Is A New Iron Curtain Inevitable?

Is A New Iron Curtain Inevitable?

Authored by Andrew Korybko,

Russia’s consequent focus on the western front might embolden US-backed NATO member Turkiye to accelerate its power play in the south at the risk of sparking another regional crisis after Ukraine.

Russian Ambassador-at-Large Artyom Bulatov warned in a recent interview that “Westerners, with energy worthy of a better cause, are erecting a new ‘Iron Curtain’, seeking to make irreversible the rupture – provoked by themselves – of socio-economic, trade, transport, interpersonal, cultural, and historical ties that have been built in the region not over years, but over centuries.” He also condemned the weaponization of regional interaction mechanisms like the Council of the Baltic States against Russia.

Truth be told, a new Iron Curtain is inevitable and has been since summer 2024 when the Baltic States and Poland combined their respective border fortification plans along NATO’s Eastern Flank to unveil what they now officially refer to as the “EU Defense Line”, which readers can learn more about here. This initiative will likely be expanded to include Finland too, thus stretching from the Arctic to Central Europe. Even in the event of a Russian-US rapprochement, which is now unlikely, these barriers will still remain.

Russian experts, who operated for so long under the influence of the wishful thinking fantasy that the EU is challenging Russia at its senior US patron’s behest and not due to its own ideologically driven hatred of Russia (contrary to its objective interests), are finally waking up to reality. New President of the Russian International Affairs Council Dmitriy Trenin, who issued an unprecedented clarion call in April for correcting foreign policy misperceptions, published a relevant piece in parallel with Bulatov’s interview.

Titled “The EU, Like ‘NATO 3.0,’ Will Remain Our Adversaries”, it dramatically begins by informing readers that “For the first time since 1945, the most pressing military threat to Russia is coming from Europe—European states themselves. This represents the most significant military-political shift for Russia since the victory in the Great Patriotic War.” The goal, Trenin believes, is “to split the Russian Federation into externally controlled components and turn them into semi-colonies of the European Union.”

This will be pursued through indefinitely perpetuating the NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine together with ramping up sanctions and military pressure for undermining domestic political stability.

He shared five suggestions in response to these threats:

1) strengthen the homefront;

2) demonstrate willingness to strike targets in the EU (and actually do so if need be);

3) strengthen ties with China to the point of a de facto global alliance;

4) exploit US-EU divisions; and

5) and capitalize on political shifts in EU states.

Trenin also reaffirmed Russia’s new self-identity as a (Eurasian) civilization-state, the subtext being that Russians en masse are increasingly viewing themselves as different from Europeans for the first time since Russia’s experiment of emulating the West began three centuries ago. All the insight that he shared in his article pairs with what Bulatov shared in his interview and the “EU Defense Line” that’s under construction to ensure that a new Iron Curtain is inevitable. Russians are also finally accepting this too.

In terms of the bigger picture, three trends are self-evident:

1) the EU will independently continue challenging Russia regardless of however Russian-US relations develop;

2) Russia will continue prioritizing the World Majority over the West; and 3) Russian-EU tensions will become the new normal.

With Russia focusing on the western front as a result, US-backed NATO member Turkiye is expected to accelerate its power play in the south, thus sowing the seeds of another regional crisis after Ukraine.

Tyler Durden
Sun, 05/31/2026 – 09:20

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/sElM7jp Tyler Durden

“It’s All So Tiresome”: UK’s Social Media Ban Trudges Ever Onward

“It’s All So Tiresome”: UK’s Social Media Ban Trudges Ever Onward

Authored by Kit Knightly via Off-Guardian.org,

The UK government’s “consultation” on social media harm is over, and – brace yourselves – it turns out they’re going to have to do something about it.

I know, I was shocked too.

The main talking point is that “social media is like cigarettes”. Everyone is saying that, it’s the meme of the day.

It’s a sentiment originally taken from a new report submitted to the consultation by the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges.

