By B.N. Frank
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is supposed protect the public by regulating the Telecom Industry. It is NOT a health or environmental agency even though its decisions affect public health and the environment. Unfortunately, employees have a long history of not protecting the public and the “Race for 5G” has made this more dangerous (see 1, 2, 3, 4). The Telecom Industry has provided NO scientific evidence that 5G is safe. Many experts say it isn’t (see 1, 2, 3) and for a variety of reasons.
Businesses, communities, and organizations have filed lawsuits against the FCC because of forced 4G and 5G small cell installation (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). There have been lawsuits filed against the FCC for other unscrupulous actions as well. Thanks to Scientists 4 Wired Tech for highlighting the FCC’s court losing streak:
FCC repeal of media ownership limits ignored impact on women and minorities.
By Jon Brodkin, Sept 24, 2019 | Original Ars Technica article here.
Federal judges yesterday issued a stinging rebuke to the Federal Communications Commission, saying the agency’s justification for eliminating media-ownership limits “would receive a failing grade in any introductory statistics class.”
The FCC’s 2017 decision to eliminate newspaper/broadcast and television/radio cross-ownership rules could allow more media mergers. But the FCC order was vacated in a 2-1 vote by a panel of judges at the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Judges wrote that the FCC “did not adequately consider the effect its sweeping rule changes will have on ownership of broadcast media by women and racial minorities.”
Ajit Pai submits plan to allow more media consolidation
The FCC’s 2017 order had to consider instructions from previous Third Circuit decisions that went against the commission. But the FCC did not comply with the court’s instructions, the judges’ ruling said.
» Lees verder
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been charged under seal by the Trump administration. This has been revealed by a purportedly accidental copy-paste error in an unrelated court document which used Assange’s name, interestingly not long after it was reported to the Wall Street Journal that federal prosecutors “have considered publicly indicting Mr. Assange to try to trigger his removal from the embassy because a detailed explanation of the evidence could give Ecuadorean authorities reason to turn Assange over.”
Insider sources have reportedly confirmed to the Washington Post that Assange has been charged. Because those charges are sealed, it’s impossible to know what they are or how they’re being justified. If you ask #Resistance Twitter, it’s because it’s #MuellerTime and Assange is about to be arrested under some mysterious charges involving WikiLeaks’ publication of non-government, non-classified emails in 2016. If you ask QAnon cultists, it’s because Donald Trump is planning to extradite Assange so as to rescue him and deal a fatal blow to the Deep State. If you ask people who actually know what they’re talking about, however, it’s most likely for WikiLeaks’ Afghanistan and Iraq war logs and/or last year’s CIA leak publications, and most likely using the Espionage Act. This would constitute a deadly blow to press freedoms, and arguably a greater leap in the direction of Orwellian dystopia than the Patriot Act.
It also proves once again that Julian Assange was completely right.
I’ve had so, so many arguments with people this year about Assange’s publicly stated rationale for remaining in the Ecuadorian embassy, where he was granted political asylum by Ecuador’s previous government on the basis that the US was seeking his extradition. The refrain that he can “leave whenever he wants” is extremely common, with Assange’s detractors insisting that he’d never be arrested and extradited to the United States, and that he is instead hiding from (non-existent) Swedish rape charges. The narrative that Assange couldn’t possibly be hiding from the same government which tortured Chelsea Manning has been aggressively promulgated by mainstream outlets like the The Guardian, as in this article by James Ball from earlier this year titled “The only barrier to Julian Assange leaving Ecuador’s embassy is pride”,
» Lees verder