Connect with us

International

Lawmakers investigate Soros ‘shortcut’ to buying radio stations before election

Published

5 minute read

From The Center Square

By

The U.S. House Oversight Committee is investigating why the Federal Communications Commission fast-tracked a deal that allowed a billionaire Democratic donor to buy a wide swath of American radio stations just weeks before the presidential election.

The major radio company Audacy Inc. fell into financial straits, but through a complex business deal Democratic mega donor and billionaire George Soros has gained control of the stations. Deals of this size require FCC approval, but in this case the FCC expedited the approval process.

FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr raised concerns about the deal at a Congressional hearing, telling lawmakers that “… the FCC is not following its normal process for reviewing a transaction.”

“We have established over a number of years one way in which you can get approval from the FCC when you have an excess of 25 percent foreign ownership, which this transaction does,” Carr said. ““It seems to me that the FCC is poised to create, for the first time, an entirely new shortcut.”

House Oversight Chair Rep. James Comer, R-Ky. and Rep. Nick Langworthy, R-N.Y., sent a letter to FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel Friday raising concerns about the deal.

“Despite the unprecedented nature of this action, the FCC majority has apparently decided to approve licenses on an accelerated timeframe for a company in which George Soros has a major ownership stake, and with stations in 40 media markets reaching ‘more than 165 million Americans,’” the letter said. “By all appearances, the FCC majority isn’t just expediting, but is bypassing an established process to do a favor for George Soros and facilitate his influence over hundreds of radio stations before the November election.”

Critics of the deal say it gives too much power to a heavily political, and liberal, billionaire just before the election.

“I have no idea why Soros would do this unless it was to manipulate the thinking of Americans and the information they listen to,” author and former member of the George W. Bush administration Mike Gonzalez told The Center Square.

“Conservative talk radio is huge, and there is no left wing talk radio because it’s just not interesting,” said Gonzalez, who is now at the Heritage Foundation. “Conservative talk radio is one of the few communications that conservatives have not a monopoly on but have a strong handle on, and he has bought stations that have Mark Levin and Sean Hannity and Dana Loesch and Glenn Beck.”

Critics also point out that Soros’ business partners in the deal include significant funding from sources overseas.

“The Audacy, Inc. deal, which will lead to Audacy, Inc. being partially ‘directly or indirectly controlled’ by foreign individuals or entities holding ‘more than one-fourth of the capital stock’ will require FCC approval to determine whether ‘the public interest will be served by the refusal or revocation of such license,’” the letter said. “In carrying out this statutory mandate under the Communications Act, FCC has years-long established processes and procedures for adjudicating broadcast licenses in such situations, most recently updated in 2016.”

Other wealthy media owners have faced scrutiny for potential abuse of their ownership power, such as billionaire Jeff Bezos when he purchased the Washington Post. However, Soros’ influence over so many radio stations may have even more influence over the country than one of the major papers, which Americans usually see as having a certain political leaning.

Soros is one of the most strategic and prolific funders of liberal organizations in the U.S.

“I don’t know why else he would plunk a pile of money this size unless it was to try to have influence over the thinking of Americans,” Gonzalez continued, adding that “this guy is committed to left-wing causes.”

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Brownstone Institute

New Hate Speech Laws Scrapped in Ireland

Published on

From the Brownstone Institute

By David Thunder David Thunder 

The Irish Government has announced it is scrapping its plans to introduce significant updates to Ireland’s existing hate speech laws, as there is not enough support for the proposed legislation. Remarkably, the legislation had already passed the lower house of the Irish Parliament by an overwhelming margin (114 in favour, 10 against) in April 2023, but began to stall in the Senate as its more problematic features came to light. It had gained international notoriety when it came under fire from X’s CEO, Elon Musk.

Free speech advocates across the world should find solace in the fact that a regressive piece of legislation with dire implications for free speech, is now dead in the water, in spite of being a “sure thing” less than two years ago. This is a piece of legislation, after all, that had already comfortably passed in the lower house of parliament, was supported by all major political parties, and was initially only resisted by a handful of journalists, politicians, and political activists. The Irish government had staked their reputation on the passage of this hate speech law, so they would not have withdrawn it at the last minute unless they had come under intense political pressure.

Ireland already has had hate speech legislation on its statute books for over 30 years: the 1989 Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act. However, that legislation set the bar for prosecution quite high, insisting on the need to demonstrate that someone is knowingly and/or intentionally inciting hatred. Consequently, only a handful of convictions have been secured in over 30 years.

