Articles by Adam Thierer 
Senior Fellow in Technology & Innovation at the R Street Institute in Washington, DC. Formerly a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, President of the Progress & Freedom Foundation, Director of Telecommunications Studies at the Cato Institute, and a Fellow in Economic Policy at the Heritage Foundation.
When the history books are finally written, I think it’s clear that outgoing FCC Chairman Kevin Martin will likely go down as one of — if not the — most aggressively pro-regulatory Republican chairman in the agency’s history. Despite his occasional claims of believing in free markets and his support for a couple of legitimately deregulatory decisions, his tenure at the FCC has generally been characterized by a growth of government power, spending, and bureaucracy. But don’t take my word for it; read the report he issued last week called “Moving Forward,” which to some of us looks more like moving backwards (or at least stuck in the same ol’ mud).
Martin, however, touts his regulatory actions and expansion of FCC power as uniformly pro-consumer. Martin is just another in the long line of statists who claims that consumer welfare can only be enhanced by adding layers of government mandates and regulatory red tape. History teaches us a different lesson: That regulation and bureaucracy typically stifle innovation and competition and hurt consumer welfare in the process. Moreover, there are some constitutional considerations and limitations that should trump — or at least limit — the powers of unelected bureaucrats to run roughshod over our rights. But hey, who cares about those meddlesome little things like the First, Fifth, Tenth, or Fourteenth Amendments?! Certainly not Kevin Martin.
What’s equally troubling about Martin’s tenure at the agency is the track record of mismanagement and the bad blood that seemingly surrounds everything and everyone he comes in contact with. The picture painted in the House Energy & Commerce Committee’s 110-page report, “Deception and Distrust: The FCC Under Chairman Kevin J.Martin,” is not a pretty one — although the report failed to mention that waste, mismanagement, and other regulatory shenanigans have been going on at this agency under the days of Democratic rule, too.
Martin’s response to the House report was all too predictable: The evil corporate interests are out to get me! “[M]ost of the criticisms contained in the Majority Staff Report,” Martin says in a letter released a few days ago, “reflect the vehement opposition of the cable and wireless industries to my policies to serve and protect consumers.”
Whatever.
I’m just glad this nightmare is over. Hopefully Martin’s tenure will serve as a cautionary tale for a future Republican administration: If you actually believe in free minds and free markets, try vetting the guy you install at the FCC to make sure he’s a true believer as well.
FWIW… Just upgraded — at no cost — to Verizon’s 20/5 FIOS plan. Been hitting almost 25 megs pretty consistently today. I was on Verizon’s 10/2 plan beforehand and the 5/2 plan before that. Didn’t notice as much of a difference when I moved from 5 to 10, but jump to 20 is definitely noticeable on big file downloads.
Cox Cable has also been offering nice speed boosts in my neighborhood (McLean, VA) recently, so I suspect that’s why I was offered the free upgrade yesterday when I called Verizon about adding some new HD channels to my FIOS TV package.
It appears that the long legal saga of the Child Online Protection Act of 1998 (COPA) has finally come to a close. This morning, according to AP, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the government’s latest request to revive the law, which was stuck down as an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment by lower courts and never went into effect.
COPA was an effort by Congress to modify the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Reno v. ACLU finding that the CDA was unconstitutionally over-broad. COPA sought to narrow the scope of regulation and protect minors from sexual material on the Internet by making it a crime for someone to “knowingly” place materials online that were “harmful to minors.” The law provided an affirmative defense from prosecution, however, to those parties who made a “good faith” effort to “restrict[ ] access by minors to material that is harmful to minors” using credit cards or age verification schemes. Although narrower than the CDA, COPA was immediately challenged and also blocked by lower courts because it was still too sweeping in effect. Moreover, the courts found there were other “less restrictive means” that parents could use to deal with objectionable content — such as Internet filters.
