NRA Gives FCC Boss An Award For 'Courageously' Killing Net Neutrality, May Have Violated Ethics Rules
from the idiocy-supernova dept
The NRA last week thought it would be a good idea to give FCC boss Ajit Pai an award for killing net neutrality. More specifically, the NRA gave Pai the Charleton Heston Award for Courage at the CPAC conference for killing the popular consumer protections. The entire affair was a tone deafness supernova from beginning to end, with American Conservative Union (ACU) Executive Director Dan Schneider making it abundantly clear that he and other attendees have absolutely no coherent idea what net neutrality even is. Schneider went so far as to declare the unpopular agency boss the "most courageous, heroic person that I know":
"Pai "fought to preserve your free speech rights" as a member of the FCC's Republican minority during the Obama administration, Schneider said. Pai "fought and won against all odds, but the Obama administration had some curveballs and they implemented these regulations to take over the Internet." "As soon as President Trump came into office, President Trump asked Ajit Pai to liberate the Internet and give it back to you," Schneider added. "Ajit Pai is the most courageous, heroic person that I know."
Of course if you've been paying even a shred of attention, you should realize there's nothing courageous about ignoring the public, ignoring the experts, ignoring all objective data just to give a sloppy wet kiss to despised telecom monopolies like Comcast. Pai's repeal is widely derided as one of the worst tech policy decisions in the modern internet era, making the backlash against legislative shitshows like SOPA look like a cozy beach side picnic in comparison. And despite every effort by the telecom industry to frame net neutrality as a partisan issue, that is, and continues to be, bullshit.
While a petty and blatant attention-seeking move, the stunt may have given both the NRA and Pai a little more than they bargained for. As part of the award Pai was given an antique musket, a move former Office of Government Ethics boss Walter Shaub was quick to criticize as a violation of FCC ethics rules:
Anyone care to explain to me why the FCC thinks that the ethics rules allow Ajit Pai to accept the gift of an expensive handmade gun from the NRA, an entity whose interests he can affect (and has affected) by the performance of his official duties? Am I missing something? https://t.co/S6ocyWIV7H
— Walter Shaub (@waltshaub) February 24, 2018
So, what exactly is the FCC's analysis as to why Ajit Pai can accept an expensive gift from the NRA? I'd like to know if I'm missing something here.
— Walter Shaub (@waltshaub) February 24, 2018
It's possible Pai can tap dance around this by claiming the musket (which the NRA said would be stored and displayed at their offices in Virginia) never formally entered Pai's legal ownership. Of course that doesn't make this effort any less idiotic and tone deaf. CPAC apparently doesn't realize that Millennials are starting to vote in greater numbers than ever before, and while CPAC leadership may have thought combining the NRA (while in the middle of a massive PR kerfuffle) with the attack on net neutrality was an "epic troll," all younger voters are going to see here is a giant neon sign blinking the words "incompetence" and "corruption" in endless repetition.
Pai wasn't alone in potentially violating ethics rules during CPAC. Under the Hatch Act, FCC Commissioners can't openly pitch for a specific political candidate, a rule Pai's fellow Commissioner Mike O'Rielly violated when he urged CPAC attendees to vote for Trump:
"O’Rielly, however, later found himself embroiled in his own controversy. His trouble started with a question about what the FCC could do to stop the constant “ping-pong” of issues, such as net neutrality, every time the party in power changes in the nation’s capital.
“I think what we can do is make sure as conservatives that we elect good people to both the House, Senate and make sure that President Trump gets reelected,” O’Rielly began.
The GOP commissioner’s plug for the president riled some ethics watchdogs. Under a set of rules known as the Hatch Act, government officials such as O’Rielly generally aren’t supposed to use their stations to advocate for election outcomes.
Remember, these are the same FCC staffers that had an epic hissy fit a few years back when they claimed the former White House "improperly" violated nonexistent ethics rules by openly advocating for tough net neutrality rules. They're now embroiled in numerous GAO inquiries, face a growing mountain of lawsuits, and now face an FCC Inspector General Inquiry for potentially being too cozy with the industries they're supposed to be holding accountable on behalf of the American Public. Keep digging that hole, gentlemen.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ajit pai, cpac, ethics, ethics rules, fcc, mike o'rielly, net neutrality, nra, walter shaub
Companies: nra
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
*Maybe complete bullshit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Check the audience
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am STRONGLY pro second amendment. I really like my guns and will fight for my rights to have them. So in the past I would have been supporter of the NRA. Now.... they kind of make me want to go throw up. Especially now that they are so disgustingly over the top that they are actually in danger of destroying gun rights by being such scum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
1: http://conservative.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/CPAC2018LogoHomex2.png and http://cpac.conservative.org/
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoneman_Douglas_High_School_shooting#Shooting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The issue here is Ajit accepting a gift that he should not have accepted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So anyone on the fence about if NRA was total scum, this helped tip them over. I care about guns, but I also care about the internet. They will never see ANY support from me ever again. So they now have lost at least one rifle instructor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you are okay with hating people for supporting rights because of a recent event then it is the same as saying that it is okay for people to hate Muslims for holding a prayer session right after another Muslim bombed something.
