May 2017

Democratic lawmakers say they’re not interested in cutting a network neutrality deal with Republicans, arguing that their counterparts across the aisle aren’t offering enough concessions. Even as the net neutrality battle focuses on Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Ajit Pai’s proposal to curb the rules, observers say bipartisan legislation is necessary to establish a firm set of rules that can’t simply be overturned the next time FCC leadership changes parties.

Democratic Reps and Sens say Republicans need to yield more ground, particularly regarding FCC jurisdiction over broadband providers. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-SD) has a draft of net neutrality legislation in the works, but said that it would be “impractical” to move forward with it unless Democrats get on board. A net neutrality bill would need 60 votes in the Senate, meaning that at least some Democrats would have to sign onto a Republican bill. None have indicated interest in doing so thus far.

The announcement that Federal Communications Commission Chairman Pai offered a draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to reexamine the rules adopted in 2015, with an eye to considering a less regulatory approach, has once again opened up the debate over what the appropriate framework is to ensure an open Internet. Reaction to this draft proposal has been mixed. Some see the current FCC rules as regulatory overreach and welcome a more “light-touch” approach which they feel will stimulate broadband investment, deployment and innovation. Others fully support the current 2015 regulations and feel that their modification will result in a concentration of power to the detriment of content, services, and applications providers, as well as consumers, and refute the claim that these regulations have had a negative impact on broadband investment, expansion or innovation).

The FCC’s move to reexamine its existing open Internet rules has reopened the debate over whether Congress should consider a more comprehensive measure to amend existing law to provide greater regulatory stability and guidance to the FCC. Whether Congress will choose to address more comprehensive legislation, to amend the 1934 Communications Act, to provide a broad-based framework for such regulation, remains to be seen.

[Commentary] Racist hate speech on campus has become the de facto litmus test for free speech protections today. But racist hate speech may not be doing what progressive free speech defenders think it is doing.

There is a familiar metaphor used to frame free speech debates — the so-called "marketplace of ideas." Censorship is not the answer, the story goes, but more speech — better speech — is the proper response to racist hate speech. Critiques of the metaphor as it applies to free speech debates are almost as old as the metaphor itself, and a recent one contextualizes it in light of recent campus speech clashes. To these, I add the question of whether we are so sure that the rhetoric of common humanity and rights for all races will prevail. What if it doesn't, at least not anytime soon? It might mean that racist hate speech is not a "necessary evil" that jumpstarts racial justice within a liberal marketplace but is — for the foreseeable future — nothing more than state-sanctioned injury of people of color.

[David Shih is an associate professor of English at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire.]