being harmed right now—and it’s not by Liam Ramos.
It’s by watching their government kidnap their classmates.
Nicholas Grossman talked about how his own child is distraught because some of his classmates can no longer come to school for fear their parents may be kidnapped by ICE:
My first grader (a US citizen) came home from school crying because a friend from class (also a US citizen) hasn’t been coming to school because his parents (one of whom is not a citizen) are afraid of ICE.Little kids don’t have concepts of racism and xenophobia. That has to be taught. Or imposed.
Indeed, the NY Times went and actually spoke with Liam Ramos’ classmates, and they seem legitimately distraught that government agents kidnapped their friend and sent him halfway across the country to a dangerous concentration camp. The video on that page is absolutely heartbreaking. I don’t see how anyone with a soul could possibly support or justify what is being done to Ramos. And to claim it’s in the name of his US citizen classmates is even more obnoxious. Just a couple of the quotes from five year olds:
“You are scaring schools, people, and the world. You should be kind, helpful, and caring like normal police. Not dangerous, scary, and stealing people. I think you should make friends with the world.”
“You, right now, you’re making people really sad because you’re just taking them away without them doing anything.”
So, please, Rep. Gonazales, tell us what you were thinking. What about those five-year-olds? What about kidnapping their classmate makes them better off? What about any of this makes sense? They’re not criminals. They followed the official legal process. They came in through “the front door” following the official process of the government at the time.
At no point have they done anything wrong.
So please, Rep. Gonzales: finish the thought. What about that five-year-old US citizen?
Because those five-year-old US citizens have already given their answer. They’re not being harmed by Liam Ramos. They’re being harmed by a government that just taught them their friends can disappear without warning.
FCC boss Brendan Carr is back with yet another fake “investigation” of media outlets he deems insufficiently deferential to radical (and increasingly unpopular) right wing ideology. This time it involves Carr launching a phony non-investigation of ABC’s The View. The crime? They apparently didn’t kiss MAGA Republican ass with enough zeal:
“The Federal Communications Commission is opening an investigation into whether ABC’s “The View” daytime talk show violated equal time rules for interviews with political candidates after an appearance by a Democratic Texas Senate candidate this week, a source told Reuters on Saturday.”
This, to be clear, isn’t a real investigation. Carr’s office is likely the Reuters source. And he previously hinted this was coming. As we mentioned then, Carr is threatening to leverage the “equal time” rule embedded in Section 315 of the Communications Act to take action against talk shows that don’t provide “equal” time to Republican ideology.
The rule is a dated relic that would be largely impossible for the Trump FCC to actually enforce. Republicans like Carr historically despised the equal time rule — an offshoot of the long-defunct Fairness Doctrine, a problematic effort to ensure media fairness (specifically on broadcast TV) they long complained was unconstitutional. Until they found a “President leader” with no ethical or moral center.
The rule was originally created to apply specifically to political candidate appearances on broadcast television, since back then, a TV appearance on one of the big three networks could make or break and politician attempting to run for office. In the years since, the rule has seen numerous exemptions and, with the evisceration of the regulatory state by the right wing, isn’t seriously enforceable.
That’s not stopping weird Trump zealots like Carr, who is keen to abuse FCC authority he doesn’t really have to harass media companies that don’t adequately bend the knee to kakistocracy. Anna Gomez, the FCC’s lone Democrat Commissioner, has done a good job with messaging pointing out that Carr is a dangerous, but highly performative, hack:
“Like many other so-called ‘investigations’ before it, the FCC will announce an investigation but never carry one out, reach a conclusion, or take any meaningful action,” she said. “This is government intimidation, not a legitimate investigation.”
As Gomez notes, most of this stuff goes nowhere. On one hand, it’s decorative cack Carr leaks to gullible media outlets to make it appear like he’s doing important things. On the other hand, it’s still designed to stifle journalistic freedom and the First Amendment by warning media companies that they’ll face protracted and costly legal headaches if they refuse to kiss Republican ass.