It is obsessive and oppressive to make those connections.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And this is all the NRA does, nothing else - amirite?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Two wrongs don't make a Right! The idea that guns rights should be abolished because the NRA is full of scum is a bad argument. Then again... I bet I am talking to someone that would support repeal of the 1st Amendment because someone said something they did not like. Or at the very least support hate speech laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Stupid autocorrect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
(Checks Headline) .... yup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It has even happened in a big way before, when the NRA was effectively co-opted by turnover in management. Even though their rhetoric has the same flavor, they were a lot more responsible back in the day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Optics, largely. To insiders, it might be nothing more than a gift of appreciation from similar minded folk.
To the outside world? It's tone deaf to be publicly giving a gun as a gift in the current political debate, especially for activities have have nothing to do with weaponry. Giving it to, say, a police officer who was heroically wounded in the line of duty might be one thing, but this just seems totally out of whack.
But, the icing on the cake? It was the Charlton Heston award. Heston and the NRA are associated with each other in much of the mainstream for his "cold dead hands" comment and his appearance in Bowling For Columbine, which is absolutely associated with school shootings. They might not like the fact, but that's the association a lot of people will have made.
NRA fans do seem to be in a bit of a bubble when it comes to understanding how they appear the those on the outside, but this gift is utterly inappropriate in the current climate. Whether you think that's rightly or wrongly, that's the reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
To ask the world to stop moving because someone is having a bad day is pretty selfish and undeserving!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think they would care a whole lot right now. If your constant conclusion to someone you disagree with is to essentially go to a false extreme then you are damaging your position. A lot of people care about that. In fact if you agree with him, you should care more than the people listening because now you look like an Occupy Wallstreet nutter that does not even know what they are protesting about. But by all means, go and protest because that is the "in" thing to do even though it is a total waste of time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It was. But, even if it were perfectly legal, it would have been a hugely inappropriate gesture as a time of extreme political sensitivity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Massacres and bad days
To be fair, the world has massacres daily on even good days.
US outrage about the Syrian attacks, which killed more kids than the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting -- or rather the lack of outrage -- was deafening.
Our dear president Donald Trump has even used the for me it was Tuesday excuse.
During the apex of the drone strike program in Afghanistan, we were typically killing more than seventeen kids in a week (500 sorties a year, approximately, all of which were scorching villages and population groups with Hellfires. It's okay, though because we told our press to call these families militants). These days, the Afghanistan program is ramping down, but Pakistan is getting its daily dose of Hellfire and Trump was insistent on opening up new programs for other theaters of conflict.
So yeah, a massacre in the United States is a bad day. But a massacre outside the United States, by the United States, or condoned by the United States is Tuesday.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would guess that one thing they were thinking was that they might look good involving themselves in something not gun-related. By presenting a weapon that can't possibly be used in the manner in which maniacs in our culture like to do every month or so, i am sure they imagined no one would make any negative associations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/top-5-gun-rights-organizations-nra/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
All I ever hear on the gun control front is a zero-sum argument in which you either ban all guns (and possibly rude hand signals as well) or you let every Tom, Dick, and Harry have them regardless of whether or not they've got a criminal record or mental health issues. It would be most refreshing to hear from sensible, moderate groups on the issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The NRA is just another organization of human waste that says they support something but really does not. I love it when they try to get me to sign up at Gun shows... I tell them they don't stand for 2nd Amendment rights and they get all incensed about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm sure some food processors out there do not want to spend money maintaining a clean environment and call upon their representative to gut the FDA. Seems that food poisoning is on the rise but some politicians do not care - we don't need no food inspectors. They figure when people get sick, it's their own fault and missing work is not an option.
In addition, I doubt many people would dine at an establishment knowing that they do not provide sick days to their employees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure there are, because it is good business to run calculated risks. If the cost is lower to risk food poisoning lawsuits rather than paying the expense of a clean environment then why should any business care? It's just money.
"Seems that food poisoning is on the rise but some politicians do not care - we don't need no food inspectors."
Why should they care? They created the FDA to care for them, and as long as the FDA is good and no one is barking up their tree, it's all good.
If you really want to solve the problem then you stop issuing fines for no compliance and start issuing mandatory jail time. No CEO will want to go to jail if they are found to knowingly refuse to spend capital on clean environments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When they cut corners on clean, are they really putting a price? Nope, they are just being selfish.
Like the person that takes unsafe risks on the highway. Are they not ignorantly placing the value of someones or their own life as less valuable than the times they save taking that risk? They are really just being selfish and calculating the odds that they are going to die or kill someone from making a mistake as being to low to avoid doing what they do.