Titled “Growing up in an online world”, it contains this hilarious line in the foreword:

…there is, I think, an overwhelming consensus that excessive screen time can harm children and young people and we need to call this out unflinchingly rather than passively wait for someone else to prove causation”.

Which is a pretty neat summary of how our political system works in general, and certainly in this case: We don’t know if there’s even a problem yet, but by God we’re gonna do something about it.

That the something they end up doing makes them rich and powerful is just one of the curious coincidences tyrants can always rely on.

{Sidenote: This morning the BBC had “Overwhelimg consensus” in their headline on this story, but at some point the absurdity of that quote was realised, and the headline changed. Now there’s this disclaimer near the end: “There is no consensus among the wider scientific community that screen time overall is harmful to children.” Funny stuff.}

Elsewhere, the report wails about “a wave of radicalized children” who pose “a real risk to society”, and calls social media “an incredibly powerful and uncontrolled commercial detriment to health”.

In a similar vein, The Guardian is warning of a “tsunami of harm”, and has assembled an all-star cast of interested parties to talk up the scariness of social media meanness.

After meeting with “bereaved parents” earlier today, Keir Starmer has “vowed to take action”.

His potential rival for the leadership has been even more vocal. Political eunuch and leadership hopeful Wes Streeting is all over this, campaigning hard to be the next disposable suit full of bugger all to “lead the country”:

He thinks a ban should be “just the start”:

Social media should be treated like tobacco – it’s extremely addictive, bad for our health, and big tech is borrowing the big tobacco playbook to avoid regulation. We’ve got to give our children their childhood back […] A ban for under-16s must be the start, not the end […]We have given the pen to tech moguls to write our future for us. It’s time to take the pen back.”

Streeting is an idiot whose ambition outweighs his intellect by a factor of ten, and who clearly doesn’t understand the rules of the game he’s playing.

Some political handler behind the scenes probably told him to go hard on this issue because it will make him look tough and assertive, but the likely truth is he’s being wheeled out as the extreme option so a “sensible middle ground” option – probably Andy Burnham – can enforce “common sense policies”.

What will those policies be? It doesn’t really matter, but we’ll get to that.

Technology Secretary Liz Kendall, notable only for garnering less than 5% of the vote in the 2015 leadership election, is out there promising “action”:

…they haven’t decided what “action” yet, exactly but it’s definitely going to happen.

The Guardian has a handy list to choose from, including but not limited to:

– social media bans
– “digital curfews”
– “function limitations”
– age gating “addictive features”
– protecting children from personalised algorithms
– enforcing screen time limits.

Which one will it be?

Well let me answer that question with another question – Who cares?

The powers that be certainly don’t.

This is very much an “any colour you want so long as it’s black” situation.

Choose an outright ban – “Great, please submit your ID to prove you’re over 16 and exempt from the social media ban.”

Choose screen time limits – “Great, please submit your ID to prove you’re over 16 and exempt from screen time limitations.”

Choose digital curfews – “Great, please submit your ID to prove you’re over 16 and exempt from the digital curfew.”

Since all the proposed measures rely on age verification for enforcement, they all achieve the end goal: No more online anonymity, for kids or adults alike.

Debating the list is pointless, and making a choice counterproductive. It’s like choosing the colour of your electric chair: It makes no difference to the end result, but your entirely cosmetic choice lends tacit approval of the whole process.

We all know where this is going: Age gating everything, everywhere and then – eventually – digital ID.

It’s just…

…and you’re left wondering, who is this even for?

What is the point of this worn-out, unenthusiastic propaganda?

We know what they’re going to do, they have said they’re going to do it, and still they feel the need to play out this performative umming and erring.

Just get on with it.

All the people who don’t believe them will NEVER believe them, and all the poor fools who do believe them will always believe them.

So why carry on this absurd pretense?

