Order Now To Get Your Techdirt Gear Before Christmas!

from the give-a-gift dept

The holidays are approaching, and if you want to give the gift of Techdirt Gear to someone on your shopping list this year (or just treat yourself) then you've only got a couple weeks left to place your order with Teespring and ensure it ships in time!

The cutoff date to ensure delivery by Christmas with standard shipping is December 11th for US orders and December 4th for international orders! Rush shipping is also available in some locations for an extra fee, pushing the deadline to December 19th.

Be sure to check out our recent t-shirts, hoodies, mugs and stickers like the First Emojiment gear featuring an internet-ready translation of the first amendment:

And for those who are getting tired of a certain oft-repeated mantra about free speech that just happens to be completely incorrect and useless, check out our Free Speech Pro-Tip gear:

Also, earlier this year we took a treasure trove of old NSA propaganda posters that were obtained via a FOIA request from Government Attic and turned 24 of the best ones into t-shirts, hoodies and mugs. You can browse them all in our Teespring store or click on one of these thumbnails to head straight to the design of your choice:

Remember, US orders are due by December 11th for standard delivery by Christmas. Check out our store on Teespring for other great Techdirt gear!

Filed Under: first amendment, free speech, gear, nsa

New White House Press Conference Rules Leave Door Open To Future Challenges

from the doesn't-change-much dept

As you've likely heard by now, the Trump administration has restored Jim Acosta's hard pass for media briefings, and CNN has accordingly dropped its lawsuit, returning the battle between Trump and the media to cold-war-status for the time being. But the White House also took the opportunity to issue new rules for its press conferences which, rather than truly addressing any of the issues that formed the basis of the lawsuit, appear to leave the door wide open for future abuses by Trump and challenges by the press:

(1) A journalist called upon to ask a question will ask a single question and then will yield the floor to other journalists;

(2) At the discretion of the President or other White House official taking questions, a follow-up question or questions may be permitted; and where a follow up has been allowed and asked, the questioner will then yield the floor;

(3) “Yielding the floor” includes, when applicable, surrendering the microphone to White House staff for use by the next questioner;

(4) Failure to abide by any of rules (1)-(3) may result in suspension or revocation of the journalist’s hard pass.

Basically, the White House seems to be setting itself up with the absolute bare minimum framework that it could kinda-sorta claim constitutes viewpoint-neutral due process the next time it wants to kick out a reporter. Functionally the rules don't seem to change much, since who gets the floor at White House press conferences has always ultimately been at the discretion of the person at the podium, but this formalizes the threat of pass revocation for those who don't play nice enough for Trump's tastes. Though many reporters are (rightfully) speaking out against the clear anti-press tone of the rules, and (correctly) pointing out that followup questions are one of the most critical components of good journalism, the reality is that this just puts things in a holding pattern until the next time Trump kicks someone out.

For one thing, the rules don't actually address any of the due process requirements set out in Sherrill v. Knight and expanded on by the judge's TRO restoring Acosta's pass, so the entire fifth amendment question still falls to how these rules get enforced:

The court in Sherrill held that this process must include notice, an opportunity to rebut the government's reasons and a written decision. And ... although the court in Sherrill did not have occasion to address it, when an important interest is at stake and when the government is able to provide this process before deprivation, it generally must do so.

Moreover, simply stating that the president has discretionary power doesn't eliminate the first amendment issue. Again, it will come down to how that power is used — specifically, whether it's used for viewpoint-based discrimination. If there is another incident and another legal challenge, these rules won't change much, and something like CNN's initial first amendment argument could easily still apply:

Defendants' justifications for impeding Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights are hollow and hardly sufficiently compelling to justify the indefinite revocation of Acosta’s White House credentials. Consequently, the only reasonable inference from Defendants’ conduct is that they have revoked Acosta's credentials as a form of content- and viewpoint-based discrimination and in retaliation for Plaintiffs' exercise of protected First Amendment activity.

The sole justification for Defendants’ conduct is their dislike for Plaintiffs’ coverage of the administration and critique of the President. But that is insufficient to justify such a substantial restriction on Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights.

Meanwhile, in the full statement laying out the new rules, Sarah Sanders laments that they were created with "a degree of regret" and are only necessary because they can tragically no longer rely on "a set of understood professional norms."

If only they cared so much about presidential norms.

