Cristian Farias:
Welcome to the Bully’s Pulpit: Trump vs. The First Amendment. This week, the news out of Los Angeles is one big First Amendment story about the freedom to protest, about the right to organize and to seek work, about the rights of immigrants and their advocates to speak out and the right of the press to cover hugely important events without fear that they’ll get tear-gassed or shot at by the police or detained by the National Guard or the US Marines. More about all of that in our news roundup. Today’s show will focus on the government-wielding power to go after news organizations and one agency that’s at the forefront of that in Trump’s Washington is the FCC. The Federal Communications Commission.
Anna Gomez:
Subjecting the FCC to political control will only further diminish our standing as a stable, independent, and expert-driven regulatory body. It also is problematic when you have an administration like this one, which is weaponizing our agency in order to punish critics.
Cristian Farias:
I’m a nerd and I’m excited to learn more about what the FCC does and why its work is related to the First Amendment and our democracy. But before we do, let’s recap what’s going on in Los Angeles and the rest of the nation. First up is Mahmoud Khalil. At long last, the federal judge overseeing his case did what many of us have been begging for him to do for a while. To rule that he must be released. And so he opened the door to Khalil’s freedom, which could occur any minute now pending any appeal by the government. Judge Michael Farbiarz wrote that Khalil’s career and reputation are being damaged and his speech is being chilled, and this adds up to irreparable harm. And Yunseo Chung, the Columbia University student and permanent resident the State Department targeted at the same time as Khalil won a key ruling preventing the government from detaining and deporting her under the same law the government used to detain Khalil. Chung has been in hiding, afraid that ICE will come to her door and abduct her. This country is all she knows. She came here with her parents when she was seven years old. The judge in her case, warned the government, if you try to deport her again using other justifications, you must let the court know. That way the judge can determine if the move is a “pretext for First Amendment Retaliation.”
To repeat what I said on our first episode, the students are winning. Speaking of retaliation, the Knight Institute, the engine behind this show, won an order from a case challenging the government’s policy of arresting, detaining and deporting non-citizen students and faculty for participating in pro-Palestinian protests. Remember the case name. American Association of University Professors vs. Marco Rubio. This case is scheduled for trial in July and in preparation for that, a judge in Boston ordered that the government cannot retaliate against any non-citizen witnesses who testify in the case. That’s really big. This is a case to watch.
On almost every episode we have news about Harvard and that’s because Trump’s pylon against it is all coordinated and systematic. But in its big lawsuit pushing back against the government, the university got a big boost. A slew of friends of the court submitted briefs supporting the Ivy League. State attorneys, general colleges, advocacy groups, first amendment organizations, and others who are troubled by the administration’s campaign to destroy the university. And last but certainly not least, Los Angeles, the second most populated city in the US erupted over the weekend and protests continued all through this week. Thanks to Stephen Miller, the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump’s top deputy on immigration more or less demanded that ICE ramp things up, deport war people faster, and they did bringing the border to the heart of the sprawling city of LA raiding work sites of all kinds, Home Depots, car washes, hotels, fast fashion warehouses, the kinds of places where immigrant communities work, find, work, and provide for their families. Amid the protests which have been largely peaceful, members of the press have been injured whenever things have gotten tense. In a letter press freedom advocates told Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem that federal officers appear to have deliberately targeted journalists who were doing nothing more than their job covering the news.
Trump is exploiting the LA protests to shape the narrative, to drive news coverage and alter people’s sense of reality. His administration wants you to be hyper-focused on the pockets of violence or on people waving Mexican flags because he wants you to believe we’re being invaded. That Los Angeles needs to be liberated. But that’s not at all what’s happening, not even a little bit. There’s one agency in Washington that plays a key role over our airwaves, what we hear on the radio and watch on TV. That agency is the Federal Communications Commission. By law, it’s independent from the White House, but in Trump’s Washington, things have changed. It’s become Trumpier.
To learn more about the FCC and to set the stage for our main guest today I’m going to bring in Katie Fallow, Deputy Litigation Director at The Knight Institute. She’s someone who thinks a lot about the role of the press in our society. She was actually a lawyer at a different independent agency in Washington at one point, and I’m pretty sure that experience informs the way she thinks about today’s FCC. Katie, welcome to the show.
Katie Fallow:
Thanks, Cristian. Great to be here.
Cristian Farias:
Katie, before becoming a First Amendment lawyer, you were a lawyer for an independent agency. I also hear that you may have had some other connections along the way to the FCC. Tell me about that background.