Keep in mind that ABC and Disney executives have already repeatedly tripped over themselves to curry favor with our embarrassing government, including paying Trump a $15 million bribe to settle a baseless lawsuit they were likely to win. They’re doing this because they like lower taxes, mindless deregulation, and rubber-stamped media consolidation. They couldn’t care less about journalism or viewpoint diversity.
These are cases that not only are winnable, many excellent lawyers would be willing to help fight them. And yet our media giants are still pathetic and feckless. It’s another good lesson about how even if you think kissing up to autocrats is a financial win, it doesn’t pay great returns over the longer haul. There is never a point where you will be deemed dutifully obedient, and akin to Vader’s management of Bespin’s Cloud City, the arrangement can and will always get worse.
Our increasingly broken corporate press struggles (or simply refuses) to communicate that Carr’s goal isn’t equality; it’s the disproportionate coddling and normalization of an extremist U.S. right wing political movement that’s increasingly despised by the actual public.
It was this steady media deterioration at the hands of the right wing and corporate power that opened the door to Trump’s buffoonery in the first place. And, without a serious progressive media reform movement (which needs to include publicly funded media, serious media consolidation limits, ownership diversity rules, and creative new funding models for real journalism), it’s only going to get worse.
The obvious end point, if people of conscience can’t galvanize useful policy reform, will be the sort of state media control we seen in countries like Russia and Hungary. At which point, all of the problems we’re seeing now at the hands of our violent, dim autocrats will only get worse.
Way back in 2018, a series of events in Samoa brought about the country’s worst measles outbreak in years. It started in July of that year when two 1-year old children who were given a measles vaccine subsequently died. While anti-vaxxers around the world gleefully jumped into action to blame the vaccine for those deaths, it turns out that the vaccine didn’t kill the children at all. Instead, medical professionals had accidentally mixed the vaccine with a muscle relaxer solution instead of sterilized water like they were supposed to. Despite that fact, the anti-vaxxers sowed all kinds of fear and disinformation throughout the country, whipping up negativity around measles vaccines. As a result of that, the government put a 10 months ban in place on the vaccine.
In June of 2019, RFK Jr. visited Samoa. He met with anti-vaxxer crusaders and government officials. Despite that, he has said publicly and in testimony before Congress that his trip there had nothing to do with vaccines and was instead about a medical records and tracking system the country was interested in. You can see an example of that claim in his own confirmation hearing.
Lots of people questioned that claim. And rightly so. The people he was meeting with, the timing in conjunction with the vaccination ban, it all lined up to yet another anti-vaxxer visiting the country to push their anti-vaxxer message.
Two months later, Samoa experienced a massive measles outbreak.
An outbreak began in October 2019 and continued for four months. Before seeking proper medical treatment, some parents first took their children to ‘traditional healers’ who used machines purchased that claimed to produce “immune-protective” water.
As of 22 December, there were 79 deaths. This was 0.4 deaths per 1,000 people, based on a population of 200,874, an infection fatality rate of 1.43%. There were 5,520 cases, representing 2.75% of the population.61 of the first 70 deaths were aged four and under. All but seven of the deaths were from people aged under 15.
At least 20% of babies aged six to 11 months contracted measles. One in 150 babies died.
This past week, documents and emails obtained by The Guardian and The AP show that everyone on the Samoan government’s side of the house understood Kennedy’s visit to be explicitly about vaccines, contrary to his statements, including statements before Congress. He was sworn in for that confirmation hearing, to be clear.
Documents obtained by The Guardian and The Associated Press undermine that testimony. Emails sent by staffers at the U.S. Embassy and the United Nations provide, for the first time, an inside look at how Kennedy’s trip came about and include contemporaneous accounts suggesting his concerns about vaccine safety motivated the visit.
The documents have prompted concerns from at least one U.S. senator that the lawyer and activist now leading America’s health policy lied to Congress over the visit. Samoan officials later said Kennedy’s trip bolstered the credibility of anti-vaccine activists ahead of the measles outbreak, which sickened thousands of people and killed 83, mostly children under age 5.
The AP post has a ton of details further down the article, but here is an example of the content.
Embassy staffers got a tip about Harding’s involvement in the trip from Sheldon Yett, then the representative for Pacific island countries at UNICEF, the United Nations Children’s Fund.