Following the initial challenge, COPA then became the subject of an epic, decade-long legal battle that finally concluded today when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to revisit the law. COPA had already been reviewed by the Supreme Court twice before — in 2002 and 2004. Thus, a third visit to the Supreme Court by COPA would have been something of a historical development in the world of First Amendment jurisprudence. But with the Supreme Court’s rejection of the government’s appeal today, lower court rulings stand and COPA will remain unconstitutional and unenforceable.
The key recent legal battle occurred in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld a lower court ruling striking down COPA. The Third Circuit’s full decision is here. And I penned a 3-part series on the lower court ruling by Judge Lowell Reed Jr., senior judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, here, here, and here. Also make sure to check out this summary of COPA’s legal journey that Alex Harris penned last November.
While COPA is now dead and buried, it would be foolish to think this is the end of efforts to legislate on this front. Although it remains unclear what the legislative response will look like during a time of Democratic rule, I am certain that legislation will be floated in short order (i.e., “Son of COPA”) to try to get around the constitutional issues and regulate objectionable online content. If legislators were smart, they’d avoid legally risky solutions like more centralized filtering mandates or age verification requirements. They’d be on safer ground to consider going the subsidy route and finding a way to get parental control tools in the hands of more families and institutions. I’m not saying that I favor such subsidies, merely that such an approach would almostly certainly pass legal muster and probably wouldn’t even be challenged in court. They might also consider more public education / PSA-driven approached to online safety. Those approaches may end up finding more support in a Democratic Congress and administration anyway.
[More coverage at NYT, Reuters, CNet and Ars.]
Clearly, something must be done to counter the evil corporate cabal known as “the Cloud Elders” and the “Knights Doppler” who are behind the blatant pro-weather bias displayed daily on the Weather Channel. Perhaps a Fairness Doctrine for Weather Reporting?
Thank God the hard-working folks at Fairness in Media unearthed this vicious anti-democratic conspiracy.
Weather Channel Accused of Pro-Weather Bias
As Berin and I have noted here before (here and here), there seems to be no shortage of competition and innovation in the mobile operating system (OS) space. We’ve got:
- Apple’s iPhone platform,
- Microsoft’s Windows Mobile,
- Symbian,
- Google’s Android,
- BlackBerry,
- Palm OS (+ Palm’s new WebOS),
- the LiMo platform, and
- OpenMoko.
I am missing any? I don’t think so. Even if I have, this is really an astonishing degree of platform competition for a network-based industry. Network industries are typically characterized by platform consolidation over time as both application developers and consumers flock to just a couple of standards — and sometimes just one — while others gradually fade away. But that has not yet been the case for mobile operating systems. I just can’t see it lasting, however. As I argued in my essay on “Too Much Platform Competition?,” I would think that many application providers would be clamoring for consolidation to make it easier to develop and roll out new services. Some are, and yet we still have more than a half-dozen mobile OS platforms on the market.
Regardless, the currently level of platform competition also seems to run counter to the thesis set forth by Jonathan Zittrain and others who fear the impending decline or death of digital “generativity.” That is, technologies or networks that invite or allow tinkering and all sorts of creative uses are supposedly “dying” or on the decline because companies are trying to exert more control over proprietary or closed systems.
Continue reading →
Gamepolitics.com reports on a new South Carolina bill that proposes to outlaw public profanity. The measure, S. 56, stipulates that:
It is unlawful for a person in a public forum or place of public accommodation wilfully and knowingly to publish orally or in writing, exhibit, or otherwise make available material containing words, language, or actions of a profane, vulgar, lewd, lascivious, or indecent nature. A person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than five thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
Let’s ignore the free speech issues in play here — although they are numerous — and ask the 3 questions I increasingly put front and center in everything I write about modern censorship efforts: (1) How do they plan to enforce it? (2) Is there really any chance of such a law being even remotely successful? (3) How onerous or intrusive will it be to attempt to do so?
