Yiannopoulos May Be A Clown But Free Speech Matters More!

We’re unimpressed with Milo Yiannopoulos and the so-called Alt-Right movement. We will not attend any of his speeches. He’s looking to provoke and say hateful things. His latest attempt to speak at a college was shut down at University of California-Davis this past Friday – see links:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/14/us/milo-yiannopoulos-uc-davis-speech-canceled/

http://reason.com/blog/2017/01/14/censorship-uc-davis-student-protesters-s

However, the students who shut down his appearances on campuses are making a mistake. Censorship is never the answer. The student protesters are actually helping to prove one of Yiannopoulos’ points – that American colleges are now completely controlled by leftist administrators and professors who are denying intellectual freedom and free speech to conservative students. If free speech is to be protected anywhere; it should certainly be protected at public universities. We believe that free speech works best as a marketplace of ideas. Let Yiannopoulos speak and listeners will quickly realize how ridiculous his radical right-wing views really are. The protesters are keeping Yiannopoulos in the news and actually ensuring he gets invited to even more colleges. Without the protests, some students would attend his events, he would not gain many followers and probably disappear from public debate rather quickly.

Jim Maisano
Jim@FreeVoter.com

(Jim serves as a Westchester County Legislator in New York)

 

 

 

Do both political parties have a libertarian streak?

I enjoyed this post on Reason.com by Nick Gillespie:

https://reason.com/blog/2015/10/13/the-demdebate-clarified-that-many-libert

LibertariansGillespie points out how the Democrat candidates for president agreed on several issues that could be deemed libertarian: “When it came to endless wars and constant buildup of defense spending, for instance, or the need to end awful criminal-justice policies, or to be more humane and welcoming to immigrants.” He contrasted these positions with the Republican candidates, which are very weak from a libertarian perspective.

However, Gillespie still cannot bring himself to vote for any of the Democrats because the “economic plans of everyone up there tonight ranged from terrible to truly awful.” He discusses how the Republicans were more libertarian on economic issues.

Gillespie is pleased that “each party is espousing an increasing number of positions that fit within a consistent libertarian approach to the role of government.”

I certainly appreciate Gillespie’s viewpoint and continue to believe that if a libertarian leaning candidate could ever emerge from the Democrat or Republican presidential primaries, he or she would be unbeatable in the general election. However, with the frustrating status quo of American politics being left-wing voters dominating Democrat primaries and right-wing voters dominating Republican primaries, we don’t appear too close to electing a libertarian president any time soon.

Jim Maisano
Jim@FreeVoter.com

(Jim serves as a Westchester County Legislator).

We’re in a War to Defend Freedom of Speech

France RallyI just read a thoughtful post on the American Thinker website (LINK) that sparked me to offer some observations about freedom of speech and the executions in France of the Charlie Hebdo journalists. I’m as close to a First Amendment absolutist as you can get and fully support a wide interpretation of First Amendment rights. I do not believe any government is capable of fairly regulating freedom of expression. There should never be any modification to the First Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

We must strongly promote the quote attributed to Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” We must ensure that our society remains a diverse and open marketplace of ideas. Let’s get all views out on the table and have a honest debate about the issues we face. Censoring or suppressing beliefs and speech only makes them more dangerous. The beauty of the free speech doctrine is that it’s a two-way street. It’s not just the speaker and writer who enjoy freedom of speech – it’s also the listener and reader who have the same right to challenge or respond.

While I was in law school, a controversial professor came to speak at the University of Buffalo. His name was Leonard Jeffries, and he had a long record of making hateful and racist statements (link about Jeffries). I appeared with other students to protest outside the speech. I made up a flyer with all of Jeffries’ hateful public statements and tried to gave it to all those entering the speech. I fully supported his right to speak at the event, but believed it was equally important to meet his hateful speech with my own speech. A few people confronted me and asked why I did not support free speech. I quickly explained how they misunderstood what freedom of speech is all about – Leonard Jeffries should make his speech, and I was there with my responsive speech to educate the attendees that the speaker they came to hear was a proven racist and anti-Semite. I even appeared on the nightly TV news, which was exciting for a law student.