Filed Under: due process, fifth amendment, first amendment, jim acosta, journalism, sarah sanders, white house
Companies: cnn

Court Again Rules That Cable Giants Can't Weaponize The First Amendment

from the no-luck,-try-again dept

Over the last few years, telecom giants have increasingly been trying to claim that pretty much any effort to hold them accountable for their terrible service (or anything else) is a violation of their First Amendment rights. Historically that hasn't gone so well. For example, courts generally laughed off ISP lawyer claims that net neutrality violated their free speech rights, quite correctly highlighting that ISPs are simply conduits to information, not acting as editors of available speech through their blocking or filtering of available information.

Charter Spectrum, the nation's second biggest cable operator, has been trying to embrace this argument a lot lately as it fights off state lawsuits for terrible service. It recently tried to use the First Amendment card again in a legal battle with Byron Allen's Entertainment Studios Networks (ESN), which recently accused Charter of violating the Civil Rights Act of 1866 by refusing to carry TV channels run by the African-American-owned ESN.

While Charter tried to have the suit dismissed by claiming that the First Amendment prohibits such claims because an ISP enjoys "editorial discretion," the ruling (pdf) by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit didn't agree. The court noted that while ISPs and cable companies do enjoy some First Amendment protection, it doesn't apply here, just like it didn't apply in the net neutrality fight:

"As part of its defense, Charter had told the court that by choosing which channels to carry, the company was engaging in a form of editorial discretion protected by the First Amendment. Therefore, it said, the court would have to use a stricter standard to evaluate Entertainment Studios’ claim of a legal violation — a standard that might result in the claim being rejected.

The Ninth Circuit said otherwise, saying that just because Charter engages in corporate speech when it selects which channels to carry does not “automatically” require the court to use the tougher standard.

As a result, the court is letting the case move forward. For its part, ESN's discrimination complaint alleges that its complaint is based on more than just having its channel withheld from the company's cable lineup:

"The opinion on Charter’s motion to dismiss also marks a victory for the 25-year-old programming firm founded by comedian Byron Allen, which bought the Weather Channel in March and accused Charter executives in court of hurling racist insults at Allen and other black Americans in numerous encounters. In one alleged instance, Charter chief executive Tom Rutledge called Allen, who is black, “boy” at an industry conference and advised him to change his behavior, according to court documents. In another alleged example, the court said, Charter’s senior executive in charge of programming, Allan Singer, approached a group of black protesters outside Charter’s offices to tell them to “get off of welfare."

Consumer groups like Public Knowledge were quick to applaud the ruling, happy to see another effort to "weaponize" the First Amendment shot down. The district court will now proceed to determining whether Charter did engage in racially discriminatory conduct.

"Holding us accountable for absolutely anything violates our free speech" rights was historically something telecom lobbyists often just throw at a wall in a bid to see if it sticks. But these efforts have escalated in the last few years. For example FCC staffers under Ajit Pai, at this point nearly indistinguishable from big telecom lobbying efforts, have even tried to claim that community-run broadband (an organic, voter-approved response to terrible service) is a threat to free speech, a charge there's absolutely zero supporting evidence for.

It's a legal argument giant ISPs have also embraced more recently in large part because they hope that new Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who bought into some of these arguments during previous net neutrality battles, will ultimately be a deciding vote should many of these battles wind their way to the Supreme Court. So far, however, these efforts haven't worked out all that well, and while that's not likely to change when the net neutrality court fight kicks off next February, it could be an important issue should that fight make its way to the highest court in the land.

Filed Under: cable, first amendment, isp, ninth circuit, telecom
Companies: charter spectrum, esn

Judge Blocks White House From Pulling Jim Acosta's Press Pass, But The Battle Continues

from the freedom-of-the-press dept

Update: The White House has officially restored Acosta's press pass, and also established new rules for press conferences. We'll bring you more info on those rules after we've had a closer look.

Last week I wrote about the case that CNN and its reporter Jim Acosta had filed against the White House for the removal of his press pass over some trumped up claims that he had "assaulted" a White House intern (he did not, he simply resisted returning the microphone to her after she attempted to grab it from him). As we noted, the removal of the pass was clearly based on the content of his questioning and it seemed fairly obvious that the White House would lose the lawsuit, especially based on the existing precedent in Sherrill v. Knight, which gave CNN clear basis under both the 1st Amendment and the 5th Amendment.