Katie Fallow:
Yeah. So before I started the Night Institute, I was the deputy director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission, which is-
Cristian Farias:
That’s the FTC.
Katie Fallow:
Correct. Correct. Which was quite often confused with the FCC. And to double the confusion my husband at the time was also working at the FCC, so we had some friendly inter-family competition between the two agencies.
Cristian Farias:
Interesting dinner conversations, I’m sure.
Katie Fallow:
Exactly.
Cristian Farias:
Now, tell me a little bit more about your work at the FTC. I know today shows about the FCC, but as an independent agency, I imagine the lawyers there weren’t getting orders from the White House on how to do things or conduct investigations.
Katie Fallow:
Correct. It was an independent agency and it was overseen by a board of five commissioners, and generally like the FCC, the majority, the three of the five commissioners would be in the same party as the president. But there was a real sense of independence in the agency that the actions approved by the agency would be determined by both the work of the people working, the staff, but also by vote of the five commissioners. And I was the deputy director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection. We were responsible for investigating complaints about unfair advertising and unfair business practices.
Cristian Farias:
Now, you mentioned antitrust. I imagine some people get confused that the FTC or the FCC perhaps have overlapping jurisdiction on things. I imagine sometimes people get confused about what agency does what, right?
Katie Fallow:
Yeah. Broadly speaking, the FCC, its jurisdiction is over the telecommunications industry, which includes telephone, satellite, broadcast television, radio, and cable.
Cristian Farias:
I remember covering the big net neutrality decision by the FCC in 2015, and I got this angry email from an advocacy group that the headline called the decision by the Obama FCC. And in a way, the emailer was right. That’s not how we should think about these independent agencies. I’m curious if you ever get the impression that people think of these agencies as if they’re under the thumb of the president.
Katie Fallow:
In general, historically, these agencies have been pretty independent, and I certainly think that the commissioners see themselves in that way, the agency staff sees themselves in that way, and at least I’ve read anecdotes of maybe Obama saying I’ll never call the chair of the FCC directly because there was a real institutional norm that the president shouldn’t directly interfere or direct the actions of any of these independent agencies. Now, certainly in the real politics of DC I’m sure that pressure sometimes was put to bear maybe on an informal basis, but I think in general, really they were seen as that they should make their decisions independently from the White House.
Cristian Farias:
Now in 2025, a decade later, all of that has changed. The FCC chaired by Trump appointee, Brendan Carr can be fairly described as “Trump’s FCC,” or at least the Trumpian FCC. Can you tell me, Katie, a little bit about what Brendan Carr has been doing?
Katie Fallow:
Yeah. So Brendan Carr started working for the FCC I think in 2014. He eventually was appointed as a commissioner, and then Trump appointed him as the chair of the FCC and announced the appointment in November of 2024. And before he became chairman, Chairman Carr worked on one of the chapters for Project 2025, and he really focused in terms of their priorities for the FCC on both fighting against censorship or bias against conservatives by big tech companies also focusing on taking down big tech because that had been part of the rallying cry of the first Trump administration and various conservative officials and activists and less focused on the traditional interests of the chairman of the FCC over the past 10 or 20 years, which has often been about expanding broadband access or making sure that telecommunications are made available on a fair and equal basis to people. But he really focused on censorship. He was really focused on TikTok and foreign ownership of TikTok and on section 230 reform, since he’s become chairman, I think the most news that Carr has gotten has been about his use of certain FCC procedures and doctrines to target broadcasters and the media for the content of their broadcasts. And that seems like a real departure from previous chairmans and the work of the FCC in the past few decades.
Cristian Farias:
He seems to be on this mission and part of this mission that Chairman Carr appears to be on is “news distortion” or bias in the way news is presented. Now, news distortion is under the FCC’s jurisdiction. Can you tell me a little bit what the law behind this is and how do you square that law with these investigations that Chairman Carr is on?
Katie Fallow:
Yeah. Absolutely. So I just want to give just a little background about the constitutional status of meaning from a First Amendment perspective of what the FCC can do with respect to broadcasters. So that’s news or other programs delivered over the airwaves, broadcast airwaves as opposed to via cable or satellite or streaming services, for example. And so basically the Supreme Court has held that the FCC has greater leeway over the content of the stuff that is broadcast by television and radio owners more than would be allowed to the government if you were just talking about newspapers or movies or books. And the rationale has been that there is a scarcity of airwaves, and this goes back to the birth of radio and television. And in the ’30s and ’40s when the government got involved in allocating who could have which licenses for a particular part of the radio spectrum, and what the idea was is that the government needs to make sure that these airwaves are not distorted, and so it’s going to hand out these licenses.