Same goes for being clean. The odds of someone being hurt is low, sure it is more than it was otherwise but still "acceptably" low to them, even if we would not agree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I was not thinking about any of the stuff you mentioned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I don't count the Media Matters references to Ted Nugent's statements because I don't think he's ever worked for the NRA in an official capacity but the rest are shared among the current head, Dana Loesch, and two other spokespeople at the NRA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you check history, the first gun bans came when whites saw a black people with them. It is amazing how many republicans get anti-2nd amendment when they see a minority with a gun.
Very few people actually support the constitution, they are more than willing to let their fears and politics be used to remove every last stitch of freedom possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does the NRA really support a liberated internet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The flagrant, out in the open, lies are not helping anyone and yet it continues unabated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I love it when people show their ignorance like you do.
New low? you don't even know the meaning of it. Every time people like you say shit like this it is infuriating.
Millions of innocents Children, Woman, and Men have been oppressed, raped, murdered, experimented on and generally treated like worthless organisms and you roll out "a new low" for a run of the mill corruption in Government?
Talk about having some fucked up perspectives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Does the phrase "new low" mean or imply that it is the lowest ever attained or does it mean or imply a new instance of depravity. I eagerly await your biased reply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"This is a new low for humanity."
The fact that you are trying to alter that now is pretty telling of your integrity. Own the mistake and learn from it so you do not repeat it next time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I though it was a joke
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They are geniuses for this veiled mockery!
Ahem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Couldn't finish the article before commenting
"CPAC apparently doesn't realize that Millennials are starting to vote in greater numbers than ever before"
My reply is who gives a shit! The head of the FCC is not elected, he is appointed. He is a bureaucratic with WAY to much power. I deal with this shit all the time at the state level and when pressing my state rep even she can't do anything about these entrenched power mongers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Couldn't finish the article before commenting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Couldn't finish the article before commenting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reading through the lines
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad headline
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My shortlist:
- Bernie Madoff, for making people more prosperous
- Harold Shipman, for improving the health of the elderly
- Jim Jones, for creating a close-knit religious community
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hurray for the U.S.
But this is like waving around a huge erected penis with "Jesus saves" tattooed on it on a Puritan march.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bs/stupid meter
Please INSERT ABOVE..
I get a feeling that MOST of these people are ALL BLONDE, and Died their hair..
Im sorry, these folks are an INSULT TO BEING BLONDE..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bs/stupid meter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: bs/stupid meter
Any data to back that up or is this just another stupid thing you have regurgitated?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: bs/stupid meter
Uh, no.
A peroxide blonde is someone whose hair (on the outside of the skull) has been bleached, e.g. with hydrogen peroxide.
The comment was suggesting that it looks like these people have applied the bleach to the insides of their skulls, i.e., to their brains rather than their hair.
That says nothing whatsoever about the intelligence of people who applied the bleach on the outside of the skull - to say nothing of natural blonds or blondes, who haven't had bleach involved in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No punishment so no reason not to do it
We can debate the finer points about whether the musket was a gift or if it never left the building and so on, but the point is that all of these people (from the president on down) have learned that there won't be any punishment for anything they do. It's not like the FCC boss is elected so he'll stay in office as long as he pleases Trump.
Plus, there's still no guarantee that *any* issue will cause *any* Republican to be voted out of office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No punishment so no reason not to do it
If conservatism is to regain any kind of credibility going forward we're going to have to work out what "morality" means and stick to it.
Ajit Pai, the NRA nor the benighted bunch of hypocrites at that event have sold us down the river for power for its own sake. That way madness lies, people!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No punishment so no reason not to do it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apparently, really rich and influential folk do not have to worry themselves about such trivia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Has anyone else ever played the Steve Jackson game Illuminati?
This is one of those events that really looks like some kind of bad secret-society-overlord attempt of the NRA >> Gun Nuts chain to capture or link the Phone Companies >> FCC chain.
Or if we're going to go full Illuminatus trilogy paranoid, a manipulation to get the free internet sector currently resisting the FCC to start resisting the gun sector as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Has anyone else ever played the Steve Jackson game Illuminati?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
COOTIES award
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh?
Does the NRA think that the right to do whatever the hell you want with your ISP oligarchy have some equivalence to the right to do whatever the hell you want with guns? That's the only possible "connection" I could see here, and I had to think real hard to make that one.
Is this really just about hardcore libertarian virtue signaling, or is there something else I'm missing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh?
If I'm right about this just being a political thing, the NRA are shooting themselves in the foot (har har). Think about it, who are the big players in the Western Internet? You know, the websites and platforms that will definitely get all the fast lanes. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Google... noticing a pattern here?
All of these companies are currently suffering from varying levels of hard-left cancer, and all of them wouldn't think twice to ban pro-gun material on all of their platforms. Thus, the NRA's members would have to suffer slower or more expensive connections to platforms that allow their type of discussion!
How you liking that slow lane, NRA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or, CPAC knows full well that there is nothing to fear from voters any more, as they now have complete control of the Vote Counters and can do as they damn well please. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]