For those who don’t know, the State Dept appears to have pressured Lithuanian, French, & other attendees of a conference in Vilnius this week.
Shellenberger was suddenly concurrently in all of the attendees’ inboxes. 🤷🏻♀️

@berinszoka.bsky.social
President @TechFreedom.org | 🇺🇸🇩🇪🇪🇺🗽 | Lawyer: tech, free speech, FTC, FCC, admin | “Resident Antagonist”—Politico | “The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right” | 🇫🇷🏳️🌈📚⛰️🥾🚣🎼 | doing PhD in 🇪🇺/🇺🇸 platform law @ Dublin City U
Not bad if you don't mind riding on freight track and don't get motion sick! But terrible by Western/Central European standards. And also wildly expensive unless booked way in advance
haha high speed rail in North America?!? Nope but would be nice!
Another victory for the Trump administration in its war on content moderation—to make the world safe for disinformation, especially about elections
For those who don’t know, the State Dept appears to have pressured Lithuanian, French, & other attendees of a conference in Vilnius this week.
Shellenberger was suddenly concurrently in all of the attendees’ inboxes. 🤷🏻♀️
Hugo Chavez-linked PR flack Michael Shellenberger — a random guy with a Substack who rakes in donations to fight a “censorship complex” that he created — would like you to know that journalists reporting on his attempts to smear people are propagandists.
In NRA v Vullo, the Supreme Court clearly recognized that, when the government attacks someone's reputation, this can chill speech in ways that violate the First Amendment, as TechFreedom explained in its comments about The View proceeding in June
techfreedom.org/wp-content/u...
Lieberman's declaration makes clear that ABC's speech is being chilled by the FCC's attacks, not just the possibility of losing its license, but attacks on its reputation
The declaration in question describes the chilling effects from BOTH the Early Renewal Proceeding AND The View having to prove its bona fides to continue being able to decide which political candidates are worth giving air time to
The FCC's strongest argument was that ABC hadn't provided concrete evidence of its speech being chilled by the Early Renewal Proceeding, claiming its declaration from the chief counsel to its entertainment division focused only chilling of The View's speech by a separate proceeding. But in fact...
ABC: we decided we had no choice but to sue when Brendan Carr said that renewal of our licenses might turn on our decision not to broadcast Trump's speech--just as Trump threatened Well, obviously. This has always been about Trump's pushing the Big Lie about election fraud, just like 2020
ABC: when Carr says ABC's decision not to air Trump's speech would be considered as the FCC decides whether to deny renewal of ABC's licenses (held since the 1940s), he make clear that our speech is being regulated. The chilling effects are obvious
ABC, in summary: We've already altered our conduct because of the fear of retaliation. When Disney suspended Kimmel, then brought him back, there was rage from Trump. After Trump's rage about The View interviewing Talarico, the show has had to reconsider interviewing political candidates...
Judge: can you cite other examples of the FCC using early renewal? FCC: I can't cite historical cases, but the Commission just opened such a proceeding against Bridge Communications. Yeah, that was just to make the ABC thing look less pretextual
FCC: The reason the FCC opened the investigation was employment practices. Now, the Commission has an obligation to adjudicate petitions to deny ABC's license renewal for other reasons Again, bullshit. The FCC, when it ordered early renewal, said the proceeding was about "the public interest"
FCC: Carr was merely saying that broadcasters potentially have an obligation to broadcast the President's speech, but that hasn't made its way into a final order Judge: doesn't that undermine your argument that the early license renewal process was only about employment discrimination?
FCC: Nothing's happened yet! This is just a regulated entity undergoing a review by its regulator. Nothing except broadcasters changing their speech to avoid Trump's rage and the FCC's retaliation... Judge: what about Trump saying ABC should lose licenses? FCC: The statements are the statements
ABC: "As Maya Angelou said: Believe people when they tell you who they are." Trump has been threatening ABC for a decade. He's escalated those threats this year. Now Carr is acting on them and making very clear attacks on the media.
ABC: FCC's admission that the early renewal proceeding isn't about our licenses is fatal. They don't need that proceeding to investigate our employment practices. So they're admitting that the ERP wasn't necessary Except, of course, to satisfy Trump and punish ABC for its speech.
ABC: The FCC's claims that it initiated the early renewal hearing are obviously pretextual. FCC never told us our responses about employment practices were inadequate. They opened the proceeding immediately the President got angry at ABC because of its speech.
ABC: TRAC, the 1984 case the FCC relies on, only cuts off the jurisdiction of district that courts wouldn't otherwise have. But in Axon, the Supreme Court said courts DO have jurisdiction to address hear-and-now injuries, as here.