And the Supreme Court held that in that circumstance, the government could require that the licensees comply with certain rules about what content they produce and what things they air because it was seen as a public trust. And so the News distortion doctrine exists in the light of that paradigm where typically the government would not be allowed to say, “Oh, you aired this news program and you said something false.” The government could not penalize that. Someone could maybe sue them for defamation, but the government couldn’t directly regulate that except the FCC can do that under this theory of the licensees broadcasting and the public interest. So the news distortion doctrine basically prohibits broadcast stations from deliberately falsifying or distorting news reports. It’s been in existence for a long time. It basically allows for anyone to file a complaint to say, “Oh, this particular broadcaster put on a show and it distorted the news.” And a classic idea would be to say, “Oh, they quoted me as saying yes, but I said no.”
Cristian Farias:
And it’s interesting now, one of these complaints, the one against CBS News in 60 minutes over a supposedly distorted interview with Vice President Kamala Harris in the lead up to the election now is on his lap. He’s looking into it. It had already been dismissed, but this investigation now is almost hanging over the entire agency and over this pending deal between Skydance and Paramount, which is the parent company of CBS. Now, the FCC has a lot of power over these mergers and acquisitions, but in his personal capacity before the election, Donald Trump actually filed a frivolous lawsuit against CBS News over the way 60 Minutes edited this interview and that it was unfair to him, that it was biased. He’s demanding an insane amount of money. It’s public knowledge by now that Paramount wants to settle this lawsuit with Trump. In order to pave the way for Trump’s FCC to green light this pending deal. Naturally journalists at CBS News in 60 Minutes are disgusted by all of this. I heard an interview with Lesley Stahl the other day where she was completely dismayed about this turn of events. I’m also disgusted by it. I imagine that as a First Amendment lawyer, you’re also disgusted by everything that’s happening. What do you make of all of this?
Katie Fallow:
Yeah. I think it is really disturbing because I think everything surrounding this 60 Minutes airing of its interview with Kamala Harris shows Trump and members of his administration using their regulatory power or the power of the courts to try and stifle criticism of Trump or to change news coverage in a way that the president and his allies favor. And that is extremely dangerous. So first you get that Trump’s complaint against CBS, which as you mentioned has been deemed frivolous by almost any First Amendment lawyer that’s looked at the complaint. Then you get the Center for American Rights. This conservative law firm filing a news distortion complaint in the FCC in October of 2024, which the then Democratic chairwoman, Jessica Rosenworcel dismissed along with some other complaints against other broadcasters, including Fox saying that all of these complaints would impermissibly involve the FCC in an evaluation of the content of these programs. And that from a First Amendment perspective, that’s extremely dangerous.
But then when Carr became chairman, he reinstituted three of these investigations, notably not the one against Fox, but including this news distortion claim against CBS. So it does seem like it is really just being used as leverage, and as you’ve mentioned, there is this pending merger and as part of the merger, the FCC needs to approve the transfer of the licenses of some of the CBS stations. And so that’s why this News distortion investigation is being used as a way to say maybe they won’t approve the transfer of the licenses because of this frivolous complaint about this 60 Minutes program, which is just classic government trying to use its power to bully people into not speaking the way that they don’t want them to.
Cristian Farias:
Now obviously the idea of a government agency going after the press is troubling in and of itself. And just last year the Supreme Court decided this case called NRA V. Vullo, a very important First Amendment case where the justices unanimously ruled for the NRA and against the state of New York. Can you explain a little bit how that case is relevant to the FCC and what Brendan Carr is doing?
Katie Fallow:
Yeah. In the Vullo case, a New York insurance commissioner had told some insurers not to insure the NRA and essentially because of the NRA’s involvement in or contribution to gun violence in the commissioner’s view. And the NRA challenged it as an instance where the government was using its regulatory powers to essentially do indirectly what it could not do directly, meaning it couldn’t directly censor the NRA’s speech advocating for gun rights or against gun regulations, but it could do it indirectly by telling these insurers not to do business with the NRA. And the Supreme Court said, although the government and government officials are allowed to use persuasion in their own speech to say we don’t like what the NRA is saying, it cannot use coercion to essentially pressure speakers into not engaging in speech that they don’t like. And you have to decide the line between persuasion and coercion.
