From Are you-guys-kissing-hard? Deep
As expected following the Ajit Pie Advertisement Following Twitter’s response to a complaint from the NTIA, it said it was moving forward with the executive to re-interpret Section 230 of the Communications Act, and urged people to follow up on Twitter. Uncertain information about elections and voting – FCC General Adviser Tom Johnson Released FCC legal explanation How can he have power here?
The short answer is that he has no authority here. He never had authority over the Internet on websites. In fact, when the 230 Cox / Wide account was debated in Congress, he made it clear in his speeches that the expenditure was for the purpose. Prevent The FCC From taking any control over websites. That was the point. During a one-story talk, Cox said:
Some suggested that we take the Federal Communications Commission and turn it into a “Federal Computer Commission” – we will hire more bureaucrats and supervisors who will try to punish people for their dominance and crime. Saving something in a cyber environment. Frankly, there are so many things on the internet to make that work ….
[This bill] US policy states that we do not want the federal government to control the content on the Internet – we should not have a “Federal Computer Commission” with an army of bureaucrats. ….
And no one – out of all the ACCs – has ever argued otherwise.
In fact, in various battles of neutral neutrality, many in the FCC, including many in the current FCC – strongly argue – in court and by oath – the FCC has no authority in this area. Here is FCC Chairman Ajit Pie Just two years ago, such as Highlights from the Washington Post:
Experts say Pye’s announcement is a reflection of previous public opinion on the issue. Asked about the FCC’s police social media capabilities in August 2018, the chairman said the agency “does not control them” and “has no authority under Congress and the constitution.” In fact, according to the first amendment ”
“In this regard, they are not equal in terms of freedom of expression,” he said, adding that the technology companies should be transparent instead. Consumers and competitors say they can treat any disease in any other way: “If you want to focus on cats to keep dogs away, the market is the last resort. There are many dog owners out there who say it’s a big step. . . They go to another forum. ”
“The government has no role to play in resolving any of these illnesses,” Pi said.
Well, that’s embarassing.
But what is even more embarrassing and legally disturbing is the fact that this was the same FCC Arguing in court It is the very opposite of what you are arguing about right now. This is the main part
To understand why the Commission has the authority to interpret Section 230, it is important to understand how that section is part of the Communications Act. Linn In 1934, Congress established the FCC, which was accused of overseeing the first and foremost international relations, and passed the Communications Act in its original form. Four years later, Congress added Section 201 (b) to the Commission’s mandate to “enact laws and regulations that are necessary for the public good when necessary to implement the provisions of this law.”
Since then, the most important amendment to the Communications Act has been passed. In 1996, it was adopted by the Telecommunication Proclamation. Except as explicitly stated in Section 1 (b) of the Act, each provision of the 1996 Act is enshrined in the 1934 Communications Act.
The title of the 1996 law was “The Communication of the 1996 Law.” Among other things, this article includes Section 509, entitled “Building a Family Online.” Consistent with Article 1 (b), Congress enacted Article 509 “Title II of the 1934 Communications Act. . . Updated by adding the following new section at the end: Part 230. ”Thus, Section 230 was born and became part of the 1934 Communications Act.
Basically, they are claiming to have the power to translate under CDA 230 Section 201 (b) Communication Law. To set the rules, this is a bit of a powerhouse for the FCC – but For joint carriers As assigned under Title II. At least that’s it every time Translated. This was a key part of the fight for net neutrality. The FCC classified broadband Internet services as Table II II, and if they did, these common roaming Internet providers would come up with a few simple rules to ensure that certain services could not be blocked or supported.