“We now understand that the Prime Minister has invited Robert Kennedy and his team to come to Samoa to investigate the safety of the vaccine,” Yett wrote in a May 22, 2019, email to an embassy staffer based in New Zealand. “The staff member in question seems to have had a role in facilitating this.”
Two days later, a top embassy staff member in Apia wrote to Scott Brown, then the Republican U.S. president’s ambassador to New Zealand and Samoa, alerting him to Kennedy’s trip and Harding’s involvement.
“The real reason Kennedy is coming is to raise awareness about vaccinations, more specifically some of the health concerns associated with vaccinating (from his point of view),” the embassy official, Antone Greubel, wrote. “It turns out our very own Benjamin Harding played some role in a personal capacity to bring him here.” Greubel wrote that he told Harding to “cease and desist from any further involvement with this travel,” though the rest of the sentence is redacted.
Now, I have zero problem believing that Kennedy is lying about all of this. Lying is just what he does. And regularly. I also put the blood of all those dead children, and any long term health issues in the thousands of others, partially on Kennedy’s ledger. This is all simply common sense.
But the real travesty is something quite similar is happening right here, right now. The measles outbreak in America is speeding up, not slowing down. Kennedy, as with Samoa, is taking zero responsibility for it. If he’s taking any real concrete actions to combat it, I don’t know what those would be, nor would I understand why they’ve been hidden so completely from public visibility. Kennedy once opined that maybe it would be better if everyone just got measles.
If that is his real goal, it appears we’re on our way. But somebody besides a couple of press outlets should be investigating Kennedy for lying to Congress, at a minimum. And perhaps having a hand in the deaths of children, as well.
Trump and his supporters clearly believe migrants have no constitutional rights. But that’s simply not true. They have the same rights as citizens for one truly obvious reason: a government could choose to declare certain people non-citizens in order to strip them of their rights. That would be highly problematic in a nation that’s almost entirely the result of immigration, which is why courts have routinely held that non-citizens have the same rights as citizens while on US soil.
That’s still the case, for the most part. The Fifth Circuit — fulfilling its role as the preferred US Supreme Court understudy — has chosen to ignore literally hundreds of rulings in favor of due process rights for immigrants to decide those no longer exist in the states most migrants detained by the government get sent to before being removed from the country.
Last November, the Trump administration’s efforts to eliminate due process rights had been rejected by more than 100 judges in more than 200 cases. A few months later — and with a full-press surge happening in Minneapolis, Minnesota — the number of rejections has spiked:
A POLITICO review of thousands of ICE detention cases found that at least 360 judges rejected the expanded detention strategy — in more than 3,000 cases — while just 27 backed it in about 130 cases.
While most of the mass deportation action is currently happening far north of the Fifth Circuit (which covers Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas), arrested immigrants are often sent almost immediately to detention facilities closer to the southern US border. Texas is, by far, the most popular destination for ICE detainee flights.
The Fifth Circuit waited around until late Friday night to release this decision [PDF], presumably in hopes of seeing the backlash subside a bit before the judges were due back at the office. Steve Vladeck covers all the angles in his post on this abhorrent ruling, starting with how this is an insane conclusion to reach given that 3,000 cases around the country have upheld the same rights the Fifth Circuit has chosen to deny to any migrant with the misfortune of finding themselves in its jurisdiction.
Well, late Friday night, in a ruling handed down just two days after oral argument, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit adopted the extreme minority view—holding that, yes, the government can indefinitely detain without bond millions of non-citizens who have been here for generations; who have never committed a crime; and who pose neither a risk of flight nor any threat to public safety. The Fifth Circuit’s opinion was written by Judge Edith Jones and joined in full by Judge Kyle Duncan—two of the most reactionary, right-wing federal appellate judges in the country…
The obvious upshot of this decision is that ICE et al will be rushing detainees to Texas ASAFP to take advantage of this ruling.
