This news has been received from: breitbart.com

All trademarks, copyrights, videos, photos and logos are owned by respective news sources. News stories, videos and live streams are from trusted sources.

Contact Newsletter-online.com: [NewsMag]

Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing next week to begin considering a highly controversial bill that would allow media companies to form a collective bargaining cartel, a proposal that critics have warned will empower big media companies and harm independent journalism.

The bill, called the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act (JCPA), does the opposite of what it promises: it protects discredited media companies from competition by allowing them to form a legal cartel to collectively bargain with Silicon Valley.

Mark Zuckerberg surrounded by guards (Chip Somodevilla /Getty)

If the bill passes, big media companies would be able to strike deals with Facebook, Google, Twitter, and other tech giants that could prioritize their content to the detriment of podcasters, YouTubers, Substack authors, and other forms of independent media.

Proponents have won over many Democrats and some Republicans with claims that the bill would force Big Tech companies to pay publishers for their content, but critics of the plan warn that in reality it would simply empower bigger media companies to make their own sweetheart deals with tech giants and leave independent publishers behind—thereby exacerbating the Big Tech issue even more.

House GOP leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) has slammed the bill, a version of which was debated in the House Judiciary Committee last year, as the “antithesis of conservatism.”

“Attempts by big media and Democrats in Congress to collude and monopolize economic models poses a tremendous threat to free speech and a free press,” said Rep. McCarthy.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of Calif. takes a question from a reporter during his weekly press briefing on Capitol Hill, Thursday, Sept. 30, 2021, in Washington. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

The proposal has also been condemned by independent journalist Glenn Greenwald.

“If you allow the biggest players — the New York Times, Jeff Bezos’s Washington Post — to be at that table and give them an antitrust exemption, you’re essentially creating two consortiums instead of eliminating the one at the root of all of the problems,” said Greenwald at a hearing last year.

FCC Commissioner Nathan Simington has warned that the JCPA could undermine local and independent journalism.

“If the practical effect of the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act is to strengthen national journalism, I am concerned that it will undermine local journalism — both in its independence of voice and its community engagement,” said Simington.

“I worry that negotiations permitted under this bill would be dominated by the interests of the biggest, best-funded national journalism content creators. Without a mechanism to prevent this, the bill will effectively give such creators the ability to negotiate on behalf of an industry that they do not truly represent.”

The JCPA seemed dead last year in the House when Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO) was met with severe repercussions for leading the charge for it and conservatives and Republicans lined up against it. But now that the broader Democrat agenda is in peril as President Joe Biden’s approval rating lags, Democrats on both sides of Capitol Hill are frantically searching for something — anything — to tout as some kind of accomplishment going into November’s midterm elections.

The fact that this matter is coming up before the Senate Judiciary Committee is interesting, given that this very committee in just a few short weeks will be the battleground for the confirmation hearings and broader process for Biden’s forthcoming nominee to replace retiring U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer.

That gives this committee little time this year to consider this legislation — if it doesn’t move close to immediately, the high court process may overtake this effort — which seems to along with the broader stalled out Biden agenda efforts explain the frantic rush to revive the once-dead JCPA effort.

Democrats may also be attempting to use this fight to divide Republicans, as the unusually colorful Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) — a Judiciary Committee member — is the lead senate Republican on the proposal, while several of his fellow Judiciary Committee Republicans are expected to aggressively oppose the plan.

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), for instance, has already publicly announced opposition to it, saying it would “allow big tech to further consolidate power and make it even easier to censor conservative voices on social media.”

WASHINGTON, DC – OCTOBER 13: Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) (Photo by Samuel Corum/Getty Images)

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) has also denounced the bill, saying it “opens the door to greater collusion between big media and big tech.”

Sources familiar with the matter told Breitbart News that Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) is itching to lead the intra-committee fight against this even though he has yet to weigh in on the matter publicly.

Allum Bokhari is the senior technology correspondent at Breitbart News. He is the author of #DELETED: Big Tech’s Battle to Erase the Trump Movement and Steal The Election.