Here, the FCC Literally He skips all that And just like every website does not know and does not even know in question that it is a Title II service. Is this … crazy? Also This same FCC, which adopted Toil Wler’s Title II classification for broadband access and related net neutrality laws, contradicts everything that Ajit Pye said about the “Internet Freedom Order” (RIFO). From the pie order
There are also a number of shortcomings in this record of requests from the authorities to adopt code of conduct governing ISISs. He argued that ISPs, which provide open Internet command telecommunications services, could participate in network management practices or by prioritizing competition for their voice services. Carrier Voice Services and / or Section 251 (a) (1) Communication Requirements for Joint Carriers. The Open Online Order prohibits these legal theories when they are not provided by telecommunications carriers or by common law carriers with similar restrictions on the handling of private mobile service carriers.
In other words, in the case of net neutrality, ACCC says it does not have the power to use 201 (b) when it does not provide shared carrier telecommunications services.
But now this very similar FCC. It is clear that you can use 201 (b) on non-telecommunication websites, which are unusually attractive.
Surprisingly, in the FCC approval, they argue that the law does not require all that the law requires in the past, such as approval to avoid net neutrality.
They note that most of Section 201 (b) deals with applicable laws and argue that Congress has no interest in treating social media companies and other covered websites as mere carriers. However, at the end of Article 201 (b), the Judicial Authority does not have any information on the general subsidy of the joint carriers. The Commission shall, in its sole discretion, authorize the enactment of laws “necessary for the public good to carry out the provisions of this Act.” As a result, the U.S. The Court of Appeal authorized the Alliance Media Community and the FCC 529 F.3d 763 (6th Cir. 2008) to interpret the Commission’s ambiguous provisions in Section 201 (b). Cable TVs Consumer Protection and Competition Act Linn Linn In 1992. In particular, that law applies to cable operators under its own terms, not to conventional carriers. The court ruled that, based on the Iowa Utility Board, it was sufficient to amend the Communications Act 1992 and include relevant provisions. The same reason applies to section 230.
got it? Although we have previously said that it requires telecommunication services from an ordinary service provider, we can now ignore that.
It gets worse. They are also in the PI RIFO Refer to Section 230 It is evidence that the Internet is a telecommunication service, not a telecommunications service.
We also find that other provisions of the law support our conclusion that broadband Internet services are better classified as information services.1919 For example, Congress changed its opinion on Article 230 (b) (2) of the Proclamation. The U.S. policy is “to maintain a viable and competitive free market currently defined by federal and state regulations on the Internet and other interactive computer services.” This statement confirms that the free market approach to designating information services is in line with the purpose of Congress. In contrast, in Article 230 (b) (2), we find it difficult to reconcile the congressional commission’s decision to provide broadband Internet services to the standard transport regulation under Title II.
And yet, do you suddenly think I can fix the internet? Yes. Because they think the people are ignorant.
Also in the US Comcast no. FCC, 600 F.3d 642 (DC Cir 2010) to the DC District Court of Appeal and the FCC itself. There is no problem in agreeing to Section 230 (b) of the Internet Freedom Order itself. It was a policy statement, not a confirmation of authority. Section 230 (b) should not be relied upon as the source of the authority in this proposed exercise. Instead, the Commission may conveniently use Section 201 (b) to resolve ambiguities in Section 230 (c).
In fact, the FCC under Pie is now turning its back on what it said it was doing to kill net neutrality (although in that case there is a strong argument that broadband is a traditional carrier telecommunications service), rather it is actually the ACC. Talk on websites.
Or, as Adam Terrier points out, in this new ACC.
Thanks for reading this textbook post. We truly appreciate that you have given us so much time to compete for so many things in this day and age. We work hard every day to deliver quality content to our community.
Texan is one of the few truly independent media outlets left. We don’t have a huge corporation behind us, and at a time when advertisers are increasingly interested in sponsoring small independent sites – especially as a report like ours refuses to draw attention to the report, we rely heavily on our local support and analysis.
While other websites use wall-to-wall, subscription requirements, and increasingly disruptive ads, we are always open to technology. But to continue this, We need your support. From direct donations to special subscriptions and good merchandise – and we offer a variety of ways to help our readers with every little help. Thank you.