As Aaron Reichlin-Melnick from the American Immigration Council noted last night, the Fifth Circuit’s decision will “fuel ICE’s push to transfer people to Texas immediately,” and it will put “even more pressure on plaintiffs and district courts outside the 5th Circuit. Unless the habeas is filed before a person is transferred to the 5th Circuit, a person may remain locked in appalling conditions, never even allowed to ask for bond.” All of that can be traced to another procedural technicality—the principle that a district court gains jurisdiction over a habeas petition if, but only if, it is filed while the petitioner is physically in that court’s jurisdiction. In other words, to avoid being subject to the Fifth Circuit’s decision (while it remains on the books), detainees arrested elsewhere would have to have someone file on their behalf before they’re physically transferred into the Fifth Circuit.
There’s still a chance that people arrested in, say, Minneapolis, Minnesota might be able to avoid the Fifth Circuit’s refusal to recognize their due process rights. But the denial of due process rights begins immediately in most cases, with ICE officers refusing to allow detainees to contact family members, much less seek legal representation. If ICE can get them on a plane headed south before anything is filed in local courts, the Fifth Circuit’s ruling will override whatever rights migrants might have still had access to in the states they were removed from.
An appeal of this decision is already in process. And while it’s concerning that this particular iteration of the Supreme Court will be handling it, it’s not a foregone conclusion that it will convert the Fifth’s ruling into nationwide precedent. Even at its worst, the Supreme Court has rejected a handful of Fifth Circuit rulings that cross the line into an open embrace of violent fascism. On the other hand, this version of the Supreme Court is far more prone to deliver wordless rubber stamps of appellate decisions it likes, so some caution is warranted.
This decision requires the most MAGA-coded judges in the Fifth to buy everything the Trump administration is selling. And what it’s selling is a brand new interpretation of the phrase “seeking admission.” Rather than limiting it to people crossing the border illegally, it applies this definition to any migrant who doesn’t have the proper paperwork, even if they arrived in this country decades ago.
The dissent, written by Judge Dana Douglas, makes it clear that this administration will do anything and everything that serves its racist desire to eject non-whites from the United States.
The Congress that passed IIRIRA (Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act [1996]) would be surprised to learn it had also required the detention without bond of two million people. For almost thirty years there was no sign anyone thought it had done so, and nothing in the congressional record or the history of the statute’s enforcement suggests that it did. Nonetheless, the government today asserts the authority and mandate to detain millions of noncitizens in the interior, some of them present here for decades, on the same terms as if they were apprehended at the border.
Do you want to be this shitty, Judge Douglas asks the judges who pretended this sort of thing is OK as long as it’s Trump doing it.
The majority stakes the largest detention initiative in American history on the possibility that “seeking admission” is like being an “applicant for admission,” in a statute that has never been applied in this way, based on little more than an apparent conviction that Congress must have wanted these noncitizens detained—some of them the spouses, mothers, fathers, and grandparents of American citizens. Straining at a gnat, the majority swallows a camel. I dissent.
Hopefully this ruling will be reset by the Supreme Court or an en banc rehearing. But for now, the law of the land in three states that are willing to house ICE detainees says due process rights are only available in the 47 states the Fifth Circuit doesn’t control.
If you watched NBC’s prime time broadcast of the Winter Olympics opening ceremony on Friday, you saw Vice President JD Vance in the stands at San Siro Stadium in Milan with his wife, Usha. The commentary team said “JD Vance” and moved on. Pleasant enough.
But if you were watching literally any other country’s broadcast—or were actually in the stadium—you heard something else: the crowd booing. Loudly. Jeering. Whistling. CBC’s commentator captured the moment awkwardly:
There is the vice-president JD Vance and his wife Usha – oops, those are not … uh … those are a lot of boos for him. Whistling, jeering, some applause.
Multiple journalists on the ground reported the same thing. The Guardian’s Sean Ingle noted the boos. USA Today’s Christine Brennan noted the boos. The boos were, by all accounts, quite audible to anyone actually present in the stadium.
Timothy Burke put together clips of many other countries broadcasts, many of which called out the boos or discussed criticism of the Trump admin:
JD Vance getting booed, as called around the world (auto transcribed & translated, mostly):
Mexico’s broadcast went on at length, including discussing how the US had to change the name of their Olympic village from “ice house” to “winter house” knowing how it would be perceived.