It’s like when you’re watching a really dull movie – one that has telegraphed its “clever twist” in the first ten minutes – but is still insisting on dragging out the run time for two more hours of what the writers evidently consider skillful foreshadowing.

Or when you get a call from an unknown number, and some eager breathless voice announces “this is not a sales call”, before launching into a fifteen minute speech about double glazing or solar panels, and you’re just waiting for a pause long enough to say “no thanks”, and hang up.

It is a sales call, and you’ve known that from the beginning, and they know you know, but they can’t stop talking because then you’ll leave. They have to keep talking because they know you’re not listening.

So maybe that’s the answer. Maybe they can’t take a breath because people will hang up.

Tyler Durden
Sun, 05/31/2026 – 08:10

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/kuGYBSR Tyler Durden

More Mystery Drone Incidents In EU Skies As Putin Mocks: “The Russians Are Coming!”

More Mystery Drone Incidents In EU Skies As Putin Mocks: “The Russians Are Coming!”

Flights at Germany’s Munich Airport were once again temporarily suspended on Saturday after a drone sighting was reported, eliciting a response from a large number of police and security services personnel.

Euronews reviews in the wake of the incident, which ended with the key European hub resuming regular operations after no UAV was found or identified, “Munich Airport closed twice within 24 hours in October following suspected drone sightings.”

This is the latest in a months-long spate of similar air traffic disruptions due to mysterious reported drone incursions, with European officials frequently voicing suspicions of a Russian sabotage and disruption campaign of EU airspace.

Getty Images/Bloomberg

But the biggest incident this week happened in Romania, where local officials described that during the Russian military’s assault on Ukraine Thursday night, a Russian drone slammed into the residential building in the southeastern city of Galati – resulting in an explosion and a fire that injured two people.

The Romanian Foreign Affairs Ministry condemned the “grave and irresponsible escalation from Russia” while further declaring it has issued formal request for more anti-drone defense measures from NATO.

“Romania has informed allies and NATO’s secretary-general about the circumstances and requested measures to accelerate the transfer of anti-drone capabilities to Romania,” the ministry said.

While Romania and other countries which border Ukraine have witnessed ‘errant’ drones and missiles come across the border before, this was the first time Romania in particular has suffered casualties as a result of a projectile hitting a densely populated city or area.

President Putin himself has weighed in, demanding that forensic proof that this was indeed a Russian drone – and not a Ukrainian one – be handed over to the Kremlin for an investigation.

He also used the opportunity in Friday remarks to highlight that Russia is always blamed for any and all drone incursions into European airspace due to Russiaphobia. Putin said according to TASS:

Ukrainian drones have previously entered the airspace of various countries, and initial reports consistently claimed it was “a Russian attack,” President Vladimir Putin said in response to a TASS question about the drone incident in Romania.

“We know that Ukrainian drones have flown into Finland, Poland, and several Baltic states. The initial reaction was exactly the same as it is now in Romania. ‘Oh no, the Russians are coming, it’s a Russian attack!'” Putin recalled.

While the Russian leader was being deeply ironic with his ‘the Russians are coming’ comment, it is true that just earlier this month NATO jets were scrambled over Estonia and shot down an errant Ukrainian-origin drone which had drifted into Baltic/EU airspace.

“We apologize to Estonia and all our Baltic friends for such unintended incidents,” a Ukrainian government statement had acknowledged. “We have been and remain in close cooperation through our specialized institutions to get to the heart of the matter in each case and seek ways to prevent them, including through the direct engagement of our expert groups.”

The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry then deflected, calling attention to Russian actions: “Moscow does this on purpose, together with intensified propaganda,” it said.

As for the spate of mystery UAV sightings over Northern and Western Europe, it’s anyone’s guess as to the origins. Some pundits have suggested these are merely irresponsible hobbyists, or else pranksters. However, the reality of projectiles entering neighboring countries as a result of the Ukraine war is much more serious, and a significant threat to these populations.