News Source: breitbart.com

Tags: on the hill b inspired on the hill b inspired covid 1984 ukraine red handed investigation biden crime wave masters of the universe facebook jcpa ken buck kevin mccarthy marco rubio mark zuckerberg marsha blackburn masters of the universe meta on the hill the senate judiciary committee independent journalism big media companies media companies marsha blackburn kevin mccarthy breitbart news their content big media the proposal capitol hill the proposal in the house democrats the broader the biggest tech giants

Farmers Markets Of Minneapolis Collaborative

Next News:

Texas asks Supreme Court not to halt controversial anti-censorship social media law

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday to keep the state's controversial social media law in effect and to allow the state to restrict platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube from censoring content.

Paxton, in a court filing, argued that the law, HB 20, should remain in place because it doesn’t violate the First Amendment, as it regulates a social media company’s conduct, not its speech, and also on the grounds that social media platforms are common carriers subject to regulation.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito will now consider whether to grant an emergency stay of a lower court decision that had allowed the law to take effect last week. The law has been opposed by multiple advocacy groups representing the tech industry.

“Assuming the platforms’ refusals to serve certain customers implicated First Amendment rights, Texas has properly denominated the platforms common carriers,” the state wrote in its filing to the Supreme Court.

“Imposing common-carriage requirements on a business does not offend the First Amendment; indeed, this Court has upheld far greater intrusions into a communications platform’s business — for example, requiring cable companies to leave open certain channels for specific potential users,” the state added.

STATES TAKE LEAD FROM CONGRESS ON REINING IN BIG TECH

Last week, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed HB 20 to go back into effect while the case continues in a lower district court. This notched a win for Republicans, who have accused social media giants, such as Facebook and Twitter, of unfairly censoring conservatives such as former President Donald Trump.

HB 20, which was signed into law and then put on pause in September of last year, made Texas the latest red state to go after social media platforms for their alleged anti-conservative bias and censorship. The law bars platforms with more than 50 million monthly users from banning content based on a user's viewpoint.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Yet some conservative and liberal lawyers say it's unconstitutional because it tries to control speech on private platforms and could actually backfire and result in less conservative speech.

News Policy Social Media Texas Supreme Court

Other News

  • Russia to consider allowing people over 40 to join military as losses mount
  • Letters to the Editor | Letters: Homelessness answers | Vote for Tam | Math lessons | Seven Hills Ranch | Yes on change
  • Top Gulf Cartel Leader Extradited to U.S. for Trial
  • McConnell Calls Out Republicans Who Voted Against Ukraine Aid Package: Consider the Much Larger Cost Should Ukraine Lose
  • Major drug bust in South Carolina linked to violent Mexican cartel, authorities say
  • Lack Of Rain & Snow Causing Coloradans To Consider Artificial Turf
  • PHOTOS: Mexicos Shelves are Stocked with Baby Formula amid U.S. Shortage
  • Knicks Must Consider Trade That Lands 2 NBA Champs for Julius Randle
  • Jim Cramer says to consider these five high-yielding stocks to upgrade your portfolio
  • Dempsey: Steffen, Turner should consider loans next season
  • Mexican President Praises Soldiers for Protecting Cartel Gunmen by Running From Them
  • City Council To Consider Resolution Calling For Public Fund Supporting Local Reproductive Health Organizations
  • Arsenal ‘consider selling star defender Gabriel Magalhaes just two years after arrival with Juventus keen on transfer’
  • Arizona Calls on Social Media Companies to Crack Down on Cartel Activity
  • Big Tech and Big Oil brace for new liberal majority at FTC
  • Thousands of Medical Professionals Demand Accountability for COVID Corrupt Alliance Causing Crimes Against Humanity
  • Homeowners consider turf lawns in response to drought and water restrictions
  • Roth: Do you know about I bonds as an inflation hedge? Should I retire?
  • Mexican Border State Governor, AG Clash over Female Homicides