Perhaps not surprisingly, a bunch of Trump supporters quickly ran to the comments to screech at me about how wrong and biased I was against them. Let's be clear: this is bullshit. I would have written the same article had Obama removed the press pass of a Fox News reporter under identical circumstances (and, frankly, the Trump supporters here should learn to think beyond their obsession with defending "dear leader" in everything he does, because the same rules will apply when other Presidents are in charge, and they may not always like it in the other direction). The Constitutional elements here are pretty clear. The White House is allowed to set non-content-based rules for who gets a press pass, but once they do that, they absolutely cannot remove a press pass for anything having to do with content, and they can't simply make up rules to remove someone without any form of due process.

The judge in this case, Timothy Kelly, (who, we'll note, was appointed by Trump, even though it shouldn't make a difference), moved quickly on this case, issuing a temporary restraining order on the White House and ordering it to return Acosta's press pass Friday afternoon. The basis for his ruling from the bench was the 5th Amendment due process question, noting that there was no clear reason at all given by the White House:

the government must provide Mr. Acosta due process if it is to revoke his hard pass. Accordingly, the likelihood that the plaintiffs succeed on the First -- on the Fifth Amendment claim hinges on whether the government provided adequate due process to Mr. Acosta. The court in Sherrill held that this process must include notice, an opportunity to rebut the government's reasons and a written decision. And all the court -- although the court in Sherrill did not have occasion to address it, when an important interest is at stake and when the government is able to provide this process before deprivation, it generally must do so. There is no evidence that one of the few exceptions to this rule would apply here such as some kind of emergency. So I do hold that plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on their claim that adequate process was not provided to Mr. Acosta. Indeed, whatever process occurred within the government is still so shrouded in mystery that the Government could not tell me at oral argument who made the initial decision to revoke Mr. Acosta's press pass -- his hard pass.

Now, it is true that the public and Mr. Acosta were eventually provided two things. First, explanations as to why his hard pass was revoked through Ms. Sanders's tweets; and a written statement of explanation, apparently prompted by this litigation, but given their timing and their lack of connection to Mr. Acosta's opportunity to rebut -- which we'll talk about in a moment -- these belated efforts were hardly sufficient to satisfy due process.

Of course, in typical White House fashion, members of the Trump Administration have continued to trip over each other to make the dumbest statement possible in response to all of this, some of which mean that CNN has already gone back to court in this case, and it's going to continue. First, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders made the following nonsense statement:

"...the court made clear that there is no absolute First Amendment right to access the White House."

Except... that's not what the court said at all. The court actually said that reporters absolutely are protected by the 1st Amendment once they are given a press pass, but that it was premature to rule on the 1st Amendment question when the 5th Amendment procedural question could be dealt with first.

Then the President himself stepped in with more nonsense claiming:

"We want total freedom of the press."

Uh, no you don't. You're constantly whining about the press, threatening them and their revenue sources, or threatening to "pull" some non-existent licenses. And, of course, Trump then went on to misstate what Kelly's ruling said:

But you have to act with respect when you're at the White House, and when I see the way some of my people get treated at news conferences, it's terrible. So we're setting up a certain standard, which is what the court is requesting.

No, the court is requiring (not requesting) due process, which is not that you get to make up new rules to kick out reporters who are asking you questions you don't like (or even ones who are grandstanding). And, reporters don't need to "respect" the President. Indeed, it's better if they don't, because their role is to challenge the President and to ask tough questions that no administration likes.

Then, over the weekend, things got even more ridiculous, with the White House telling Acosta they plan to remove his press pass again once the 14 day temporary restraining order is up, and arguing that this is part of their due process to get around the 5th Amendment issues:

After CNN won a temporary restraining order on Friday, forcing the White House to restore his press pass for 14 days, White House officials sent Acosta a letter stating that his pass is set to be suspended again once the restraining order expires.

From the looks of the letter, the W.H. is trying to establish a paper trail that will empower the administration to boot Acosta again at the end of the month.

Of course, as Julian Sanchez points out, telling a reporter ahead of any process that you'll be removing his press pass would seem to be evidence of your own lack of due process, so this might get rejected on 5th Amendment grounds again (while still avoiding the 1st Amendment questions, which would likely go against the White House as well...).

The letter itself is quite ridiculous. It still says that they're planning to remove the press pass for his actions back at the November 7th press conference, when the court already made clear that the White House had no legitimate reason to do so based on that conference.

