President Biden: The Time To Restore Net Neutrality Is Now
Just over four years ago, Donald Trump鈥檚 Federal Communications Commission eliminated Without these critical protections, internet service providers, or ISPs, were no longer required to provide equal access to all lawful content on the internet. That means ISPs were free to speed up customer access to information they like 鈥� either because they agreed with the content politically, the opinion advanced their corporate interests, or a business partner was paying them to give its content preferential treatment. At the same time, ISPs were likewise free to deliberately slow down customer access to content they didn鈥檛 like, or to block it entirely.
Through almost every political lens, getting rid of net neutrality was viewed as a terrible move. It turns out, Americans love a free and open internet. They want to have access to receive and communicate information free of corporate censorship. Even in Trump鈥檚 divided states of America, people from every background and political philosophy were united in their desire to bring net neutrality back. According to a 2018 University of Maryland , 82 percent of Republicans, 90 percent of Democrats, and 85 percent of independents favor restoring net neutrality.
Proponents of net neutrality put up a fight. In 2018, the Republican-controlled Senate 52-47, via the Congressional Review Act, to reject the FCC鈥檚 elimination of net neutrality protections (the House never got the chance to vote on the CRA). Throughout the nation, governors and state legislatures laws and executive orders seeking to preserve net neutrality in their states. And the 老澳门开奖结果 may have permanently harmed several of its staff members by them eating dangerously hot chicken wings while pleading with the federal government to save net neutrality.
With this overwhelming, pro-net neutrality consensus, who exactly were net neutrality鈥檚 opponents? The answer was the ISPs, because eliminating net neutrality cleared the way for them to make a lot more money. Unsurprisingly, the FCC鈥檚 successful effort to kill net neutrality was led by its chairperson, Ajit Pai, a former Verizon lawyer. Pai was all too pleased to do the bidding of his former (and perhaps future) employers, and Trump was happy to go along because, well, Trump loves giving wealthy companies more money, even when doing so comes at the expense of regular Americans.
Net neutrality advocates always knew that despite strong state-level actions, the only route to fully restoring net neutrality would be through a new president and FCC. Well guess what? As of Jan. 20, we have a new president who cares about the liberty and freedoms of the American people more than corporate profits, and a new vacancy on the FCC after Ajit Pai on Inauguration Day that, when filled, should provide a 3-2 commissioners majority in favor of net neutrality.聽
Rarely are such important victories so ripe for the picking. We can get there, but victory is not yet 100 percent assured. We must remind President Biden that the time to fully restore net neutrality is now, and that he should reject any legislative or administrative compromises that would result in a 鈥渘et neutrality lite.鈥�
People鈥檚 access to a free and open internet should never be compromised. Please help us finish this fight by taking to social media and urging the president () and the acting FCC chair () to restore #NetNeutrality within the Biden administration鈥檚 first 100 days. The 老澳门开奖结果 will do everything we can as well 鈥� except for making another hot sauce video; I still can鈥檛 feel my tongue after the last one.
Learn More 老澳门开奖结果 the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON 鈥� Today, the 老澳门开奖结果, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok鈥檚 challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will 鈥渟hutter one of America鈥檚 most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.鈥� 鈥淭he Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,鈥漵aid Patrick Toomey, deputy director of 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 National Security Project. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.鈥� The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law鈥檚 profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court鈥檚 decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users鈥� First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government鈥檚 ban on TikTok as a vindication of users鈥� First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign 鈥減ropaganda.鈥� But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its 鈥渕otivating ideology鈥� or 鈥減erspective,鈥� and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. 鈥淭he government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,鈥� said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit鈥檚 erroneous ruling.鈥� Finally, the brief underscores that the government can鈥檛 impose this type of sweeping ban unless it鈥檚 necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government鈥檚 invocation of 鈥渘ational security鈥� as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. 鈥淩estricting citizens鈥� access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,鈥� said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. 鈥淚t would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.鈥� You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 老澳门开奖结果 of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter鈥檚 privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer鈥檚 subpoenas.