But I think it directly applies here where you have what most people acknowledge are really frivolous complaints about the airing of one of Harris’s answer as a coercive threat to CBS or to its parent company to say, “We’re going to hold up your business deal unless you change the kind of content you put out there and unless you apologize and essentially acknowledge wrongdoing in the airing of this Harris interview,” which if they didn’t have that pressure, they certainly would never do.
Cristian Farias:
Totally. You shouldn’t use regulatory power to go after news organizations. Katie Fallow, deputy litigation director at the Knight Institute, thank you so much for coming on the Bully’s Pulpit.
Katie Fallow:
Thanks, Cristian.
Cristian Farias:
And now for the main guest on this week’s episode, we have a public official with us, a first for our show. Her name’s Anna Gomez. She’s a senate confirmed member of the Federal Communications Commission. She’s in the middle of what she calls a First Amendment tour and this conversation is another stop on this tour. So we’re honored. She’ll tell us all about it and much more. Commissioner Gomez, thank you for joining us.
Anna Gomez:
Thank you, Cristian. It’s great to be here.
Cristian Farias:
Since you work in Washington and you work for a high power agency, I’m curious what made you want to go to law school and what was your journey to the FCC?
Anna Gomez:
Oh, that’s a very good question. My decision to go to law school started at a very young age. I had a mother who was a southerner, and she used to say to me, Anna Marie, the way you argue you should be a lawyer. And I really took that to heart and my path was decided from the very beginning as a child, and that’s what I did. I came to Washington DC to be a lawyer. Now for the FCC in law school I took communications law classes and I really loved them. And in particular, I had a professor who would come and he taught a very late class. It was a night class. And he was a partner at a law firm, and he was so enthusiastic. He would wave his arms around and just talk about communications law with such passion. And I’m exhausted because I’m a law student. I’m also working during the day, and I thought to myself, “I want to do what this guy’s doing.”
So I applied to law firms that had communications practices and I got hired by one, and they right away put me on cigarette litigation. And so I thought, okay, this is what I’m going to be doing is litigation. But luckily for me, I had a partner at the firm who got to know me and she went to the FCC and she called me up and invited me to come join her, and I did. And that was 31 years ago, and I’ve been doing communications law ever since. But I retired for six and a half glorious months when I got a call asking if I was interested in working at the State Department to head the US delegation to the World Radio Communication Conference, and then I got invited to be considered to be a commissioner. Now I’m an FCC commissioner.
Cristian Farias:
That’s an incredible path. If you could tell just the average person on the street what the FCC does and why it’s so important to their lives, what would you tell them?
Anna Gomez:
The FCC, the Federal Communications Commission, is the country’s regulator of the orbital slots for satellite companies for broadband connectivity, licenses for broadcasters like television and radio. And the FCC also makes sure that it protects consumers from anti-competitive or anti-consumer practices. So the FCC is involved in just about every communications product you can imagine except ... And this is an important exception, the FCC does not regulate the internet or the content in the internet.
Cristian Farias:
Is that because the internet exists in its own world or it’s perhaps not subject to a particular agency that has jurisdiction over it?
Anna Gomez:
There’s a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that the Communications Act actually does not really talk a lot about the internet. There’s only a few provisions. Instead, what it did was it charged us with ensuring that consumers have access to communications. So what we do is we make sure that the consumers have access to the technology that gets you to the internet. When Congress considered the establishment of a federal radio commission in the late 1920s, it considered the possibility of vesting power in the Secretary of Commerce alone, but it struck down that idea. So Congress concluded that a multi-member commission was the best choice. So the FCC was designed to be an independent expert agency led by a multi-member multi-party commission.
Cristian Farias:
And can you expand a little bit on the reality that multi-member commissions are a thing, but in Trump’s Washington, it seems like that’s not the case anymore. If you’re a Democrat, it seems like that’s not good, and sometimes you’re shown the door. Why should we not think as that being a problem?
Anna Gomez:
Yeah. The reason that it’s important to have an independent commission like the Federal Communications Commission is because it is important that it be kept separate from political whims of a particular administration. Congress created these independent agencies and they are subject to the oversight of Congress, and they are subject to the law and the Constitution. Subjecting the FCC to political control will only further diminish our standing as a stable, independent, and expert driven regulatory body. It also is problematic when you have an administration like this one, which is weaponizing our agency in order to punish critics or to take action against companies that, for example, have diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. That is not appropriate under our framework or under the Constitution.