In response to this, CNN has already gone back to court, saying that this retrospective due process is not nearly enough. They ask for a hearing as quickly as possible to deal with the White House making this move.

Either way, this whole fight seems particularly stupid, and one that the White House simply cannot win in any court other than the one of Trump's super fans insisting that everything the President does must be perfectly correct. It is not. It is unconstitutional. And the sooner Trump's kneejerk fans recognize that Trump can and does make mistakes, the sooner they can get back to actually respecting the Constitution they now only pretend to support.

Filed Under: donald trump, due process, fifth amendment, first amendment, free speech, jim acosta, white house
Companies: cnn

Don't Throw Out The First Amendment's Press Protections Just Because You Don't Like President Trump

from the not-how-it-works dept

Back in April, when the DNC first sued a whole bunch of people and organizations claiming a giant conspiracy between the Russians, Wikileaks and the Trump campaign, we warned that beyond the complaint including a ton of truly nutty claims, it was also an attack on the 1st Amendment. Much of what was described as violating the law by Wikileaks and others was classic journalism activity -- and a ruling in favor of the DNC would do massive harm to the 1st Amendment. Indeed, as the case has continued to move forward, more and more media organizations are warning about the possibility of a catastrophic outcome for news media should the DNC win this case.

Perhaps ironically, this puts Donald Trump on the same team, legally, as the people he repeatedly insists are "the enemy of the people." His lawyers, of course, don't mind the double standard and have been quick to correctly wrap themselves in the First Amendment to try to get the lawsuit dismissed. This is the proper result.

Unfortunately, Trump derangement syndrome means that otherwise competent people keep searching for a "but, Trump... " exception to the 1st Amendment. Over at Just Security, two former Obama White House lawyers -- Bob Bauer and Ryan Goodman -- try to argue the case for why the 1st Amendment doesn't protect the Trump campaign in this case. The crux of their argument is that the campaign was a lot more involved in seeking damaging information, rather than just passing it around once it had been leaked.

It is on fundamental factual distinctions between Bartnicki and the Trump case that the campaign’s First Amendment theory founders.  Unlike Bartnicki’s radio host, the campaign is not free of involvement in illegal activity. It did not merely comment on what the Russians and WikiLeaks conspired to make public. It willfully engaged with both the Russians and WikiLeaks in both the pursuit and the publication of the stolen emails—actions that bump up against clear prohibitions in federal campaign finance law. Foreign nationals may not contribute or spend funds to influence an American election, and, crucially, a U.S. political campaign cannot assist or act in coordination with foreign electoral intervention.

We know that the Russians were peddling assistance to a receptive campaign, that the campaign learned as early as April 2016 that Russians possessed stolen emails, th... Jr. advised the Russians on when to release derogatory information (“later in the summer”), that the Russian hacking operation continued long after the Russians first made contact with and were greeted receptively by the campaign, that the president himself publicly encouraged the Russian government to locate the so-called “missing“ Clinton emails, and that Russian spies quickly followed by trying to hack Clinton’s personal email. There are also reports that the Russians may have previewed the plan to disseminate the emails before ever doing so.  For the purposes of the ongoing civil suit, those allegations alone rob the campaign of its current defense.

But those paragraphs make a ton of assumptions, often without enough evidence to back it up. But much, much, much worse is the following paragraph that Bauer and Goodman put in, claiming that the media shouldn't be concerned about the 1st Amendment impact of this case:

There is misplaced concern that a defeat for this First Amendment defense puts media protections at risk. Federal campaign finance regulation supplies useful guidance here: It exempts standard journalistic activity, but denies those protections to conduct outside the “legitimate press function.” It is clear from disclosures by an internal WikiLeaks critic and other materials that Julian Assange targeted Hillary Clinton and sought to work with the Trump campaign and the Russians to secure her defeat. This is not a “legitimate press function.” And the conflation of Wikileaks’ plan of campaign attack with standard journalistic activity undermines important distinctions critical to the protection of the free press.