Tyler Durden
Sun, 05/31/2026 – 07:35

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/eMKyL8J Tyler Durden

Psychic Soldiers, Mind Readers, and Dolphin Drones: The Cold War’s Weird Paranormal History


Against a red background, a soldier with a black beret is seated, with an image of a dolphin behind him, and there are circles emanating from around his face. | Illustration: Midjourney

In the February 2019 issue of Armeiiskii Sbornik, the Russian Ministry of Defense’s official magazine, there is an article titled “Supersoldiers for the Wars of the Future.” The article claims, among other things, that the Soviet and Russian militaries learned to psychically control dolphins, disrupt radio and television broadcasts, and crash computers. 

These psychic experiments began in 1924, when Gleb Bokii, head of the special section of the Soviet secret police, opened a secret laboratory at 21 Kuznetsky Bridge in Moscow. With the help of Alexander Barchenko, his spiritual guru, he conducted top-secret experiments on hypnotism, brainwashing, and mind reading.

These exploits were far from the Special Section’s most eccentric. Bokii hosted wild orgies in a secret dacha in the suburbs of Moscow. Invited guests farmed, sunbathed, cooked, and ate together in the nude before engaging in group sex. Barchenko planned an expedition to Tibet to find the legendary Buddhist Kingdom of Shambhala. He believed that an ancient civilization hiding beneath the Earth’s surface, in Tibet, held advanced scientific knowledge that could be used to accelerate the path to communism. When Soviet Foreign Minister Grigory Chicherin heard about the proposed expedition, he quashed it and greenlit a separate expedition with the more prosaic goal of probing anti-British feeling in Lhasa.

Bokii and Barchenko’s Psychic Experiments Sparked an Arms Race

The Special Section kicked off a century-long paranormal arms race—with surprising legacies that can still be felt today. 

The Russian fascination with exotic spirituality predates the Soviet era. Russian orientalism flourished after the 1858 Treaty of Aigun, which granted the czar lands that formerly belonged to China’s Qing dynasty. Russian explorers and academics ventured into Inner Asia, and further afield into Xinjiang and Tibet. The intelligentsia of St. Petersburg snapped up their travel accounts, ethnographic studies, and spiritual guidebooks. In the imperial capital, Eastern spirituality met European new age trends: hollow-earth theory and meditation, reincarnation and tantric sex, Lamaism and occult science.

Bokii was active in the Ukrainian student circles of late-imperial St. Petersburg, where romantic nationalism and revolutionary socialism flourished underground. It is likely that this is where he first encountered ideas of Eastern spirituality and the occult. Barchenko, also of Ukrainian heritage, was a failed medical student turned provincial mystic and self-proclaimed scientist. Both underground movements—socialism and spiritualism—surfaced with the collapse of the Romanov dynasty and the Bolshevik coup d’état in 1917.

The Russian Revolution was not just a change in government. When the boundaries of the church, the czar, and the empire vanished, the revolutionaries believed they could reconstruct reality itself. Alongside the unprecedented violence, the early Soviet state was a laboratory testing the ideas that had been banned or suppressed in the Russian Empire. Bokii and Barchenko were at the forefront of this revolution. Their antics are described in Andrei Znamenski’s Red Shambhala: Magic, Prophecy, and Geopolitics in the Heart of Asia.

One psychic skill Bokii and Barchenko undoubtedly lacked, however, was the ability to predict the future—neither foresaw that they would be executed by Soviet leader Joseph Stalin during the Great Terror. But their experiments have had a long afterlife, including in the United States.

The CIA Responds With Stargate Project ‘Remote Viewing’ Tests

At some point in the mid-20th century, knowledge of Soviet psychic experiments reached America. In 1950, American journalist and CIA officer Edward Hunter introduced the Chinese term “brainwashing” to English speakers. In articles, a testimony to the House Committee on Un-American Activities (where he strongly implied that the United States should have nuked North Korea), and a book titled Brain-Washing in Red China: The Calculated Destruction of Men’s Minds, he claimed that the Soviet secret police had taught Chinese communists advanced interrogation techniques, which were then used against American prisoners of war in the Korean War.