I didn't forget Mexico, BTW, it's just that I had to make Mexico as its own separate video because they were talking about Vance and ICE through the entire U.S. arrival at each of the locations and WELL INTO FRANCETWO AND A HALF MINUTES
But if you were watching NBC’s broadcast in the United States? Crickets. As the Guardian reported:
However, on the NBC broadcast the boos were not heard or remarked upon when Vance appeared on screen, with the commentary team simply saying “JD Vance”. That didn’t stop footage of the boos being circulated and shared on social media in the US. The White House posted a clip of Vance applauding on NBC’s broadcast without any boos.
For what it’s worth, NBC denies that it “edited” the crowd booing the Vances. But the analysis on that page by the folks at Awful Announcing show pretty clearly that NBC (which ran a live feed of the opening ceremony as well as a prime time version) turned up the sound of music at the moment the Vances were shown on the screen.
Now, look. As a technical and legal matter, NBC has every right to make that editorial choice. Broadcasters exercise editorial discretion over their coverage all the time. They choose camera angles, they choose what to amplify and what to downplay, they shape narratives. That’s not illegal. It’s not even unusual. It’s called being a media company. The First Amendment protects editorial discretion—including editorial discretion that results in coverage that makes politicians look better than reality would suggest.
Of course, that principle cuts both ways. Or at least it should.
We’ve now spent months watching Donald Trump file lawsuit after lawsuit against news organizations for what he claims is “unfair” editing. The theory in these cases is that editing footage in ways that make Trump or his allies look bad is somehow actionable defamation or election interference. It’s a theory that, if accepted, would basically mean the president gets veto power over how he’s portrayed in any news coverage.
Remember, Trump sued CBS over a “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris, claiming that the way the interview was edited amounted to “election and voter interference.” That lawsuit was, to put it charitably, legally incoherent nonsense. We covered it at the time, noting that Trump’s supposed smoking gun was that CBS edited an answer for time—you know, the thing every television program in history does, including cutting out the bits that make Trump look bad.
Then there was the $10 billion lawsuit against the BBC over a documentary that didn’t even air in the United States. Trump’s legal team actually cited VPN download statistics as evidence of damages, apparently believing that Americans who went out of their way to circumvent geographic restrictions to watch a documentary they weren’t supposed to see somehow constitutes harm to Trump.
Of course, as you already know, CBS, facing the Trump lawsuit while also trying to get FCC approval for the Paramount merger, decided to just… pay up. We called it what it was at the time: a $16 million bribe. Not because CBS thought Trump had a valid legal claim—the lawsuit was obviously baseless—but because CBS was terrified that an angry Trump administration would tank its merger if it didn’t make the lawsuit go away.
And that’s the point. The lawsuits aren’t really about winning in court. They’re about establishing a new norm: favorable coverage or else.
So now we have NBC, which happens to have a rather large interest in staying on the good side of this administration (what with the LA Olympics coming up in 2028 and all the broadcast rights that entails, and you already have Trump and FCC boss Brendan Carr threatening NBC’s late-night comedy hosts), making an editorial choice to mute crowd boos directed at the vice president. And I will bet you every meager dollar I have that no one in Trump’s orbit will say a single word about NBC’s “unfair” editing. No tweets from Trump about “fake news NBC” cutting audio to misrepresent crowd reactions. No lawsuits alleging that NBC’s editorial choices constitute fraud on the American public.
Because the “unfair editing” complaints were never actually about editing. They were about whether the editing made Trump look good or bad. Editing that cuts out boos? That’s just good production values. Editing that makes Harris’s answer seem more coherent? That’s election interference worthy of billions in damages.
This is what an attack on press freedom looks like. It’s not a single dramatic moment. It’s a slow accretion of pressure—lawsuits that are expensive to fight even when you win, regulatory approvals that get held hostage, implicit threats that keep executives up at night—until media companies internalize the lesson. The lesson isn’t “be accurate” or “be fair.” The lesson is: make us look good, or face the consequences.