I share this story because it’s always better to have controversial and hateful statements out in the marketplace of ideas. And that is exactly why we must stand with and defend the Charlie Hebdo magazine and all other controversial publications. The brave 2012 quote of Charlie Hebdo editor Stéphane Charbonnier is important for the world to remember: “but I’d rather die standing up than live on my knees.” If you are truly dedicated to freedom and liberty, you must feel exactly the same way. While I personally would not engage in blasphemy against a religion, I would defend to the death the right for someone else to do so.

The radical Islamic terrorists like Al-Qaeda and ISIS are pleased to announce their goal of destroying freedom and liberty around the globe, and last week we learned just how serious they remain – we’re in a war to defend freedom of speech. There is no First Amendment in an Islamic dictatorship. The free world properly rallied around France over the past week, but we must be concerned there are too many nations that refuse to protect civil liberties. Our fight for real freedom and liberty cannot stop in France – we must remain vigilant until every nation in the world enshrines into law the civil liberties we enjoy in our great country.

Jim Maisano
Jim@FreeVoter.com

(Jim serves as a Westchester County Legislator).

Net Neutrality – Simply

netneutrality-contentblockedToday, President Obama is going to lay out his approach to immigration reform. I’ll wait to see what he has to say before commenting. This post is about his weighing in on the proposed net neutrality ruling under the Federal Communications Committee (FCC).

Before getting in to the proposals the FCC is weighing, a little background on what net neutrality is and how we got here.

BACKGROUND

Net neutrality is the principle that all data on the Internet should be treated equally. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) should not discriminate based on content, user, application, site, platform, or any other distinguishing characteristic. It’s a term coined by a Columbia University Media Law professor Tim Wu. Others call it the open Internet as a means of being more accurate in addition to rebranding.

In 2010, the FCC passed the Open Internet Order which barred the practice of ISPs of charging fees for speedier access to content providers such as Netflix. In January of this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. struck down key provisions of the FCC’s ruling thereby weakening the agency’s attempt to keep the Internet open. This opened the door for Internet service providers like Verizon and Comcast to charge Netflix, Hulu, Google, and others for faster access to their networks and customers. Subsequently, the commission decided to write new rules to preserve its desire for an open Internet. If ISPs are allowed to differentiate access by content provider, consumers will lose out if they cannot afford to pay for greater access or a content provider cannot or will not pay for high-speed service on the ISP’s network.

Next, let’s discuss the pros and cons of net neutrality.

PROS

  • The founding proposition for the Internet was for free and unfettered access to information from anywhere. That’s why the “father” of the Internet and the creator of the web, Vincent Cerf and Tim Berners-Lee have spoken in favor of net neutrality.
  • Innovation and experimentation will be stifled should a tiered model for content providers as that would effectively create a barrier to entry.
  • Prevents ISPs that are also content providers (think Comcast and Time Warner) from potentially creating a system that favors their content to that over a competitor. (If you don’t think this is possible, read this article).

CONS

  • By disallowing ISPs to charge content providers for higher speed access, they will limit or discontinue investment in underserved areas in the U.S. (See this)
  • Ability to recoup their cost of investment in providing the broadband service  would diminish or possibly eliminate the Internet Service Provider’s ability to recoup its investment.
  • Less rather than more regulation is necessary.

The FCC is considering two approaches to the issues raised by the court ruling in January, regulating ISPs under section 706 or Title II of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Currently, FCC classifies ISP as information service providers which are governed under Title I of the act.

Section 706

Since the section is short, basically two paragraphs with the second defining how inquiries into the enforcement of paragraph one, the entire paragraph is below.

The Commission and each State commission with regulatory jurisdiction over telecommunications services shall encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans (including, in particular, elementary and secondary schools and classrooms) by utilizing, in a manner consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity, price cap regulation, regulatory forbearance, measures that promote competition in the local telecommunications market, or other regulating methods that remove barriers to infrastructure investment.