Cristian Farias:
On a personal level, what is it like to be a leader in an independent agency and a woman of color at that in Trump’s Washington?
Anna Gomez:
Well, I would start by saying that I’m still here, but it hasn’t been particularly easy to be a woman and a person of color in Trump’s Washington. The very first action that this agency took involved dismantling the agency’s process to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion. Since then, we’ve seen repeated attacks against these principles of fairness, and that to me has been heartbreaking. I’ve also been a strong champion of multilingual access to communication services and alerts. However, this administration has made it harder for people to get the information they need, particularly in times of crisis. The FCC has delayed implementation of multilingual alerts, templates that could be used to save lives. So it’s disheartening to see this attack on diversity, equity, and inclusion. I’ve also faced some pressure from my own colleagues to stop communicating to consumers in Spanish as a result of a recent executive order declaring English as the national language. The government is silencing dissenting voices, and that’s a sign of weakness, not a sign of strength.
Cristian Farias:
Thank you for that. And I’m going to put some names out there because it’s important. Besides Anna Gomez at the Federal Communications Commission, there’s Gwynne Wilcox at the National Labor Relations Board, there’s Alvaro Bedoya at the Federal Trade Commission. There’s Cathy Harris at the Merit System Protection Board. It seems like if you’re a woman, black or brown or a Democrat or all three, sometimes you’re on the chopping block, and that goes against the congressional design for these agencies. Where it gets a little tricky, and we saw this a couple of weeks ago with the Supreme Court, is that the justices, or at least a majority of them is acquiescing in some of these dismissals. And I imagine that raises the stakes for your own ability to speak out.
Anna Gomez:
Yeah. Watching the dismantling of these federal agencies has been difficult, and in particular, seeing what I would consider to be illegal firings of commissioners at independent agencies is problematic to say the least. A bipartisan majority in Congress confirmed these members and commissioners to serve as commissioners just as a bipartisan majority in Congress confirmed me to serve as a commissioner for my term. If I’m removed from my seat on the commission, I would say plainly, it wasn’t because I failed to do my job, it’s because I insisted on doing it.
Cristian Farias:
Now, tell me about this First Amendment tour that you’re on. Why was it necessary for you to start it and what are you hoping to accomplish?
Anna Gomez:
Back in April, I launched my first Amendment tour to fight back against this administration’s ongoing campaign of censorship and control. The First Amendment has protected our fundamental right to speak freely and to hold power to accounts. It is foundational to our democracy and yet today the greatest threat to that freedom is coming from our own government. This administration has been on a campaign to censor and control since day one. And since then, the FCC has been implementing the will of the administration and undermining the First Amendment at every turn. And that is why I have been speaking out. I have six stops on my First Amendment tour so far, including one outside of Washington, and there are several more on the horizon. These engagements have been a combination of panels and listening sessions, and they’re aimed at getting out the message about the alarming pattern we have seen of silencing dissenting voices.
Cristian Farias:
One thing that you’ve been vocal about on this tour is some of the sham investigations that Chairman Brendan Carr has announced against public and private broadcasters. Now, I wasn’t raised in this country, but a lot of what we’re seeing, this use of regulatory power to go after the press is something you see in authoritarian regimes. Tell me where your head is on this issue and why is it so dangerous?
Anna Gomez:
You’re right. These investigations that we have seen against broadcasters, I see as a effort to silence dissenting voices and to punish any coverage that this administration doesn’t like. They are sham investigations. In fact, we have had complaints before the FCC that the FCC expert staff dismissed, and this administration revived the complaints and not only revived the complaints, but has been initiating other complaints based on news coverage and editorial decision of these broadcasters. And that’s really problematic because it will have a chilling effect. I’ve had broadcasters tell me that they tell reporters to please be careful about how they cover this administration because they are so fearful that they’re going to be dragged before the FCC into some kind of an investigation. And in addition to that, what we are seeing is this administration is threatening broadcasters with further investigations based on particular priorities that this administration has. So they’ve initiated an investigation into a local broadcaster’s coverage of immigration enforcement activities and all because they didn’t like the way that was being reported by this one station. The freedom of the press is particularly important right now because we are seeing so little pushback against this administration and we need a free press to speak truth to power, and that is what I am encouraging them to do.
Cristian Farias:
But I’m curious about how this FCC complaint process works and how you guys go about reviewing it, reviewing the transcripts, and making a determination and why it shouldn’t have been reopened.