This past weekend Section 230 turned 30 years old. In those 30 years it has proven to be a marvelous yet misunderstood law, often gravely, as too many, including in Congress and the courts, mistakenly blame it for all the world’s ills, or at least those that happen in some connection with the Internet. When in reality, Section 230 is not why bad things happen online, but it is why good things can happen. And it’s why repealing it, or even “just” “reforming” it, will not stop the bad, but it will stop the good.
Unfortunately, even 30 years in, these ignorant efforts to diminish or even outright delete the law continue, despite the harm that would result if they succeeded. Which is why this anniversary seems like a good time to review why many of the reasons why the hostility towards Section 230 is so misplaced. Here at Techdirt we’ve collectively all spilled a lot of digital ink over the years about why Section 230’s critics are wrong to condemn it, and not just a little bit but completely and utterly, as well as counter-productively. But on this celebratory occasion I thought it would be fun to look back on what I personally have written about Section 230—at least since its 20th birthday celebration and the piece I wrote then—and collect some of these “greatest hits” in a post to help get anyone new to thinking about Section 230, who may be unsure why those pushing to repeal it is so misguided, caught up on why Section 230 is not a law we should be messing with.
What Section 230 does. One reason that people get Section 230 wrong is that there are a lot of myths about it and what it does or does not do. A good place to start is with an overview of how it generally works, and if you like watching videos you can watch this presentation from a few years ago where I gave a crash course in its operation.
In short, though, Section 230 immunizes platform providers from liability in two key ways: for liability in what their users use their services for, and for liability that could possibly result in how they moderate their users’ use of their services. Section 230 aligns platforms providers with Congress and makes it possible for them to work towards what Congress wants—the most good material online, and the least bad—by making it legally possible for the providers to do the best they can to achieve it on both fronts. If it is legally safe for them to allow user expression, because they won’t have to fear being liable for it, they will allow the most good expression, and if it is legally safe for them to remove user expression, because they won’t have to fear being liable for their moderation, then, as this post explains, they will be able to remove the most that is bad.
But Section 230 is not some sort of special favor for Big Tech, as some have suggested. It’s not even one for startups, as others have alleged. In fact, it applies to regular people as much as it applies to anyone. Rather than it being any sort of subsidy, it instead operates more like a rule of civil procedure to make sure that platforms cannot be drained of resources having to defend themselves for whatever wrong a user’s conduct is accused. Which is also why “reforming” Section 230 effectively means repealing it, because nearly all the proposed reforms would make the statutory protection more conditional, but if platforms are unsure about whether they are protected or not and in jeopardy of having to litigate the question, then for all intents and purposes they are effectively unprotected, and they will act accordingly to defensively either deny more beneficial content, or leave up too much that is harmful (or both).
When Section 230 applies. One of the common myths about Section 230 is that it prevents anyone from ever being held responsible for how the Internet has been used. Not so; Section 230 does nothing to prevent anyone from being accountable for their own behavior. What it does not allow, however, is someone else being held accountable, namely the provider of the platform service they used, because, as discussed above, if the platform could have to answer for how any of their users used their services, they would never be able to offer their services, and if they couldn’t offer their services then there would be no Internet for anyone to use even for any of the good, useful, or important things we use it for.
Section 230 also doesn’t immunize platforms for their own actions, only those of their users. The issue sometimes is in telling the two apart, but as this post argues, it’s not actually as hard to figure out as some people would insist. First, the idea that there is some publisher/platform distinction is a fiction; the only thing that matters is whether the immune provider is providing an interactive computer service of some sort and someone else has provided the content, or if the platform has provided the content itself. And in the event we get confused about who the content provider is, we can look to see who imbued the offending expression with its allegedly wrongful quality, which more often than not is the user and not the platform. As we’ve understood since the Roommates.com case, that a platform has simply welcomed the expression isn’t enough to put the platform on the hook for it.
Why Section 230 is important. Regulators can be tempted to take swings at Section 230 because it can be tempting to try to control what can be said on the Internet, and Section 230 gets in the way of those efforts. While the First Amendment also protects platforms’ ability to choose what user expression to facilitate, Section 230 makes that protection meaningful by making those choices practically possible. When they cannot be freely made, then the user expression they facilitate takes a hit.