Title II

Gives the FCC the authority to treat ISPs as a public utility. There are over 100 pages of regulations with this title many of which would not apply. The relevant portion is Section 202 which delineates that broadcast providers cannot discriminate against non-affiliated broadcasters. In other words, cannot charge more to a content provider that is not a part of the ISP’s content production.

A third alternative would be to create new rules and regulations that would specifically apply to the Internet, but we know that is not going to happen so we have these two inelegant approaches.

President Obama weighed in by urging the FCC to adopt the Title II approach over Section 706.

Neither one of these solutions works for me. Providing access to the Internet is an animal of a different color. However, I’m loathe to suggest new rules and regulations, we have enough of them. Instead, I’d like to see Title II streamlined and be less technology & platform specific. Barring that, I’d have to lean toward Title II as the proper approach. The elegance of Section 706 is appealing but I fear the language can be used to force ISPs to provide equal access to rural environments without the ability to recoup its investment. (Which in some circles is what net neutrality is all about.) Title II while over 90% is not applicable to Internet service, Title II is a better fit because its focus on leveling the playing field for content providers by protecting them from the service providers.

For fans of David Pogue and John Oliver, here is a link to their description of net neutrality and its impact (I highly recommend the John Oliver video):

David Pogue

John Oliver

jeffrey hastie
jahastie@gmail.com
@jhastie963

What do Jellyfish and politicians have in common?

polls_mike03112008_0337_300605_answer_1_xlargeTwitter is such a useful tool. Great source of information and fun facts. As one social media consultant said in a presentation “Facebook is for hugs, Twitter is for news.” A recent tweet made me chuckle but think. Uberfacts tweeted:

The opening for the mouth and the anus on a jellyfish is the same.

To which a follower replied:

Hey Uberfacts, you spelled politician wrong.

It used to be that running for public office was pursued by those of noble cause. Now it’s seen with such disdain that the trust in a politician is lower than a used car salesman. Running for office is no longer about governing as it is about the constant chase for donations. No sooner is a member voted into the House of Representatives than he or she is back on the trail looking for money for the next campaign.Their constant chase for the almighty dollar has caused most, not all, politicians to say whatever it takes to separate a donor from his/her money.

Besides chasing dollars, many chase polls. The prevalence and prominence that polls take these days is mind blowing. The proliferation is so great that now we have polls that aggregate polls. Andrew Cuomo was on WNYC Friday morning and when asked by Brian Lehrer about whether he struck the right balance between public safety and civil liberties with his latest quarantine policy, he started his answer by quoting a recent poll stating that 84% of New Yorkers agreed with him. Don’t know about you, but I look to my leaders to lead, not follow. Let’s take an example from the business world about leadership. Apple is famous for developing products that consumers didn’t know they needed (okay, wanted). They recently have lost their way in that regard as evidenced by the ridicule Samsung first received for their big screen phone, now Apple has copied them due to Samsung’s suggest. If Apple and Samsung were strictly guided by what consumers say they wanted, we’d all still be caring flip phones.

Shows like The West Wing and Madame Secretary are popular not because of the political stance they take, but because of the moral stance they take. We desperately long for leaders that lead from their gut and not from a poll. Click on this link from The West Wing to see an example of moral character.

Jeffrey Hastie
jahastie@gmail.com
@jhastie963

“The 5 Most Anti-Libertarian TV Shows Ever” from Reason.com

Since we have a libertarian streak here at the Free Voter Blog, I thought it might be fun to share the video below. We enjoy the libertarian website www.reason.com and found this entertaining video on its YouTube page. My only concern is that I’m a long-time 24 fan and Jack Bauer made the list of “anti-libertarians,” but frankly, it’s hard to defend Jack on that charge. Here’s the video of “The 5 Most Anti-Libertarian TV Shows Ever!”

Jim Maisano
Jim@FreeVoter.com