In 1972, Hal Puthoff, an American electrical engineer with a Ph.D. from Stanford University, began conducting “parapsychological” experiments at the Stanford Research Institute. In Puthoff’s telling, he was approached by the CIA, which told him that the Soviets were conducting similar research, and so the CIA began sponsoring his activities. This became the Stargate Project, a covert research program investigating how psychic phenomena could be used by the United States for military and intelligence purposes—later immortalized in the 2009 film The Men Who Stare at Goats, adapted from the book of the same name by Jon Ronson.

The results of Stargate are contested. In a 2005 interview with GQ, former President Jimmy Carter claimed that a psychic woman from California who worked with the CIA was able to locate a crashed plane—referred to as a Soviet Tupolev Tu-22 bomber in other sources—in an African  jungle. The woman entered a trance and wrote down a series of coordinates, which the Americans used to retrieve the plane. Carter wondered if this was “just a gross coincidence.” On an episode of The Joe Rogan Experience, Puthoff claimed that a CIA “remote viewer” reported the existence of the Soviet Typhoon-class submarine before it was public knowledge. Remote viewers were also said to have been involved in an attempt to use psychic powers during the Iran hostage crisis.

But are any of these stories true? A 1983 Defense Intelligence Agency report concluded that data from the Stargate Project was “highly variable” and “mixed with much extraneous or inaccurate information.” These concerns led to Project Grill Flame, an attempt to establish the reality and repeatability of the remote viewing phenomenon, assess its potential military and intelligence applications, investigate the psychic capabilities of adversaries, and develop countermeasures.

Grill Flame concluded that “remote viewing is a real phenomenon” and “a potential threat to US national security exists from foreign achievements in psychoenergetics.” Project documents also alleged that, in the Soviet Union, “this research is well funded and receives high-level government backing.” 

Russia Claims Soldiers Learned To Read Minds

Unfortunately, few documents from the Soviet side of the psychic Cold War have seen the light of day—but a handful of stories indicating their existence have emerged.

In a 2015 interview in Kommersant, Nikolai Patrushev, then secretary of the Russian Security Council, claimed former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright thought that Siberia and the Far East did not belong to Russia and that Americans were jealous of Russia’s resource wealth. Albright never publicly said anything along these lines. Patrushev’s “source” turned out to be a KGB-trained psychic named Georgy Rogozin who, armed with nothing but a photograph of Albright, penetrated her mind and read her thoughts. It just so happened that at that precise moment, she was thinking about carving up Russia. 

Rogozin was the deputy of Alexander Korzhakov, head of the Presidential Security Service, and advised him on all matters parapsychological. Reincarnations of Bokii and Barchenko, perhaps?

The aforementioned Russian Ministry of Defense magazine claims that Russian soldiers have learned to read documents locked in safes (regardless of what languages they were in), psychically identify terrorists, and go days without eating, drinking, or sleeping. Some of these abilities were ostensibly deployed during the Chechen Wars in the 1990s. One of these abilities was, of course, mind reading.

What Drives America’s and Russia’s Interest in Paranormal Research?

What are we to make of all this? Just as the Soviet interest in psychic espionage came after the overthrow of the czar, modern Russian interest in paranormal warfare was an aftershock of the collapse of communism. Joseph Kellner’s The Spirit of Socialism: Culture and Belief at the Soviet Collapse details a rise in mysticism and new age religious movements in Russia in the 1980s and 1990s, like those of the early 20th century. The fall of empires gives birth to all kinds of bizarre belief systems. 

