ARTS & FARCES internet

The US Senate’s Commerce Committee yesterday fell one vote short of passing an amendment to ensure network neutrality—treating all internet traffic the same regardless of its source or destination. The amendment to Senator Ted Stevens’ (R-Alaska) telecommunications bill, offered by Senators Olympia Snow (R-Maine) and Byron Dorgan (D-North Dakota) would have prevented the telecommunications and cable companies from turning the internet into a tollway with a tiered pricing model. The US House of Representatives soundly rejected the concept in a 321-101 vote earlier in the month.

The vote broke down along party lines—11 Democrats voted for the amendment; 11 Republicans voted against it. The Republicans parroted the telecommunications companies’ party line, claiming that such legislation was premature and unnecessary. Committee chair Ted Stevens’ comment was typical, accusing his Democrat associates of “imposing a heavy-handed regulation before there’s a demonstrated need.”

Immediately following the committee’s vote against the amendment, Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) placed a hold on the entire legislation until language is included that prevents internet access discrimination:

“The bill makes a number of major changes in the country’s telecommunications law but there is one provision that is nothing more than a license to discriminate. Without a clear policy preserving the neutrality of the Internet and without tough sanctions against those who would discriminate, the Internet will be forever changed for the worse.”

A hold is little more than an informal notice that the dissenting member plans to filibuster the proposed legislation. What’s interesting is that it’s unknown whether or not the Republicans have the 60 votes necessary to break a filibuster.

Update: Friday 30 June 2006 11:30AM: Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) made these comments explaining why he voted against the network neutrality amendment to his proposed legislation. The depth of his misunderstanding of how the internet works boggles the mind.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation yesterday quietly dropped its demand for library records from Library Connection, Inc., a consortium of 26 Connecticut libraries. The FBI had issued a national security letter to obtain the records instead of obtaining a warrant. Library Connection refused to disclose the records, maintaining that if the government wanted the information, it could get a warrant. Instead, the FBI dropped its request.

So, the American citizenry’s civil liberties are a little more intact today than they were yesterday. But what’s really interesting about this particular case is that Library Connection published the text of the national security letter through the American Civil Liberties Union.

National security letters are issued under a gag order that precludes the subject of the investigation from talking about the investigation or even acknowledging the existence of the investigation. The investigative tool is one of the more controversial parts of the USA Patriot Act and allows the government to obtain—without warrants—records of people who are not suspected of any crime.

The New York Times, often mischaracterized as a newspaper with a left-wing agenda because of its opposition to the Iraq war on its editorial page, is coming under increasing fire for its government surveillance-related breaking news on its editorial pages.

• President Bush calls the newspaper’s conduct “disgraceful.”
• Vice President Cheney objects to the paper’s Pulitzer Prize.
• Senator Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) asked John Negroponte, national intelligence director, for a damage assessment.
• Senator John Ensign (R-Nevada) went even further, saying that the Times “should have worked in cooperation with those authorities in our government to make sure that those who leaked were prosecuted.”
• The National Review and Representative J.D. Hayworth (R-Arizona) have called for the publication’s credentials to be withdrawn.
• Representative Peter King (R-New York) has called for the paper to be prosecuted under the 1917 Espionage Act.
• The Weekly Standard called the Times a national security threat.
• Conservative media commentators are calling the newspaper’s publication treasonous.

It’s especially surprising to see the New York Times singled out as a target for the right wing’s ire; the Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal (which has the most conservative editorial page in the country) both published banking surveillance stories.

Is the First Amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights—and the Constitution, for that matter) inviolate or are there times when abridging speech is necessary? That’s the question confronting the Minneapolis City Council just now as one of its members has filed a complaint against the city’s public access cable television network. The dispute has spilled into the mayor’s office and across the rest of the City Council. Few seem to be aware that the question has already been answered.

According to my associate Craig Cox’s account republished in the Twin Cities Daily Planet, City Council president Barbara Johnson asked Minneapolis Television Network’s (MTN) executive director Pam Colby why community standards haven’t been developed. Colby’s response was that standards would be “pushing up against our need to be a First Amendment and free speech forum.” Colby added that the network acts to mitigate programming some viewers may find offensive by airing controversial programs only once and scheduling potentially offensive programming after 10:00PM. Furthermore, any one who feels they’ve been offended or slighted by programming “is invited to submit a response.”

The policy of inviting the offended to submit a response is adequate enough remedy for the complaint to be dismissed, and I’m confused as to why the city is continuing to be distracted by this issue. As Justice Louis Brandeis argued in Whitney v. California, the danger in speech cannot be considered clear and present if there is time to answer. Brandeis believed that while legislatures had an obligation to restrict truly dangerous expression, they were required to clearly define the nature of that danger; fear of or frustration with unpopular ideas isn’t enough. Brandeis’s position was eventually adopted by the US Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio.

Here’s the crux of Brandeis’s most eloquent argument:

Can’t afford to go to TED? Nevermind; there’s a waiting list anyway and TEDTalks deliver the best thought nuggets anyway. TEDTalks are podcasts and video podcasts of the addresses by past attendees.

Watch Ken Robinson, for example, explain why creativity is as important in education as literacy and what we can do to stop educating it out of ourselves.

More TEDTalks are promised each week—there are six from the 2006 conference currently available—and highlights from past TEDs are also available. Each address is available as an audio download (.mp3) a video download (.mp4), or streamed video.