Welcome back to the David Dorer Show! This week is the “Neutrality – The Net, Politics, and the Media” Edition where we will discuss the overwhelming vote by the EU in favor of Net Neutrality, the consequences of the McCutheon v. FEC Decision, and the varied ways in which the media reports the new job numbers.
My panelists this week include T-Bone (@tboneafterkdark), Jimmy Kurhajian (@raginkurhajian) and, Andrew, CEO of @RedClayTees.
Follow me at @DavidTDorer, listen to the show on Stitcher, & subscribe on iTunes.
Here’s some additional reading so you can stay informed:
A hot topic in internet jurisprudence is whether there is any applicable jurisprudence to the internet; and, if so, what types of regulations are permitted to be put in place and enforced. As an attorney, I am inclined to believe that there is some measure of oversight of laws relating to such a powerful network of commerce, but practically speaking, I don’t know how exactly it is that this is to be accomplished.
Net Neutrality is a concept that the bandwidth of access from an internet service provider cannot be adjusted or throttled depending on the content sought by an individual user. Many U.S. internet service providers, specifically Verizon, have come under fire in recent years for throttling services like Netflix. Consumers have fought back demanding regulation that prevents ISPs from making the purchase of the internet similar to the above infographic. It was taken up for a vote in the EU, and 90% of the people agree that this practice should not continue. But, again, with what jurisdictional authority can they enforce such an imperative?
MCCUTCHEON V. FEC: THE END OF POLITICAL NEUTRALITY:
Following the controversial decision of Citizens United, another significant attack against Federal Campaign Finance Reform Laws has been waged and won by a wealthy man in Alambama named Shaun McCutcheon. McCutcheon intentionally spent over the permissible aggregate limit to campaign contributions, one of 646 people in the United States to spend nearly that much, in the 2012 election.
His argument that limiting his right to spend unfettered amounts of money in Federal elections was a violation of his right to free speech, particularly, the right to financially support the dissemination of ideas with which he agrees. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, stating in its ruling:
“The government may justify the aggregate limits as a means of preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption, or as a means of preventing circumvention of contribution limits imposed to further its anticorruption interest.” – See the Opinion Here.
The case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court, where Chief Justice Roberts for the majority writes:
“Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects,” Roberts wrote in his opinion. “Spending large sums of money in connection with elections, but not in connection with an effort to control the exercise of an officeholder’s official duties, does not give rise to… quid pro quo corruption. Nor does the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner ‘influence over or access to’ elected officials or political parties.”
Here’s the full opinion. We will discuss its consequences to the neutrality of the democratic process, the effect on the lobbying industry, and whether cash truly is now king.
MEDIA BIAS IN JOBS NUMBERS
This picture from my instagram says it all. Is there such thing as neutral reporting, even in push notifications, anymore?