The American interest in psychic research seems to be a case of superpower paranoia. The dawn of the Cold War in America was accompanied by Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s (R–Wis.) panic about Soviet spies, in which Hunter took part. A decade later, paranoia about Soviet moles drove former CIA counterintelligence chief James Jesus Angleton to repeatedly purge the agency. The United States conducted military interventions in search of communists all over the world—perhaps most destructively in Vietnam. And the CIA consistently overestimated Soviet capabilities, notably failing to foresee the Soviet collapse. Of course, the Soviet Union had its own paranoid overreactions: there was the omnipresent police state, the harebrained intervention in Korea, the invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia (punctuated by the Cuban Missile Crisis), a U.S.-averted scheme to nuke China in 1969, and Afghanistan. Amid all this, was funding psychic research really so crazy?

The post Psychic Soldiers, Mind Readers, and Dolphin Drones: The Cold War's Weird Paranormal History appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/JVdejtw
via IFTTT

The FCC Wants Warning Labels for Shows With ‘Transgender’ Content


An old TV set with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) logo and rainbow stripes on the screen. | Illustration: Midjourney/Federal Communications Commission

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is considering new content ratings for TV shows that depict or discuss gender identity. Doing so would be well outside the FCC’s legal authority, and some free speech organizations warn that such a request could constitute a violation of the First Amendment.

At the direction of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, broadcasters developed content ratings for TV shows, patterned after the ones for movies. The TV ratings span TV-Y (appropriate for all children) to TV-MA (mature audiences only), plus more specific content labels for suggestive dialogue, bad language, sexual content, and violence. They also established the TV Parental Guidelines Oversight Monitoring Board (TVOMB) to administer the new ratings.

The government now suggests those warnings are no longer sufficient.

“Recently, parents have raised concerns that controversial gender identity issues are being included or promoted in children’s programs without providing any disclosure or transparency to parents,” per a public notice the FCC filed in April. “Specifically, the industry guidelines that parents rely on are rating shows with transgender and gender non-binary programming as appropriate for children and young children, and doing so without providing this information to parents, thereby undermining the ability of parents to make informed choices for their families.”

As a result, it continued, “We seek comment here on any changes that can or should be made to the current ratings system to ensure that it is responsive to the issues that parents confront today.”

There are several problems with the memo—starting with the fact that the FCC lacks the authority to create or require new content labels.

The 1996 law did call for the government to create a “television rating code” and an “advisory committee,” unless the private sector “established voluntary rules” to do so within a year of the law’s passage. As the FCC acknowledged in its April memo, “Industry representatives chose to set up their own voluntary system, and the Commission in 1998 found that industry’s approach met the relevant statutory criteria.”

Even setting that aside for the moment, the memo’s phrasing also suggests any “transgender [or] gender non-binary” content is potentially inappropriate for children—after all, why else would it matter if parents were sufficiently warned about it?

This broad scope has First Amendment implications. “If what the Commission is in substance proposing is that any program featuring or discussing transgender and gender non-binary persons be flagged with a content warning, that is the stigmatization and marginalization of an entire segment of the population through the machinery of the ratings system, and it is the kind of viewpoint targeting forbidden by the First Amendment,” according to comments filed to the FCC by The Future of Free Speech, a nonpartisan think at Vanderbilt University.

“The FCC’s notice is so vague that it is impossible to determine what programming would actually trigger the kind of labeling the agency appears to be contemplating,” adds Ashkhen Kazaryan, a senior legal fellow at The Future of Free Speech who wrote the comments filed to the FCC. “That lack of clarity is itself a serious First Amendment problem because it invites arbitrary enforcement and political pressure around protected expression.”

“The agency’s fishing expedition here clearly sets out to eliminate or discourage specific content, invoking incurable First Amendment concerns,” advocacy group Free Press agreed in its FCC filing. “By inviting comment from the public over programming that purportedly ‘include[s] or promote[s] […] controversial gender identity issues,’ the FCC insinuates that such programming may be obscene, indecent, or profane material. This is a misguided and false attempt to wedge alleged parental concerns into these limited categories that the agency can regulate to some small degree.”

