|
Lately, Madery Bridge writing has appeared in other places. Take a look!:
Ad Hoc FCC coalition – filing of comments
“We, the undersigned organizations, represent millions of Americans concerned about the overreach of the Federal government. We write to voice our support for returning the Internet to the light touch regulatory approach that allowed the Internet to take off. There was a bipartisan ‘Hands off the Net!’ consensus championed by both former President Bill Clinton and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, and by other leading members of both parties – until the FCC made two sweeping claims of power over the Internet in the name of protecting ‘net neutrality'”
Read more here
“Considering an Innovative Change in Transportation Infrastructure”
“We live in an age of unparalleled innovation, with innovation affecting all we do and how we do it. But at the forefront of innovation news, and capturing the imagination of the public, is innovation in transportation. From changes in business and industry processes like Uber, to changes in hardware for partial to fully automated vehicles, the world of the automobile is in rapid transition. However, exciting innovation in transportation is not limited to automobiles…”
Read more here
“Getting to the Near Future, and Beyond”
“The promise of the world of tomorrow is just an empty promise long held out as being made good. But now we really do stand on the precipice of the future. We can peer into the near future with clarity, optimism and certainty. Everything we know today will change, be reimagined and be used in new ways with greater access. From work to play, powerful networks and new tech applications will be the foundation for the next generation of services. How so? Take a look…”
Read more here
The FCC draft Restoring Internet Freedom Order released this week is exactly the step needed to place the internet back on the path that it had been on for decades, a path that benefits all consumers. The Order ends the government control adventurism of the previous administration by allowing consumers to take charge of their online experience, and shunning government control of user’s communications. In addition, adoption of this order will bring back the balance of light touch regulation intended by the 1996 Telecommunications Act that created an environment of internet freedom encouraging billions of dollars in private investment in broadband facilities. Billions more in new investment will now follow to the benefit of all consumers.
And, as importantly, given that the internet is by its very nature interstate, the Commission should take action to implement a national policy framework for internet services to ensure uniformity across the country. By design, only through the power of the states was a federal government formed. State control is paramount. However, there is also a clear role for the federal government as the Founding Father’s envisioned. Without clear FCC action to implement a national framework, the states are poised to carve up the internet into a series of systems, each regulated in its own way, ultimately creating a patchwork quilt that is antithetical to the very nature of the interest we understand. Plus, such radical uncertainty is the bane of investment and particularly of short and long-term capital expenditure. Today’s article in Morning Consult explains further.
For the first time all of those interested in the issue can review the draft order, being released weeks before the vote instead of kept in secret and sprung upon the commissioners in the minority and the American people. The vote in December will surely right the wrong done to the internet ecosystem for the last several years, and it comes none too soon. In the communications policy space there is much to be thankful for this year.
Being offended has become quite trendy these days. Finding some words, thoughts or ideas “offensive” has become the frequent attack by the professional demonstrator/protestor/whiner crowd to try to shut down an event or someone’s speech. Always defined in the subjective, as in, “no one can judge because it offends me and only I know what offends me,” the term is used as an attack, a weapon not a shield. This effectively turns the notion of being offended on its head. And for far too long too many have played along, until now.
Last month the Supreme Court issued its decision in Martal v. Tam. The court made clear that free speech is to be protected even when that speech may be judged by some as offensive. The case focused on the Lantham Act. This Act, in part, prohibited a trademark registration that, “Consists of or comprises immoral deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.” Specifically, the court ruled in favor of Simon Tam, a member of the “Slants,” (a rock band made up of Asian-Americans). The band wanted to register its name but the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) refused to register it. The Office relied on its routine practice grounded in the Lantham Act of refusing to register trademarks that it felt were degrading to beliefs, individuals or institutions. The Supreme Court ruled that such policing by the PTO is unconstitutional, saying “It offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the grounds that it expresses ideas that offend.”
The underpinning of the result is simple. As was pointed out in the decision, historically trademarks have been used to identify a company, or more often, by a company to identify the products or services it provides. So, trademarks are private speech and often commercial speech, and that does not change simply because the trademark gets registered. Similarly, a publication does not become government speech simply because it finds itself in the Library of Congress. And if the speech has been and remains private then the government has no business in approving it.
Of course this makes sense. Trademarks are registered as a process of individuals taking an extra measure to protect their expression and distinguishing their property. That is to say, trademarks are a signal of going on the offense not just playing defense. The PTO process ignored the First Amendment, placing trademarks they found odious on the defense, turning the process on its head.
The implications of the decision will be felt directly in Washington, D.C. This season Washingtonians can enjoy football that is rooted in the fun of watching a game instead of contemplating whether their beloved Washington Redskins would have to change their mascot from a native-American chieftain to a potato. Most importantly though, the implications reach beyond the beltway, the same line of reasoning that led the Supreme Court to rightfully protect the freedom of speech also protects the 45 year old native-American cause to protest against the Washington football team.
|
Interact with us! Madery Bridge
Senior Advisors
|