Commentary

The Federal Censorship Commission

by Joe Mandese , Yesterday

The most poignant split-screen moment during FCC Chairman Brendan Carr's testimony before Congress Wednesday happened when Senator Ed Markey gave new meaning to the agency's acronym.

"You are now the chairman of the Federal Censorship Commission," Markey said, to which Carr guffawed in a way that seemed like he was taking it as a compliment.

It was a telling moment, because despite some obligatory, partisan back-slapping from Republican senators during the hearing, Carr didn't exactly smile, much less laugh, during the hearing.

You can watch the moment for yourself in the clip below, but to me it seemed like a badge of honor to Carr -- who before being appointed FCC Chair by Trump was the author of the FCC section of the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 blueprint for restructuring the federal government.

Why else would he have been so tickled by the characterization? It's not like he was all laughs about comparisons of his "We can do it the easy way, or the hard way" Jimmy Kimmel suspension campaign to "Goodfellas" and "mafia threats."

government, politics, regulation, television

2 comments about "The Federal Censorship Commission".

Check to receive email when comments are posted.

Mark Winslow from Winslow Media, December 18, 2025 at 3:32 p.m.
Interesting piece, but it's worth remembering that government pressure on social media content moderation wasn't invented by Republicans.

Under the Biden administration:Mark Zuckerberg publicly stated in 2024 that senior White House officials 'repeatedly pressured' Meta for months to censor COVID-19 content, including humor and satire, and that he regretted complying in some cases.

The Missouri v. Biden (later Murthy v. Missouri) case uncovered extensive communications where the White House, CDC, FBI, and other agencies flagged posts and urged platforms to remove or suppress content on COVID vaccines, election integrity, and even the Hunter Biden laptop story. A federal judge initially called it an 'almost dystopian' censorship effort, and the 5th Circuit found likely First Amendment violations (though the Supreme Court later ruled on standing).

Internal documents (e.g., Twitter Files, House Judiciary reports) showed platforms changing policies in response to Biden admin demands, including censoring true information that didn't violate their own rules.

Both sides have raised valid free speech concerns at different times—let's hold all administrations accountable without selective memory.

Reply

Joe Mandese from MediaPost Inc., December 18, 2025 at 4:46 p.m.

@Mark Winslow: Interesting point, but also mostly whataboutism. My column was about the characterization -- and reaction -- of FCC Chairman Brendan Carr during a Congressional hearing about threats he made to media he regulates (TV stations). The FCC doesn't regulate social media platforms, which are inherently unregulated -- and indemnified from any liability of the content they distribute, thanks to Section 230 of the Communications Act.

And personally, I don't think you can compare the White House pressuring social media networks to moderate misinformation to the head of the FCC threatening government licensed TV stations for broadcasting a comedian whose humor the administration didn't like.

One was pressure, jawboning, "extensive communications," or whatever you want to call it on companies the White House had no regulatory power over. The other was an explicit threat to TV station owners, who are licensed by the FCC.