Comments on: FCC Speech Czar a Myth, FCC Threat to Speech is Real

By: Steve R.

Steve R. — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 03:09:42 +0000

Oh where to post? To many choices, FCC involvement, freedom of speech, and net neutrality. Since James explicitly raises the concept of the FCC as a threat to free speech this looks like a good landing spot. In fact, James is correct, the behemoth unthinking oppressive FCC was intimidated by a private citizen at a public FCC hearing into suppressing public testimony!!!! Will TLF publish a post in support of free speech lambasting the spineless FCC for failing to disclose public testimony that should be in the public domain. I doubt it.

The story concerns the public testimony of Paramount's COO, Frederick Huntsberry before an FCC panel discussion about the National Broadband Plan. This story was reported by TechDirt: "Paramount COO Shows FCC How To File Share, Blames Tech Companies, Has FCC Hide Its Presentation". Mike Masnick wrote: "Paramount's COO, Frederick Huntsberry, not only was given twice the amount of time to speak as the rest of the speakers had (10 minutes, instead of five, as Gigi was told), but also was able to convince the FCC that his talk was "owned" by Paramount, and should not be placed online -- as the FCC has done with all its other hearings. Wow. Yes, this was a public government hearing. "

Additionally, Mehan Jayasuriya wrote on Public Knowledge "Who's Running the Show--the FCC or Hollywood Execs?" In that article Mehan writes: "Nesi's response was surprising, to say the least. I was told that Huntsberry's presentation was property of Paramount and that it would not be posted online. I responded, telling him that I was under the impression that since the presentation was delivered at a public workshop, the presentation materials would become part of the record and would be available to the public."

This incident highlights that the FCC is not the big bully it is claimed to be and that the supposed victims of the FCC are themselves actively trying to squelch free speech, preventing others from being innovative, and avoiding net-neutrality. It seems, in the spirit of a fairness doctrine, that an individual/company that intimidates a spineless FCC should be exposed for opaquing the public record.

By: Steve R.

Steve R. — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 23:09:42 +0000

Oh where to post? To many choices, FCC involvement, freedom of speech, and net neutrality. Since James' explicitly raises the concept of the FCC as a threat to free speech this looks like a good landing spot. In fact, James is correct, the behemoth unthinking oppressive FCC was intimidated by a private citizen at a public FCC hearing into suppressing public testimony!!!! Will TLF publish a post in support of free speech lambasting the spineless FCC for failing to disclose public testimony that should be in the public domain. I doubt it.

The story concerns the public testimony of Paramount's COO, Frederick Huntsberry before an FCC panel discussion about the National Broadband Plan. This story was reported by TechDirt: "Paramount COO Shows FCC How To File Share, Blames Tech Companies, Has FCC Hide Its Presentation". Mike Masnick wrote: "Paramount's COO, Frederick Huntsberry, not only was given twice the amount of time to speak as the rest of the speakers had (10 minutes, instead of five, as Gigi was told), but also was able to convince the FCC that his talk was "owned" by Paramount, and should not be placed online -- as the FCC has done with all its other hearings. Wow. Yes, this was a public government hearing. "

Additionally, Mehan Jayasuriya wrote on Public Knowledge "Who's Running the Show--the FCC or Hollywood Execs?" In that article Mehan writes: "Nesi's response was surprising, to say the least. I was told that Huntsberry's presentation was property of Paramount and that it would not be posted online. I responded, telling him that I was under the impression that since the presentation was delivered at a public workshop, the presentation materials would become part of the record and would be available to the public."

This incident highlights that the FCC is not the big bully it is claimed to be and that the supposed victims of the FCC are themselves actively trying to squelch free speech, preventing others from being innovative, and avoiding net-neutrality. It seems, in the spirit of a fairness doctrine, that an individual/company that intimidates a spineless FCC should be exposed for opaquing the public record.

By: dm

dm — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 15:15:21 +0000

No, “network neutrality” has little to do with a “fairness doctrine” for the internet. The analogy doesn't work at all.

Network neutrality is not going to have web-sites give room for competing views, and the fairness doctrine did not give everyone a broadcast license (which is the best analogy for network neutrality, I suppose).

By: brettglass

brettglass — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 05:27:24 +0000

Perhaps this is one of the forces behind the push for “network neutrality.” After all, at bottom, “network neutrality” is really just a “fairness doctrine” for the Internet. It could be that the activists are writing off old media and simply pushing for a similar mandate, albeit under a different name, for new media.