We can imagine a few examples of where such a law could create serious challenges. For example, how would law enforcement officials deal with public swearing at ball games and other sporting events? And not just in the crowd but from the players. Have you ever heard Tiger Woods after he misses a close putt? Wow. He might want to avoid the next tournament in South Carolina! But how about profanities uttered in other public places, like hospitals during painful procedures? Man, you should have heard the profanities my wife was letting loose when our two kids were arriving in this world. Would have made George Carlin blush! And how about the halls of Congress? Oh my, now there is an education in sailor talk, although perhaps less so with VP Cheney departing. I’m sure that more than a few choice profanities have been tossed about down in the South Carolina statehouse at times. And there are lots of other cases where enforcement would be challenging: bars, concerts, comedy shows, political protests, etc.
Bottom line: We are talking about a lot of fines and jail time down in the Palmetto State!
Look, I’m as uncomfortable with excessive public profanity as anyone else when my kids are around. But I talk to them about it because I know it will never go away.When we are surrounded by foul-mouthed hooligans at ballgames, I frequently remind my kids that it’s not appropriate to say such things and that only “stupid people use stupid words.” Of course, Dad has been known to use his share of “stupid words” at home at times, too. My daughter recently threatened to “tell Mommy” on me when I hit my thumb with a hammer and let a choice word fly. Hey, it happens. It’s not the end of the world. We can try to change our habits and teach our kids better manners. But I doubt laws like the one South Carolina is considering will really make much of a difference.
The Internet Safety Technical Task Force (ISTTF), which was formed a year ago to study online safety concerns and technologies, today issued its final report to the U.S. Attorneys General who authorized its creation. It was a great honor for me to serve as a member of the ISTTF and I believe this Task Force and its report represent a major step forward in the discussion about online child safety in this country.
The ISTTF was very ably chaired by John Palfrey, co-director of Harvard University’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society, and I just want to express my profound thanks here to John and his team at Harvard for doing a great job herding cats and overseeing a very challenging process. I encourage everyone to examine the full ISTTF report and all the submissions, presentations, and academic literature that we collected. [It’s all here.] It was a comprehensive undertaking that left no stone unturned.
Importantly, the ISTTF convened (1) a Research Advisory Board (RAB),which brought together some of the best and brightest academic researchers in the field of child safety and child development and (2) a Technical Advisory Board (TAB), which included some of America’s leading technologists, who reviewed child safety technologies submitted to the ISTTF. I strongly recommend you closely examine the RAB literature review and TAB assessment of technologies because those reports provide very detailed assessments of the issues. They both represent amazing achievements in their respective arenas.
There are a couple of key takeaways from the ISTTF’s research and final 278-page report that I want to highlight here. Most importantly, like past blue-ribbon commissions that have studied this issue, the ISTTF has generally concluded
there is no silver-bullet technical solution to online child safety concerns. The better way forward is a “layered approach” to online child protection. Here’s how we put it on page 6 of the final report:
The Task Force remains optimistic about the development of technologies to enhance protections for minors online and to support institutions and individuals involved in protecting minors, but cautions against overreliance on technology in isolation or on a single technological approach. Technology can play a helpful role, but there is no one technological solution or specific combination of technological solutions to the problem of online safety for minors. Instead, a combination of technologies, in concert with parental oversight, education, social services, law enforcement, and sound policies by social network sites and service providers may assist in addressing specific problems that minors face online. All stakeholders must continue to work in a cooperative and collaborative manner, sharing information and ideas to achieve the common goal of making the Internet as safe as possible for minors.
Continue reading →
I haven’t been blogging much lately because, along with my PFF colleagues Berin Szoka and Adam Marcus, I’m working on a lengthy paper about the importance of Section 230 to Internet freedom. Section 230 is the sometimes-forgotten portion of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 that shielded Internet Service Providers (ISP) from liability for information posted or published on their systems by users or other third parties. It was enshrined into law with the passage of the historic Telecommunications Act of 1996. Importantly, even though the provisions of the CDA seeking to regulate “indecent” speech on the Internet were struck down as unconstitutional, Sec. 230 was left untouched.