That paragraph is frightening and should worry anyone who believes in the 1st Amendment's protections for the press. These lawyers are basically arguing that they get to decide what is and what is not a "legitimate press function" and that working with a campaign automatically makes it not a legitimate press function. As Glenn Greenwald notes, there's a viable argument that under the description that Bauer and Goodman lay out here someone could just as easily argue that Vox or MSNBC aren't protected by the 1st Amendment either:

Some will argue that there are differences of degree and level of cooperation, but even if that's true (and it's not clear that it is), you've already wiped out the basic 1st Amendment protections because now every media outlet will need to argue, over and over again, whether or not any of its activity counts as "a legitimate press function." That would create massive chilling effects, and is a standard that could be easily abused.

Hell, just to bring this all back around, it doesn't take a stable genius to figure out what President Trump would start doing if he could argue the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to publications engaged in things that are "not a legitimate press function." And, incredibly, the DNC seems to want to hand him this very power. It's mind-boggling.

Dan Froomkin has an excellent reply to the Bauer/Goodman piece. He agrees that there may be some violations of the law buried in everything, but lumping in Wikileaks (even as he calls Julian Assange's recent activities "despicable") here is an attack on the basic 1st Amendment protections for journalists. Even if you dislike Trump massively, supporting these arguments is an attack on the press that will come back to bite everyone by handing the government and others a tool to argue that certain press activities are somehow not protected for not being "a legitimate press function."

Filed Under: bob bauer, collusion, donald trump, first amendment, free speech, press freedom, ryan goodman
Companies: wikileaks

Iowa State Students Make Demands Over School Trademark Policy Public, Plan Possible First Amendment Lawsuit

from the go-cyclones! dept

Iowa State University just cannot stop shooting itself in the foot. After attempting to bully a pro-marijuana student organization out of using school iconography, the school both lost the lawsuit that came afterwards and managed to piss away nearly half a million dollars in taxpayer money in having to pay out the would-be victims of its bullying. Instead of learning its lesson after that whole episode, ISU instead decided to alter its trademark usage policy to be way more restrictive, which only pushed student organizations to drop references to the school en masse. At the same time, the student government issued a resolution demanding the school review its policy again and make it less restrictive. Administration officials at that time agreed to meet with the student government to hear their concerns.

Well, that meeting happened this past week, and everybody is still seriously pissed off.

Student organizations demonstrated their issues with Iowa State’s administration for its implementation of a new trademark policy at a meeting Thursday evening.  For the immediate future, Student Government wants an apology from the university and an immediate block on the enforcement of the policy. They have alternate plans of action if this deliberation works out poorly.

Woodruff, other members of Student Government and organization presidents agreed that acts of protest like wearing trademarked clothing and sending emails to university officials were encouraged. Student Government also talked to Student Legal Services regarding a possible lawsuit on using the First Amendment as a basis for suit.

For the second time in a couple of years, ISU might find itself the subject of a First Amendment lawsuit brought against it by its own students. Given its track record and the insane amount of money it had to pay out the last time, it would be flatly insane for the school to allow things to get the point of a lawsuit. But, then, this is ISU we're talking about.

One of the chief issues the student government has is that the administration apparently has tried to cut them out of the process at every turn.

One issue that Student Government had with the process is the lack of transparency. Woodruff said they have not been able to produce any documentation, including the email that was sent out to club organization presidents, Regent or Big 12 policies that may have prompted the new university measures. In addition to this, he said the meetings that the university had about this subject originally were not public and did not have any minutes recorded.

“Things are getting worse, not better,” Woodruff said. “This fuse is getting shorter and shorter.”

And that's not a good sign for the school, given the threat of a possible lawsuit on the horizon. Adding to much of the anger is that much of the iconography and mascot imagery the school uses, and is attempting to control through its trademark policy, were student creations from long ago. To turn the trademark policy like a gun on its own student groups could pretty much only lead to anger.

It's a full on mystery why the school doesn't just scrap this altogether and agree to work with its students on a sane trademark usage policy. Perhaps doing so would end this, ahem, cyclone of dissent.

Filed Under: first amendment, free speech, trademark
Companies: iowa state

FCC Falsely Declares Community Broadband An 'Ominous' Attack On Free Speech

from the bullshit-factory dept

Absent any hard data to support their claims, you may have noted that the Trump FCC often just makes up some shit.

Like that time FCC boss Ajit Pai tried to claim that net neutrality somehow aids dictators. Or that time Pai's office just made up a DDOS attack to try and downplay massive public backlash to his historically unpopular policies. There's often no real-world data that can defend blindly kissing the rings of widely-loathed telecom monopolies, so bullshit tends to be the weapon of choice when Pai's FCC embraces whatever handout to Comcast and friends is on the menu this week.