The government sought to remedy this situation by drafting the Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill in 2022, which would have introduced a more stringent and wide-ranging hate speech regime in Ireland. Had it passed, the Hatred and Hate Offences Bill would have had the following legal effects:

  • In the 1989 legislation, categories protected from hate speech were race, religion, colour, nationality, membership of the travelling community, or sexual orientation. The 2022 Bill expanded this list of protected characteristics to include gender, sex characteristic, disability, and descent. So the basis for pressing hate speech charges would have been significantly broadened, had this law been passed.
  • In the 1989 legislation, Gardaí (police) may seize physical objects from a person’s home during a search-and-seizure operation, if they “reasonably” suspect such objects contain offensive material that was intended to be published. The updated legislation would have given Gardaí the power to compel citizens to hand over passwords or encryption keys to access their privately stored data.
  • The 1989 legislation allows Gardaí to seize physical materials in the context of a search-and-seizure operation, while the new legislation explicitly authorized Gardaí to confiscate electronic data, but also to retain and copy it for as long as needed for the investigation.
  • The 1989 legislation allows someone charged with a hate speech offence to avoid prosecution by showing that he did not in fact intend to stir up hatred, and was unaware that the material in question was “threatening, abusive, or insulting.” The 2002 legislation would have made it easier to secure a prosecution, by allowing convictions in case an individual was “reckless” as to whether their actions could incite hatred.
  • The 2002 Hatred and Hate Offences Bill would have introduced steeper penalties for hate speech offences. Whereas the established penalty is up to two years in jail, the revised penalty is up to five years in jail.

In spite of the defeat of the government’s new hate speech legislation, Ireland’s Justice Minister Helen McEntee is adamant that she will pass another version of this Bill, dealing with “hate crime” rather than “hate speech,” and has suggested the revised bill would retain the expanded list of protected characteristics, including “gender.” Furthermore, the 1989 Incitement to Hatred Act, which remains the law of the land, contains deeply problematic features, including the right to search private property based on a “reasonable suspicion” that an individual possesses offensive material intended for publication.

Thus, the battle for free speech in Ireland is far from over. Nevertheless, this was something of a David-and-Goliath situation: all major political parties had backed the Hatred and Hate Offences Bill, and it had already passed the lower house of the Parliament by an overwhelming margin – 114 votes in favour, 10 against. Only a handful of mainstream journalists in Ireland spoke out against the Hate Offences Bill. The Irish Council for Civil Liberties, along with numerous other NGOs, came out in its favour, and expressed “disappointment” that the Justice Minister was dropping all elements of it pertaining to hate speech.

So this is certainly a victory free speech advocates should savour and learn from. A small but powerful coalition of voices and organizations, including Senator Michael McDowell, Free Speech Ireland, Elon Musk, and ADF International, were able to make enough of an intelligent “ruckus” about the Hate Offences Bill to sink it. Champions of free speech across the world would do well to learn from this uphill victory.

Republished from the author’s Substack 

Author

David Thunder

David Thunder is a researcher and lecturer at the University of Navarra’s Institute for Culture and Society in Pamplona, Spain, and a recipient of the prestigious Ramón y Cajal research grant (2017-2021, extended through 2023), awarded by the Spanish government to support outstanding research activities. Prior to his appointment to the University of Navarra, he held several research and teaching positions in the United States, including visiting assistant professor at Bucknell and Villanova, and Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Princeton University’s James Madison Program. Dr Thunder earned his BA and MA in philosophy at University College Dublin, and his Ph.D. in political science at the University of Notre Dame.

Continue Reading

Business

Elon Musk’s X Set to Reboot in Brazil After Final Fine Payment

Published on

News release from Reclaim The Net.

By

Elon Musk’s social media platform, X, is now clear to resume its online activities in Brazil with the settlement of one final penalty according to an announcement made last Friday by Brazil’s controversial justice official, Alexandre de Moraes. The supreme justice authority in the country, known as the Federal Supreme Court (STF), had previously sanctioned a nationwide suspension of X in late August, a decree that was sustained by a judicial panel on September 2 following X’s noncompliance with the court’s orders.

The controversy originated in the spring when STF’s Minister de Moraes initiated an investigation into Musk and X after the platform refused to heed its censorship demands.

Musk was bold in his defiance of the court’s requests to shut down selected accounts in Brazil. He proceeded to critique de Moraes publicly, labeling him a “criminal” and advocating for the cessation of US foreign aid to Brazil.

Nonetheless, this incident marks a turning point in the ordeal. Earlier this month, X submitted official documentation to Brazil’s supreme court indicating their compliance with the court’s instructions, a stance diverging from their previous rebellious approach.

However, as reported by Brazil’s G1 Globo, X still holds the responsibility of settling a new fine of 10 million reals (approximately $2 million) to close the chapter on two further days of noncompliance with court orders. Rachel de Oliveira, X’s legal representative in Brazil, is also obligated to settle a 300,000 real penalty.

The situation escalated in mid-August, when Musk opted to shutter X’s Brazilian offices, thereby leaving the company devoid of a mandated legal representative in the country for its continued operations. As a consequence, the absence of this representation led the STF to initiate restrictions on the organization’s business assets within Brazil, affecting both X and Musk’s additional venture, Starlink.

Influential individuals in Brazil, such as former President Jair Bolsonaro, have been heavily critical of STF’s measures to clamp down on online so-called “hate speech” and “misinformation.” Musk himself has called for retribution against President Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silv and Moraes, the latter of whom was a staunch advocate of these federal regulations.

If you’re tired of censorship and surveillance, subscribe to Reclaim The Net.

Continue Reading

Trending

X