Mediaboss Marketing

Neither the FCC nor FTC has a particularly good track record of standing up to broadband and cable giants when it comes to their longstanding track record ofanticompetitive behavior, price gouging, or nickel-and-diming their often captive customers with bogus,hidden fees.

Though occasionally one of the two agencies does step in to try make a bare minimum effort to rein in the industrys worst impulses, such as the FTCs attempt,unveiled last March, to force companies to stop making cancelling service a pain in the ass. As you probably already know, many companies require you jump through elaborate hoops if you want to cancel, upselling you the entire time.

The FTCsproposed provisionwould make it just as easy to cancel a service as it is to sign up, requiring companies provide easy, one click access to cancelling service online. Said FTC boss Lina Khan at the time:

The proposal would save consumers time and money, and businesses that continued to use subscription tricks and traps would be subject to stiff penalties.

But the cable and broadband industry, which has a long and proud tradition of whining about every last consumer protection requirement (no matter how basic), is kicking back at the requirement. At ahearinglast week, former FCC boss-turned-top-cable-lobbying Mike Powell suggested such a rule wouldnt be fair, because it might somehow (?)prevent cable companies from informing customers about better deals:

The proposed simple click-to-cancel mechanism may not be so simple when such practices are involved. A consumer may easily misunderstand the consequences of canceling and it may be imperative that they learn about better options, NCTA CEO Michael Powell said at the hearing. For example, a customer may face difficulty and unintended consequences if they want to cancel only one service in the package, as canceling part of a discounted bundle may increase the price for remaining services.

Not to be outdone, Powell took things one step further and attempted ye olde throw every argument possible at a wall and see what sticks legal approach, at one point even trying to claim the FTCs requirements would harm the cable industrys first amendment rights (which makes no coherent sense):

the FTC proposal prevents almost any communication without first obtaining a consumers unambiguous, affirmative consent. That could disrupt the continuity of important services, choke off helpful information and forgo potential savings. It certainly raises First Amendment issues.

The cable and broadband industry makes its bundle pricing as complicated and punitive as possible, not only making it hard to simply outright cancel service, but often making it impossible to actually know how much youll pay for service in the first place. The goal isnt just to rip you off; its to making pricing so convoluted that its hard to do price comparisons or understand how much youre even paying.

Comcast and friends are alreadyfighting a separate initiative by the FCCrequiring they be up front and transparent about the specifics of your broadband line and how much it costs.

Again, this isnt even regulators trying advanced policies like trying to regulate rates or encourage competition. These are just very basic initiatives trying to force lumbering telecom and cable giants to make pricing transparent and transactions easy. And even these efforts result in years of legal wrangling, assuming they can survive a rightward lurching, corporate-friendly court system in the first place.

And this all comes before the looming Supreme Court rulings designed to make U.S. regulatorsmore impotent than ever. Defanging and defunding U.S. regulators always comes under the pretense that this will somehow result in unbridled innovation, when, as the cable and broadband industry routinely demonstrates, that simply couldnt be any further from the truth.

Cable Giants Insist That Forcing Them To Make Cancellations Easier Violates Their First Amendment Rights

More Law-Related Stories From Techdirt:

Palworld Is a Great Example Of The Idea/Expression Dichotomy In The Midst Of Multiple Controversies Of His Own Making, NYC Mayor Adams Decides The Real Problem Is Social Media Study Shows Throwing Money At Law Enforcement Doesnt Result In Lower Crime Rates

More:
Cable Giants Insist That Forcing Them To Make Cancellations Easier Violates Their First Amendment Rights - Above the Law

Public Institutions

It depends. As with private universities, your public college or university can discipline you for your speech if it determines that the speech violates the university's student conduct rules, or other established rules and guidelines. However, that investigation and determination must adhere,first and foremost, to First Amendment protections (outlined in the general First Amendment section above), as well as to the rules outlined in the universitys student code of conduct so, knowledge of your college or universitys code of conduct and/or policies is essential.

Before a public institution disciplines a student or student group, such as by expelling the student or revoking official recognition from a group on campus, it must provide the student or student group with due process. This includes providing students with the names of witnesses against them, an opportunity to present a defense, and the results and findings of the hearing. Unless otherwise stated in their own rules, public institutions are not required to provide legal representation for students, allow them to bring a legal representative, allow students or student groups to cross-examine witnesses, or record the hearing.

Excerpt from:
Know Your Rights: Students in Higher Education & the First Amendment - New York Civil Liberties Union

Home > SPJ News > SPJ co-authors legal brief supporting First Amendment right to record and publish livestreamed court hearings

SPJ co-authors legal brief supporting First Amendment right to record and publish livestreamed court hearings

CONTACT: Ashanti Blaize-Hopkins, SPJ National President, ashanti.blaize@gmail.com Andrew Geronimo, Case Western Reserve University School of Law First Amendment Clinic, andrew.geronimo@case.edu Kim Tsuyuki, SPJ Communications Specialist, ktsuyuki@hq.spj.org

INDIANAPOLIS The Society of Professional Journalists is urging a federal appeals court to protect journalists First Amendment right to photograph, record, and redistribute images of court hearings that are livestreamed for remote viewing.

In a legal brief joined by the National Press Photographers Association, SPJ asks the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a federal district court ruling from Michigan, which found that there is no constitutionally protected right to create and publish screenshots of court proceedings even if the courts themselves televise the proceedings.