The latest case in point: during a speech at the ISP-backed and scientifically-sounding Media Institute, FCC Commissioner Mike O’Rielly took a moment to broadly declare that community owned and operated broadband providers are an "ominous" threat to free speech:

"I would be remiss if my address omitted a discussion of a lesser-known, but particularly ominous, threat to the First Amendment in the age of the Internet: state-owned and operated broadband networks."

We've long noted how community broadband networks are often an organic response to the expensive, slow, or just-plain unavailable service that's the direct product of a broken telecom market and regulatory capture. While you'll occasionally see some deployment duds if the business models aren't well crafted, studies have shown such networks (there's 750 and counting now in the States) offer cheaper, faster service than many incumbents. This direct threat to incumbent revenues is a major reason why ISP lobbyists have passed protectionist laws in more than 21 states trying to block your town's ability to even consider the option.

If you thought O'Rielly would provide hard evidence of these networks' "ominous" affront to free speech, you'd be mistaken. The closest O'Rielly gets to evidence is a 2015 white paper crafted for an ISP-funded think tank claiming that because these ISPs' TOS include routine language restricting harassment and hate speech (language every private ISP also includes in their TOS and AUP), community-run ISPs' are more likely to censor user speech:

"The closest O’Rielly gets to supporting evidence appears to be a 2015 white paper written by Professor Enrique Armijo for the ISP-funded Free State Foundation. That paper similarly alleges that standard telecom sector language intended to police “threatening, abusive or hateful” language somehow implies community-run ISPs are more likely to curtail user speech."

Of course the implication is that government-run networks must be bad because hey, it's the government. Forgotten in this false narrative is the fact that on the local level, the government is obviously you and I, and these networks are a direct, democratic response to decades of frustration at the obvious failures of the telecom market. And if you talk to folks that actually have some expertise on this subject (like I did over at Motherboard), they'll tell you that because these ISPs actually have a vested interest in the communities they serve, they're far more responsive to user complaints:

"Municipal broadband experts say the argument has no basis in fact.

"There is no history of municipal networks censoring anyone's speech,” Christopher Mitchell, a community broadband expert and Director of the Institute for Local Reliance, told Motherboard.

“In our experience, the Terms of Service from municipal ISPs have been similar to or better than those of for-profit ISPs in terms of benefiting subscribers,” he added. “And when concerns have been raised about related issues...the municipal ISPs have listened to public sentiments far more than any large cable or telephone company has."

O'Rielly also fails to mention that incumbent ISPs like Comcast routinely argue that absolutely everything the public demands of it (from expanding broadband to adhering to net neutrality) violate its First Amendment rights (an argument new Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh has already supported). Whereas municipally-run ISPs likely won't be allowed to tap dance around First Amendment lawsuits as government-linked entities mandated to avoid speech regulation.

But the biggest irony here is that one of the ISPs targeted by O'Rielly for non-existent free speech violations is EPB broadband in Chattanooga, which was just ranked by Consumer Reports as one of the best ISPs in the nation in terms of value, speed, and service quality. Comcast tried to unsuccessfully sue EPB out of existence. And as long as we're getting vexed about your rights, both AT&T and Comcast also lobbied legislators to pass a law in Tennessee restricting voter-approved broadband networks like these from expanding, even if voters approve it at the ballot box.

Ultimately, Chattanooga's service forced these ISPs to do the one thing they had been hoping to avoid: compete on both service speed and price. That's not to say local-government owned broadband should be the only solution embraced, but it's obviously one of several ways you can actually prod lumbering, pampered mono/duopolies to actually give a damn.

And of course that's the real problem in O'Rielly's mind: that locals would dare impede on Comcast's god-given right to buy itself a geographical monopoly over an essential service, nickel-and-diming consumers until they grew so frustrated they're forced to get into the broadband business themselves.

Of course ISPs could prevent this by simply offering better, faster, and cheaper service. But it's far easier and cheaper to try and buy laws restricting consumer rights, and to have your favorite public official mindlessly demonize something that is, at the end of the day, a legitimate, organic public response to a broadband competition and availability problem ISPs like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast would prefer regulators ignore.

Filed Under: ajit pai, competition, first amendment, free speech, government, mike o'rielly, muni broadband, municipal broadband