Civic Engagement

The Republican-helmed Federal Communications Commission is expected to pull the plug on net neutrality rules — but tech companies, entrepreneurs and other concerned users are vowing to not go down without a fight. Engine, a nonprofit group representing more than 1,000 start-ups and investors, released an open letter to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai detailing how they're worried they won't have a fair chance under his proposal. "Without net neutrality, the incumbents who provide access to the internet would be able to pick winners or losers in the market.

[Commentary] Net neutrality is the right to go where you want and do what you want on the internet without your broadband provider getting in the way. It means your broadband provider can’t block websites, throttle services or charge you premiums if you want to reach certain online content. Proponents of wiping out these rules think that by allowing broadband providers more control and the ability to charge for premium access, it will spur investment. This is a dubious proposition. Wiping out net neutrality would have big consequences.

Net neutrality rules are popular with Americans who use the Internet. It was thus no surprise to see a huge backlash to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai's plan to eliminate the rules. While most of the 22 million public comments on the plan were spam and form letters, a study funded by the broadband industry found that 98.5 percent of unique comments supported the current rules. Net neutrality supporters organized an "Internet-wide Day of Action to Save Net Neutrality" in July and plan more protests in the coming days as a final vote draws near.

The Federal Communications Commission received a record-breaking 22 million comments chiming in on the net neutrality debate, but from the sound of it, it’s ignoring the vast majority of them. A senior FCC official said that 7.5 million of those comments were the exact same letter, which was submitted using 45,000 fake email addresses. But even ignoring the potential spam, the commission said it didn’t really care about the public’s opinion on net neutrality unless it was phrased in unique legal terms.

Internet users outraged by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai’s plan to gut Network Neutrality are planning to protest at Verizon retail stores across the country on Thursday, Dec. 7, one week before an expected vote at the FCC. In some cities, protesters will march from Verizon stores to lawmakers’ offices. The protests will highlight the company’s role lobbying to kill rules that prevent telecom giants from charging extra fees, engaging in censorship, or controlling what internet users see and do through discriminatory throttling.

[Commentary] Scientists need to go even further, venturing into unfamiliar local venues where science may not be mentioned but where communities gather to discuss their problems. Scientists need to be present at these tables, and practice those deep listening skills. At a minimum you will meet new people and gain new insights. But you may also make valuable new connections, find new collaborators, and most important of all, forge stronger bonds with your community. Don’t underestimate the power of the data you collect and create to impact community decision making.

Even though our net neutrality policies are now legally viable and wildly popular, the leadership at the Commission wants to revisit Internet openness. It has started a proceeding that tears at the foundation of net neutrality. It has proposed cutting the rules we have and instead offering our broadband providers the power to favor sites, content, and ideas; the power to discriminate with our traffic; and the power to become censors and gatekeepers for all that is online. If you want an example, look no further than what happened during the last 14 days with the #MeToo movement.

In so many ways, the underlying conditions of US democracy need repair. Among American citizens, ideological and philosophical divisions seem insurmountably sharp; among their representatives in Washington, compromise appears impossible. Whatever side you were on in last year’s election, it’s clear that the campaign brought these problems dramatically to the surface of our national life; it’s also clear that these challenges would have been with us, in equal measure, no matter who won. And so, as we approach the one-year anniversary of the election, we asked dozens of writers and artists to look beyond the day-to-day upheavals of the news cycle and propose one idea that could help fix the long-term problems bedeviling American democracy. The result: 38 conservative, liberal, practical, creative, broad, specific, technocratic, provocative solutions for an unsettled country.

The day after President Donald Trump ordered a ban on travelers from seven majority Muslim countries, Mamoon Hamid was rallying a response from Silicon Valley. The Pakistan-born venture capitalist held a private dinner that night in San Francisco (CA), where he pitched other investors, entrepreneurs and technology executives on a coalition that could challenge the Trump administration’s most controversial policies in court.

The goal was to solicit funding for the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection. The group offers a legal swat team of sorts “to protect people at a moment of great instability and peril,” said Hamid, the chairman. He had been planning the white-linen event with attendees from Facebook Inc., Google and other tech companies for months, but the immigration ban offered newfound urgency.

[Commentary] First Amendment rights were developed and defined in order to protect the political life of the nation. But life within universities is not a mirror of that life. The cardinal First Amendment rule of viewpoint neutrality has absolutely no relevance to the selection of university speakers. Any court that denies this is living in fantasy, blinded by a mechanical doctrine that has no relevance to the phenomena it is supposed to control.

The root and fiber of the university is not equivalent to the public sphere. If a university believes that its educational mission requires it to prohibit all outside speakers, or to impose stringent tests of professional competence on all speakers allowed to address the campus, it would and should be free to do so.

[Robert C. Post is the Sterling professor of law at Yale Law School. He served as dean of the school from 2009 through spring 2017.]