Section 230 of the CDA may be the most important and lasting legacy of the Telecom Act and it is indisputable that it has been remarkably important to the development of the Internet and online free speech and expression in particular. In many ways, Section 230 is the cornerstone of “Internet freedom” in its truest and best sense of the term.
In recent years, however, Sec. 230 has come under fire from some academics, judges, and other lawmakers. Critics raise a variety of complaints — all of which we will be cataloging and addressing in our forthcoming PFF paper. But what unifies most of the criticisms of Sec. 230 is the belief that Internet “middlemen” (which increasingly includes almost any online intermediary, from ISPs, to social networking sites, to search engines, to blogs) should do more to police their networks for potentially “objectionable” or “offensive” content. That could include many things, of course: cyberbullying, online defamation, harassment, privacy concerns, pornography, etc. If the online intermediaries failed to engage in that increased policing role, they would open themselves up to lawsuits and increased liability for the actions of their users.
The common response to such criticisms — and it remains a very good one — is that the alternative approach of strict secondary liability on ISPs and other online intermediaries would have a profound “chilling effect” on online free speech and expression. Indeed, we should not lose sight of what Section 230 has
already done to create vibrant, diverse online communities. Brian Holland, a visiting professor at Penn State University’s Dickinson School of Law, has written a brilliant paper that does a wonderful job of doing just that. It’s entitled “In Defense of Online Intermediary Immunity: Facilitating Communities of Modified Exceptionalism” and it can be found on SSRN here. I cannot recommend it highly enough. It is a masterpiece.
Continue reading →
Over at Ars, Matt Lasar has a piece about the need for better FCC indecency complaint statistics. He has been monitoring the wild fluctuations in indecency complaint tallies in recent years and wonders:
whether the agency’s indecency/obscenity statistics reflect spontaneous viewer response to the level of erotic/linguistic friskiness on TV or solely on the power of coordinated campaigns launched by groups like the Parents Television Council.
Indeed, PTC is the primary culprit. As I noted in my big 2005 PFF report “Examining the FCC’s Complaint-Driven Broadcast Indecency Enforcement Process”, “The PTC’s increasingly effective use of computer-generated campaigns against specific TV programs is a leading factor in explaining the large jump in indecency complaints in recent years.” The PTC has even taken credit for it themselves, as I noted in the paper.
How did the FCC’s indecency process get so screwy, and how did the PTC come to influence it so greatly? As I noted in that paper (as well as a Supreme Court filing with my friends at CDT), in recent years the FCC has quietly and without major notice made two methodological changes to its tallying of broadcast indecency complaints, both changes urged upon the FCC by a single advocacy group — the PTC — targeting broadcast indecency:
Continue reading →
President-elect Barack Obama will soon be naming Cass Sunstein, an old friend of his from their University of Chicago Law School days together, the new head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). OIRA oversees regulation throughout the U.S. government. Basically, Sunstein’s position is the equivalent of the federal regulatory czar.
Sunstein certainly possess excellent qualifications for the job. During his time at the University of Chicago and Harvard Law School, Sunstein has established himself as a leading liberal thinker in the field of law and economics. And, as I have joked in writing about him before, he is so insanely prolific that it seems every time I finish reading one of his new books a new title by him lands on my desk. I am quite convinced that both he and Richard Posner are actually cyborgs. I just don’t understand how two humans can compose words so rapidly!
Anyway, Professor Sunstein’s new position as head of OIRA gives him the ability influence federal regulatory decisions in both a procedural and substantive way. In terms of substance, it gives him an important platform to subtly “nudge” the regulatory philosophy and direction of the Obama Administration on many matters, including Internet policy. So, what has Professor Sunstein had to say about Internet policy in his recent work? Sunstein has developed his thinking about these issues primarily in his two recent books: Republic.com (2000) and Infotopia: How Many Minds Produce Knowledge (2006). But he’s also had a few relevant things to say about Internet issues in his recent book with Richard Thaler, Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness
(2008).
There are 3 Internet policy-related things from his work that I’d like to focus on here because I find them all quite troubling. Continue reading →
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.