Although judges have been given latitude to exclude photojournalists from the physical courtroom on the grounds that cameras might be noisy or distracting, the same principle does not apply when a journalist, or other spectator, is recording the hearing in the privacy of a home or workplace, the brief argues: By self-publishing the audio or video of a proceeding, the judge has conceded that there is no harm in letting the public listen and watch.

The brief was filed Jan. 8 by attorneys Andrew Geronimo, Sara E. Coulter and Siobhan Gerber of the Milton and Charlotte Kramer First Amendment Law Clinic at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, who are providing pro-bono counsel to SPJ and NPPA.

The brief was filed in support of a Michigan lawyer, Nicholas Somberg, who is suing prosecutors for seeking sanctions against him after he took a screenshot of a hearing in which he was participating by Zoom and shared the image on Facebook. Prosecutors had initiated contempt proceedings against Somberg under a court rule that restricts the use of cameras inside the courtroom without the judges permission. A U.S. district judge threw out Sombergs lawsuit, agreeing with prosecutors that the rule against cameras inside courtrooms applies equally to a livestreamed remote hearing. Somberg is asking the Sixth Circuit to reinstate his case.

SPJ and NPPA ask the appeals court to overturn the district court, which failed to require the government to demonstrate why it is legitimate to extend the courtroom cameras ban beyond the walls of the courthouse. The organizations argue that the ban is unconstitutionally broad, prohibiting the re-use of any images of courtroom video, even in cases of great public concern that involve no sensitive privacy issues.

News media coverage of the courts serves an essential public-education function, enabling far more people than could ever sit in the courtroom to have the civic benefit of viewing the workings of the justice system for themselves, the brief argues. Video of judicial proceedings, whether broadcast by the news media or streamed directly by the court, provides the most complete record of what took place, rather than leaving the public to rely on second-hand accounts, the accuracy of which might be questioned.

The case is Somberg v. McDonald, No. 23-01872.

SPJ promotes the free flow of information vital to informing citizens; works to inspire and educate the next generation of journalists; and fights to protect First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and press. Support excellent journalism and fight for your right to know. Become a member, give to the Legal Defense Fund or give to the SPJ Foundation.

-END-

More here:
SPJ co-authors legal brief supporting First Amendment right to record and publish livestreamed court hearings - Society of Professional Journalists

I dont quite understand how anyone could misinterpret the First Amendment, as many people seem to do. It specifically states the following: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Our forefathers came to America to escape religious bigotry and to practice their religious beliefs without fear of retribution. So when people say we need to put religion into the government, they are defying the intent of the First Amendment.

Choosing to believe or not believe in a particular religion is a very personal decision. When someone says, I cant do that, its against my religion, thats perfectly acceptable. But when someone says, You cant do that, its against my religion. This is unacceptable for the obvious reason that it takes away the freedom to choose to believe differently than you.

When anyone imposes their beliefs on others, it diminishes the right of other people to think for themselves. Let us respect each others personal choices when it comes to religion. Isnt that what true freedom really means?

Kae Luppens

Lemay

The rest is here:
Letter writer reminds others about intent behind the First Amendment - Call Newspapers

An election year is hard to avoid in Washington, even at the Federal Communications Commission.

Chair Jessica Rosenworcel is playing down the prospect that former President Donald Trump could make good on his recent threats to go after some TV networks that he views as hostile to his candidacy. The First Amendment is something that we take seriously, Rosenworcel said Thursday. It stands for the proposition that we cannot prohibit speech. The thing that is clearest to me is that we have licensing authority over broadcast stations, and its something that needs to be understood more widely and certainly in some of our candidate circles.

When reporters put the same question to Commissioner Brendan Carr, he declined to comment. As we move into election season, I'm not going to be making comments on every statement from candidates as they're working through this process, he said.

It is not the first time Trump has blown off steam toward his adversaries by suggesting the FCC should yank their licenses. He made similar comments in 2017. It drew a critical response from the National Association of Broadcasters, the Radio Television Digital News Association, and some in Congress, but ultimately little came of it.

In other FCC news, Commissioner Anna Gmez has made some staff changes, including those who are advising her on media issues. Deena Shetler will serve as Chief of Staff and advise Gomez on media and international matters. And Harsha Mudaliar will serve as Policy Advisor, focusing on media and technology issues.

Shetler most recently worked on Capitol Hill where she served as a research assistant for the Senate Subcommittee on Communications, Media, and Broadband. Previously, she interned at the FCC in the Office of Legislative Affairs.

Mudaliar joins Gmezs staff from Rosenworcels office, where she served as Deputy Chief of Staff for Administration. She has held numerous leadership roles at the FCC since taking her first job at the agency in 1996, including Deputy Chief of the Office of Economics and Analytics, Deputy Managing Director, Associate Chief of the Wireline Competition Bureau, and as a Legal Advisor to Commissioner Gloria Tristani. Mudaliar has also stepped away from the FCC on two occasions, to work at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) from 2010 to 2011 and the Department of Justice Antitrust Division from 2016-2017.

Gmez also announced Edyael Casaperalta will serve as Legal Advisor for Wireless, Public Safety and Consumer Protection. Hayley Steffen will serve as Legal Advisor for Wireline and Space. And Anna Holland will serve as Executive Assistant in her office.

I am pleased to announce that members of my acting staff have agreed to join my office long term Gmez said. They bring years of communications legal and policy experience along with a longstanding commitment to public service and a can-do attitude.

More here:
FCC's Jessica Rosenworcel On Trump Broadcast License Threats: First Amendment Guides Us. - Insideradio.com