Supporters say there is no First Amendment violation because the proposal would not dictate a show’s content; it would simply label it. “Gender ideology programming could still be broadcast without restrictions. It would just carry a label that would allow parents to spot it at a glance and filter it out of their homes,” Angela Morabito wrote at the Washington Examiner. “The FCC’s proposal would simply give parents more information to make choices about what is best for their children. Anyone who wants to rob parents of that opportunity does not have children’s best interests at heart.”

“Labeling is a form of compelled speech, which the government has extremely limited ability to mandate,” retorts the nonpartisan think tank TechFreedom in FCC comments of its own. “Even if the Commission never prescribes its own rating guidelines, this inquiry will chill speech about politically controversial topics around gender identity. Warning parents that ‘gender identity themes’ might be present in children’s programming implicitly suggests that the Commission considers some gender expressions inappropriate for children.”

Restrictionist complaints like the FCC’s are nothing new.

“To the detriment of children, gender dysphoria has become sensationalized in the popular media and television with radical activists and entertainment companies,” according to a 2022 letter from five Republican senators to the TVOMB. “In light of parents raising legitimate concerns on sexual orientation and gender identity content on children’s TV shows, we expect the Board to fulfill its responsibility in updating the TV Parental Guidelines to reflect these concerns.”

In the late 1990s, with gay characters on primetime shows like Ellen and Will & Grace, some social conservatives called for warning labels for “homosexual content.”

And conservatives aren’t the only ones who have clutched their pearls over the things on television: In 1997, then-Sen. John Kerry (D–Mass.) suggested a “pre-see,” in which TV scripts were “printed in the papers” for parents to screen the content ahead of time. (Talk about a spoiler alert!)

But apart from the First Amendment implications and the proper scope of FCC authority, adding labels for gender-related content is just off-loading part of parenting to someone else.

Though the FCC gave no specific examples, there are certainly parents who would prefer their kids never see any “transgender and gender non-binary programming.” But that should not be the government’s purview. After all, the government can’t forewarn parents that they’ll encounter a nonbinary person at the grocery store or the post office—why should it warn them about one on TV?

The post The FCC Wants Warning Labels for Shows With 'Transgender' Content appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/ZXjom7F
via IFTTT

The FCC Wants Warning Labels for Shows With ‘Transgender’ Content


An old TV set with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) logo and rainbow stripes on the screen. | Illustration: Midjourney/Federal Communications Commission

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is considering new content ratings for TV shows that depict or discuss gender identity. Doing so would be well outside the FCC’s legal authority, and some free speech organizations warn that such a request could constitute a violation of the First Amendment.

At the direction of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, broadcasters developed content ratings for TV shows, patterned after the ones for movies. The TV ratings span TV-Y (appropriate for all children) to TV-MA (mature audiences only), plus more specific content labels for suggestive dialogue, bad language, sexual content, and violence. They also established the TV Parental Guidelines Oversight Monitoring Board (TVOMB) to administer the new ratings.

The government now suggests those warnings are no longer sufficient.

“Recently, parents have raised concerns that controversial gender identity issues are being included or promoted in children’s programs without providing any disclosure or transparency to parents,” per a public notice the FCC filed in April. “Specifically, the industry guidelines that parents rely on are rating shows with transgender and gender non-binary programming as appropriate for children and young children, and doing so without providing this information to parents, thereby undermining the ability of parents to make informed choices for their families.”

As a result, it continued, “We seek comment here on any changes that can or should be made to the current ratings system to ensure that it is responsive to the issues that parents confront today.”

There are several problems with the memo—starting with the fact that the FCC lacks the authority to create or require new content labels.