Here’s what’s strange about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the law that made the open internet possible: Both sides of the traditional political spectrum hate it. But for opposite reasons. That, alone, should highlight that something is wrong in their analysis.
Republicans hate it because they say it lets websites censor conservative speech. Democrats hate it because they say it lets websites host dangerous disinformation.
Read those two sentences again.
One side is furious that platforms can moderate. The other side is furious that platforms don’t have to moderate. Both sides are attacking the same 26-word provision of a 30-year-old law—and if you understand why their complaints are contradictory, you understand what Section 230 actually does.
This weekend marked the 30th anniversary of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which contained the mostly unconstitutional Communications Decency Act, which inexplicably contained Section 230. (If you want the full history, I hosted a podcast series about it last year.) And after three decades, there’s now a concerted, bipartisan effort to kill it—by people who either don’t understand what the law does, or understand perfectly well and see its destruction as a path to controlling the flow of information online.
Both critiques, stripped of their partisan framing, are about the same thing: who gets to control what speech appears where. And Section 230’s answer to both sides is the same: pound sand.
That’s what the law actually does. It doesn’t mandate or prohibit “censorship.” It doesn’t require neutrality (that’s a myth that won’t die). It simply says: if you have a problem with content online, take it up with the person who created it, not the service hosting it. Platforms can moderate however they see fit—aggressively, lightly, inconsistently, politically—and they won’t face ruinous liability for those choices. They also won’t face liability for what they don’t remove.
This is what makes an open internet possible. Without that protection, no service would risk hosting user content at all. Or if they did, every moderation decision would require a lawyer’s sign-off, optimizing for liability reduction rather than healthy communities. The people who actually understand how to build good online spaces—trust and safety professionals, community managers—would be overruled by legal departments playing defense.
Almost all criticism of Section 230 is not actually about Section 230. It’s about one of two things: (1) not liking something in society that manifests online, and incorrectly believing that changing the law will somehow fix it, or (2) wanting control over what content platforms host.
So what happens if critics get their way? There’s a lobbying campaign right now claiming that reforming or repealing 230 will lead to “greater responsibility from tech companies.”
This is exactly backwards.
Without 230’s protections, smaller platforms—the ones that might actually compete with the giants—get destroyed first. They can’t afford the vexatious lawsuits. They can’t afford buildings full of lawyers. The big players survive, and their market position gets locked in even harder.
And those surviving giants won’t become more responsible. They’ll become less. Any competent legal team will tell them: the less you know, the less liability you have. Don’t proactively look for harmful content. Don’t research how your platform causes harm—those findings would be exhibit A in every lawsuit. Just stick your head in the sand and let the lawyers handle the subpoenas.
This is how liability regimes work, and America’s exceptionally litigious legal culture makes these incentives even stronger. The critics either don’t understand this or don’t care, because their actual goal was never “responsibility.” It was control. That they’ve duped some tech critics into thinking it’s about “responsibility” or “safety” doesn’t change that. Because it won’t improve responsibility or safety. But it will give politicians tremendous power over online speech.
Thirty years ago, a 26-word provision buried in a mostly unconstitutional law kicked off the open internet. It let anyone build a platform, host a community, create something new—without needing permission from lawyers or regulators first. That era is now under direct attack by people who misrepresent what Section 230 does and misrepresent what killing it would mean.
The open web turned 30 this weekend. The bipartisan campaign to kill it was never about responsibility or safety, it was always about control. Whether the open web sees age 31 comes down to 26 words that tell both sides to pound sand.
Welcome to the world of seamless browsing with AdGuard Personal or Family plans. This intuitive ad blocker offers an unparalleled web experience, powered by its three core features: an advanced ad-blocking module, a comprehensive privacy protection tool, and a robust parental control system. Say goodbye to annoying banners, intrusive pop-ups, and disruptive video ads as AdGuard ensures a clutter-free browsing experience. Designed for Windows, Android, macOS and iOS, AdGuard is a versatile software that works seamlessly on your smartphones and mobile computers. A personal plan is on sale for $11 and a family plan is on sale for $15.97 (available for new users only).
Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.
