FCC commissioner: U.S. tradition of free expression slipping away

[ka1iic]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/fccs-pai-freedom-of-speech-slipping-away/article/2583354

FCC commissioner: U.S. tradition of free expression slipping away

The American traditions of free expression and respectful discourse are slipping away, and college campuses and Twitter are prime examples, according to a member of the Federal Communications Commission.

"I think that poses a special danger to a country that cherishes First Amendment speech, freedom of expression, even freedom of association," FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai told the Washington Examiner. "I think it's dangerous, frankly, that we don't see more often people espousing the First Amendment view that we should have a robust marketplace of ideas where everybody should be willing and able to participate.

"Largely what we're seeing, especially on college campuses, is that if my view is in the majority and I don't agree with your view, then I have the right to shout you down, disrupt your events, or otherwise suppress your ability to get your voice heard," Pai added.

"Private actors like Twitter have the freedom to operate their platform as they see fit," Pai said, "[but] I would hope that everybody embraces the idea of the marketplace of ideas. The proverbial street corner of the 21st century, where people can gather to debate issues is increasingly social media, which serves as a platform for public discourse." Twitter announced last week it was establishing a "Trust and Safety" panel to police speech on the site.

Pai concluded that if voters and institutions fail to defend free speech within their own spheres, it could lead to more government regulations curtailing that freedom.

"The text of the First Amendment is enshrined in our Constitution, but there are certain cultural values that undergird the amendment that are critical for its protections to have actual meaning," Pai said. "If that culture starts to wither away, then so too will the freedom that it supports."

Pai, who was appointed to the FCC in 2012, has consistently opposed the agency's efforts to impose more restrictions on speech. The commission ruled last year that the First Amendment did not apply to Internet service providers, a precedent that Pai and others pointed out could lead to more regulations on political speech, particularly on websites like the Drudge Report, in the future.

"It is conceivable to me to see the government saying, 'We think the Drudge Report is having a disproportionate effect on our political discourse," Pai noted shortly after the ruling. "The FCC doesn't have the ability to regulate anything he says, and we want to start tamping down on websites like that."

"Is it unthinkable that some government agency would say the marketplace of ideas is too fraught with dissonance? That everything from the Drudge Report to Fox News … is playing unfairly in the online political speech sandbox? I don't think so," Pai added.

[ka1iic]

I have no comment on this (for once)...  it is what it is,,,

[redhat]

I find it rather odd to hear this coming from the very agency that for years has been trying to silence the voice of diversity and opposition to government policy in its many forms.

+-RH

[Skipmuck]

Let's cut out the bullshit here. Ajit Pai is nothing more than a spokesman for the interests of Verizon, Comcast, and their associated investors. His rant is little more than yet another attempt to put political spin on the subject of "Net Neutrality" "The commission ruled last year that the First Amendment did not apply to Internet service providers"
Below is a copy and past of an article on what this means in the real world....sour grapes for Mr Pai and his corporate sponsors......
 
The Federal Communications Commission yesterday said it did not violate the First Amendment rights of Internet service providers when it voted to implement net neutrality rules.

Broadband providers who sued to overturn the rules claim their constitutional rights are being violated, but the FCC disputed that and other arguments in a filing in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

ISPs are conduits for the speech of others; they are not delivering their own messages when they connect their customers to the Internet, the FCC argued. Rules against blocking and throttling Internet content thus do not violate the ISPs’ constitutional rights, the FCC said.

“Nobody understands broadband providers to be sending a message or endorsing speech when transmitting the Internet content that a user has requested,” the FCC wrote. “When a user directs her browser to the New York Times or Wall Street Journal editorial page, she has no reason to think that the views expressed there are those of her broadband provider.”

By delivering content requested by customers, broadband providers are acting in the same role as telephone companies, the FCC said.

First Amendment objections have been briefly raised by AT&T, CenturyLink, CTIA-The Wireless Association, and the United States Telecom Association. The argument that net neutrality rules violate broadband providers' First Amendment rights was also made by Verizon back in 2012.

In the current case, the First Amendment objections have been made most forcefully by Alamo Broadband, a small provider in Texas. Alamo argued that ISPs “exercise the same editorial discretion as cable television operators in deciding which speech to transmit.”

The FCC countered that cable TV is different from Internet access because cable TV systems have limited capacity on which to carry channels. ISPs, by contract, face no technological obstacles preventing them from providing access to all lawful Internet content, the FCC said. No-blocking and no-throttling rules thus will not reduce access to any other content, whether offered by third parties or the broadband companies themselves, the FCC argued.

The commission’s net neutrality order issued this year reclassified broadband providers as common carriers. Common carriage principles have been applied to the transportation and communications industries for centuries, borrowing from English common law traditions that imposed certain duties on individuals engaged in ‘common callings,’ such as innkeepers, ferrymen, and carriage drivers,” a previous court ruling involving the FCC noted.

“The Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned that common carriers do not share the free speech rights of broadcasters, newspapers, or others engaged in First Amendment activity,” the FCC said in its filing yesterday.

ISPs may sometimes engage in activity protected by the First Amendment “when providing services other than broadband Internet access (like operating their own websites),” but those activities are separate from the Internet service regulated by the net neutrality rules, the FCC said.



No distinctions

The FCC further argued that even if First Amendment principles were relevant in this case, the net neutrality rules would not violate them. The Open Internet rules are content-neutral, meaning they make no distinctions based on content or viewpoint, the FCC said. Content-neutral regulations are allowed if they further important government interests "unrelated to the suppression of free expression," and if they "do not burden substantially more speech than is necessary," the FCC wrote. “That test is easily satisfied here.”

The FCC said the important government interests that its rules promote include ensuring that the public has access to many information sources, ensuring a level playing field by limiting the power of broadband providers to advantage or disadvantage particular companies that provide information over the Internet, and encouraging broadband deployment.

If Internet providers wish to distance themselves from speech with which they disagree, they can do so by publicizing their views on their own websites “or by delivering a message on bill inserts accompanying customers’ monthly bills,” the FCC said.

The FCC’s 157-page brief disputed numerous arguments made by ISPs. Among other things, the commission said it was justified in determining that fixed and mobile broadband are telecommunications services subject to common carrier regulation; that it reasonably accounted for the rules’ impact on network investment; that it met notice and procedural requirements before issuing the rules; and that the FCC has the authority to prohibit paid prioritization.

[John Poet]

So the FCC commissioner who was pretending to advocate for the First Amendment is still merely just another corporate whore.


Nothing to see here.  Move along...


(Thanks for straightening out that mess, Skip!)

[ka1iic]

Thank you Folks and let's hear more... and more... and more... shout out damn it!!!