The 1996 law did call for the government to create a “television rating code” and an “advisory committee,” unless the private sector “established voluntary rules” to do so within a year of the law’s passage. As the FCC acknowledged in its April memo, “Industry representatives chose to set up their own voluntary system, and the Commission in 1998 found that industry’s approach met the relevant statutory criteria.”

Even setting that aside for the moment, the memo’s phrasing also suggests any “transgender [or] gender non-binary” content is potentially inappropriate for children—after all, why else would it matter if parents were sufficiently warned about it?

This broad scope has First Amendment implications. “If what the Commission is in substance proposing is that any program featuring or discussing transgender and gender non-binary persons be flagged with a content warning, that is the stigmatization and marginalization of an entire segment of the population through the machinery of the ratings system, and it is the kind of viewpoint targeting forbidden by the First Amendment,” according to comments filed to the FCC by The Future of Free Speech, a nonpartisan think at Vanderbilt University.

“The FCC’s notice is so vague that it is impossible to determine what programming would actually trigger the kind of labeling the agency appears to be contemplating,” adds Ashkhen Kazaryan, a senior legal fellow at The Future of Free Speech who wrote the comments filed to the FCC. “That lack of clarity is itself a serious First Amendment problem because it invites arbitrary enforcement and political pressure around protected expression.”

“The agency’s fishing expedition here clearly sets out to eliminate or discourage specific content, invoking incurable First Amendment concerns,” advocacy group Free Press agreed in its FCC filing. “By inviting comment from the public over programming that purportedly ‘include[s] or promote[s] […] controversial gender identity issues,’ the FCC insinuates that such programming may be obscene, indecent, or profane material. This is a misguided and false attempt to wedge alleged parental concerns into these limited categories that the agency can regulate to some small degree.”

Supporters say there is no First Amendment violation because the proposal would not dictate a show’s content; it would simply label it. “Gender ideology programming could still be broadcast without restrictions. It would just carry a label that would allow parents to spot it at a glance and filter it out of their homes,” Angela Morabito wrote at the Washington Examiner. “The FCC’s proposal would simply give parents more information to make choices about what is best for their children. Anyone who wants to rob parents of that opportunity does not have children’s best interests at heart.”

“Labeling is a form of compelled speech, which the government has extremely limited ability to mandate,” retorts the nonpartisan think tank TechFreedom in FCC comments of its own. “Even if the Commission never prescribes its own rating guidelines, this inquiry will chill speech about politically controversial topics around gender identity. Warning parents that ‘gender identity themes’ might be present in children’s programming implicitly suggests that the Commission considers some gender expressions inappropriate for children.”

Restrictionist complaints like the FCC’s are nothing new.

“To the detriment of children, gender dysphoria has become sensationalized in the popular media and television with radical activists and entertainment companies,” according to a 2022 letter from five Republican senators to the TVOMB. “In light of parents raising legitimate concerns on sexual orientation and gender identity content on children’s TV shows, we expect the Board to fulfill its responsibility in updating the TV Parental Guidelines to reflect these concerns.”

In the late 1990s, with gay characters on primetime shows like Ellen and Will & Grace, some social conservatives called for warning labels for “homosexual content.”

And conservatives aren’t the only ones who have clutched their pearls over the things on television: In 1997, then-Sen. John Kerry (D–Mass.) suggested a “pre-see,” in which TV scripts were “printed in the papers” for parents to screen the content ahead of time. (Talk about a spoiler alert!)

But apart from the First Amendment implications and the proper scope of FCC authority, adding labels for gender-related content is just off-loading part of parenting to someone else.

Though the FCC gave no specific examples, there are certainly parents who would prefer their kids never see any “transgender and gender non-binary programming.” But that should not be the government’s purview. After all, the government can’t forewarn parents that they’ll encounter a nonbinary person at the grocery store or the post office—why should it warn them about one on TV?

The post The FCC Wants Warning Labels for Shows With 'Transgender' Content appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/ZXjom7F
via IFTTT