Benton RSS Feed

Verizon's argument that network neutrality rules infringe its free speech rights is "at odds with common sense," four former Federal Communications Commission members argue in a new court filing.

"Verizon’s arguments fail as a matter of constitutional principle," they argue. "There is nothing inherently expressive about transmitting others’ data packets, at a subscriber’s direction, over the Internet." The coalition adds that Verizon's free-speech argument has wide-ranging repercussions that could affect a host of regulations. "Were Verizon’s theories credited, Congress’s historic power to take and authorize measures to preserve openness of communication networks would be unsettled and dramatically narrowed," they say in a friend-of-the-court brief. The brief was filed on behalf of a group that includes four former FCC commissioners -- Reed Hundt, Michael Copps, Tyrone Brown and Nicholas Johnson.

[Commentary] Our debate about how to reduce gun violence in our country has focused almost entirely on gun control since the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School. And that's appropriate. But another critical element almost has been ignored: the harmful effect of violence in the media. Even more surprising is that the federal agency with knowledge of these effects has been mute on the subject.

In 2004, the Federal Communications Commission "sought comment on the relationship between media violence and aggression in children." On April 6, 2007, the commission unanimously adopted a report, "Violent Television Programming and its Impact on Children." Of the five on the commission then, only Robert McDowell remains. In adopting the report, the FCC:

• Found that many parents and health professionals are concerned about the harmful effects of violence in the media;
• Agreed with the U.S. Surgeon General's opinion that "a diverse body of research provides strong evidence that exposure to violence in the media can increase children's aggressive behavior in the short term;
• Concluded it could constitutionally regulate violent content;
• Decided that then-current blocking technologies, such as the TV ratings system, are ineffective to control children's exposure to violence;
• Suggested a workable definition of violence;
• Concluded that "given the findings in this report, action should be taken to address violent programming ... ."

That was more than 5 1/2 years ago. What has the commission said about the recommendations it made in the light of the shooting massacres of the past five years? Nothing.

[Tuthill lectures on broadcast, communications and Internet law at the UC Berkeley School of Law.]

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder demanding more information about the prosecution of Aaron Swartz, the co-creator of Reddit and Internet activist who killed himself last week.

Sen Cornyn, a top Senate Republican, questioned whether the Justice Department was trying to "make an example" out of Swartz by bringing aggressive hacking charges against him. "Mr. Swartz's case raises important questions about prosecutorial conduct," Sen Cornyn wrote. In his letter, Sen Cornyn demanded to know why Carmen Ortiz, the prosecuting US Attorney, believes her office acted appropriately. "Did that office, or any office with the Department, conduct a review?" Sen Cornyn asked. He questioned whether prosecutors gave any consideration to whether the charges and associated penalties "were proportional to Swartz's conduct and its impact upon victims." He also asked whether the fact that the Justice Department had investigated Swartz over prior incidents led to more severe charges in this case and whether the prosecution was retaliation for Swartz filing public records requests with the agency. Sen Cornyn noted that Attorney Ortiz had pointed to "severe punishments authorized by Congress," and asked Holder to explain whether prosecutors have discretion to bring charges that they view as matching the gravity of the alleged wrongdoing.

A new digital system for managing Freedom of Information Act requests to the Commerce Department and a handful of other federal agencies deserves an A+ for making it easier to file FOIAs, Amy Bennett, assistant director of the transparency group Open The Government, said. FOIA Online deserves a D or an F grade, however, on one of its stated objectives: Making FOIA’d information more readily available to the general public, she said during a government transparency conference hosted by the American University Washington College of Law. Bennett is managing a project that compares FOIA processes at different federal agencies, including three -- Commerce, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Merit Service Protection Board -- that use FOIA Online.