Anna Gomez:
The FCC reviews all complaints obviously, and we did have a complaint filed against CBS and NBC and ABC, but the CBS complaint is one of news distortion. And so what the FCC does is it reviews the complaint to see if it makes a case under our rules and the statute of news distortion. News distortion must involve a significant event and not merely a minor or incidental aspect of the news report. And broadcasters have to have deliberately distorted a factual news report. And importantly, the complaint that we would prosecute would be against the licensee. So CBS as a network is not our licensee. Our licensees are the local broadcasters, and they’re the ones that hold the license. So the concern with this complaint was with regard to clips that CBS aired of its interview with then Vice President Kamala Harris, that it cut down for time and it’s very common for broadcasters to edit clips for length and clarity.
In the past, broadcasters have refused to submit transcript, but in this case, CBS did it. And then what the FCC did was it issued a public notice seeking comment on the transcript and this is unprecedented. And the reason it’s unprecedented is because the prosecution of complaints of enforcement proceedings is in and of itself a law enforcement function. We make the determination as an expert agency of whether our rules were not violated. We don’t do law enforcement by mob. So issuing this for public comment really made no sense. However, once I reviewed the transcript, it became very clear to me that there was not even a scintilla of evidence that there was news distortion that happened here. It was merely that CBS was airing clips of the answers to the questions and had edited them down for time.
Cristian Farias:
I’d be remiss if I didn’t ask you about the pending Supreme Court case, FCC versus Consumer Research, which the Supreme Court could decide any minute. To my surprise, the Trump administration is supporting the agency’s position in the case. Can you tell me about it a little bit and why it’s so important?
Anna Gomez:
Yes. So FCC versus Consumer Research is a case that was brought challenging the FCC’s Universal Service Fund Program. The Universal Service Fund program ensures that localities throughout the United States have access to communications and particular to broadband communications. It’s a key part of ensuring both accessibility and affordability. The reason this administration is supporting the FCC on this issue is that getting connectivity to everyone in this country is so important. It is important for the economy, it is important for individuals. If you don’t have access to communications period, then you can’t apply for jobs. You can’t make your healthcare appointments, you can’t keep in touch with your families. It is a key part of participating in society today and especially when it comes to broadband. So we hope to hear from the Supreme Court on a decision about this case. Now, assuming the Universal Service Fund survives the Supreme Court’s review, we will still need reform to ensure its long-term sustainability. But first, let’s get this decision and hopefully we’ll get the right decision from the Supreme Court.
Cristian Farias:
One theme of our show is the First Amendment, not as an abstract concept or freedom of speech just for its own sake, but as a tool of self-governance to help people make choices about the world they’d like to see to shape democracy. How do you think the FCC fits into that picture of the First Amendment?
Anna Gomez:
The FCC has an important role in the First Amendment because it is the licensing authority for broadcasters, which are such an important source of provision of news and information. It can also be a negative effect like what we’re seeing today. But the FCC is bound of course by the First Amendment. The FCC also is prohibited from censorship by the Communications Act. And the reason why that is the case is because Congress recognized how important it is for the FCC not to delve into content and in particular news editorial decisions, in the scope of its work, which is not what we’re seeing today, but our ability to provide the information to communities, whether it’s in times of emergencies or with regard to information, is so important, and that’s why we must continue doing what we’re doing, but still respect the First Amendment.
Cristian Farias:
Ana Gomez, Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission, it has been a pleasure having you on The Bully’s Pulpit.
Anna Gomez:
Thank you so much. It’s great to spend time with you.
Cristian Farias:
And that’s it for today’s show. We’ll be back next week with more First Amendment happenings, including an update on Los Angeles and how people are protecting each other and advocating for their collective freedom.
The Bully’s Pulpit is a production of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. I’m your host, Cristian Farias. This episode was written by me and co-produced by Jeanette Quartz and Candice White. Our associate producer for this episode is Kushal Dev back. Check-in by Kushal Dev, Ellie Fivas and Ella Sohn. Our sound engineer is Patrick McNameeking. Candice White is our executive producer. Our music comes from Epidemic Sound. The Art for our show was designed by Astrid de Silva.
Thanks to Katie Fallow and Ana Gomez who joined us for this episode. The Bully’s Pulpit is available on Apple, Spotify, and wherever you listen to podcasts. Please subscribe and leave a review. We’d love to know what you think. To learn more about the Knight Institute, visit our website knightcolumbia.org. That’s Knight with a K. and follow us on social media.