CHICAGO - The U.S. Senate may vote this week on overturning Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules aimed at guaranteeing an open Internet, whereby corporations were forbidden to give some people better access to the Web than others. And the fate of the so-called "net neutrality" rules could affect future protests like Occupy Wall Street.

At Occupy Chicago, communications volunteers count more than 33,000 Facebook "likes," 20,000 Twitter followers, and several thousand website hits every day.

So, some are asking, what would happen if the corporate entities that are the targets of protests were able to limit Internet traffic? That was tried at one point by the Egyptian government during the Arab Spring protests, and Betty Yu with the Center for Media Justice says it's a legitimate concern.

"A lot of this organizing that happened - sure, it was organic - but it would not be able to happen the way it happened, the way it flourished, if there wasn't an open Internet, period."

Opponents of net neutrality rules say they're not necessary and stifle business growth. Yu says the consolidation of wireless phone companies - like the proposed AT&T and T-Mobile merger - could also lead to a situation where the companies - or the government - could hamper Twitter communications.

Andrew Smith volunteers in the communications area of Occupy Chicago, where he says social media are used not only to mobilize demonstrators, but to make sure mainstream media report accurately on the protest.

"If false information is reported, then we can be like, 'Whoa, no; this is what really happened and here's why.' And using social networks to keep ourselves on message and to keep people informed is critical."

Betty Yu says the role of the Internet in organizing the "Occupy" protests makes the possible Senate showdown about net neutrality something to be watched closely.

"Big Brother is watching. And I think that it'll be interesting to see how the net neutrality fight plays out now."

Yu says mainstream media no longer determine how protests get covered.

"There are about close to 40,000 videos up online of the Occupy movement. That just goes to show you how these tools have really democratized the process of capturing protests, capturing democracy in action and being able to share it."

Some contemporary protestors use the chant of the 1968 anti-war protestors in Chicago, "The Whole World is Watching." It could have much wider meaning some four decades later.




get more stories like this via email

A new Washington law ensures employees quick access to their personnel files, which are necessary for many things including filing for workers' compensation and unemployment claims.

Employers must now provide copies of the files when requested within 21 days or face possible legal action.

Jesse Wing, an employment attorney in Seattle, noted under the old law, many employers ignored or restricted requests.

"There are even employers who are located in a different part of the state who say, 'if you want to drive here, you can sit in our conference room and look at the documents but you can't have a copy of them, we won't send them to you.' Which also can cause a lot of problems for employees who have disabilities,'" Wing explained.

Wing noted the new law took seven years to pass, largely because the business community voiced concerns about time-consuming document searches and possible sensitive employee information in the files. He countered digital files make retrieval quick and legally, employees already have access to their records.

Wing added a flood of lawsuits is unlikely under the new law, as they would offer little payoff and employers can avoid them simply by complying.

"What we really want is our clients to be able to get the documents that they need for all the myriad reasons that they need them," Wing stressed.

Wing pointed out the new law only applies to employees working in the private sector. Public employees have another mechanism to obtain their files. Although, he said, there have been problems with that system as well, so follow-up legislation may be needed.


get more stories like this via email

A groundbreaking radio show from the early 1990s is returning this weekend in Arkansas. The PHAT LIP! You(th)Talk Radio show will be back on the airwaves Saturday on KABF 88.3 FM Community Radio in Little Rock.

The show, produced by Washitaw Foothills Youth Media Arts and Literacy Collective, features young people ages 16 to 24.

Director Kwami Abdul-Bey says the broadcast gives teens and young adults a chance to express their feelings about a variety of topics.

"We want all young people involved in the conversation, so you'll be hearing what they have to say particularly as it has to deal with civic engagement and electoral justice," he said.

The show will air from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. the first and third Saturday of each month, and is also available on KABF.org and through the Shortwave Relay Service.

The talk show is funded by a three-year grant. Some of the topics the students want to address are medical and student debt and funding cuts for social programs.

Jasmine Serrano, a show host, is a junior at Jacksonville High School in Jacksonville, and said she got involved with the project after speaking to members of the Arkansas Legislature.

"In society, we always look at the adults and we always look at the older folks and generations, but we don't really take the time to pay attention to how the current policies and societal perceptions are impacting youth," Serrano explained.

When Abdul-Bey started the original show in 1994, he said it was in response to a documentary that painted Arkansas youth in a bad light. His seventh-grade social studies students wanted to combat the negative stereotypes. He noted the name of the show reflects the music of the times.

"One of my favorite hip-hop artists back in the 1990s was Fat Lip from Digable Planets," he continued. "And 'pfat' at the time was something that was cool, something that was vital as far as the culture was concerned. And 'lip' just means you talk too much."

Reports of the Trump administration considering taxing wealthy Americans to pay for mass deportations and other priorities come on the heels of a new study showing how the move could generate significant revenues without slowing economic growth.

Mary Eschelbach Hansen, associate professor of economics at American University and the report's co-author, said raising tax rates for people who earn more than $609,000 a year to 44% would add 3% to the nation's tax coffers, enough to stave off cuts to popular programs serving low-income Coloradans.

"In current budget proportions, that's about enough to pay for some of the biggest, most important programs like food stamps SNAP, Children's Health Insurance Program, and also Temporary Assistance for Needy Families," Eschelbach Hansen outlined.

While 44% may seem high compared to today's top rate of 37%, it is a lot less than the 92% paid by people who earned more than $400,000 a year under Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Republicans have long argued tax cuts create economic benefits for all, and leaders in Congress, including Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., the House Speaker, have said they would oppose any tax hikes.

Eschelbach Hansen argued raising the top tax rate would also increase how much of the national income pie most Americans get to keep, compared to how much the wealthiest get, by about 2%. She added years of trickle-down economics have shown only the wealthy benefit from low tax rates.

"If lowering top tax rates was going to trickle down, then you and I would be much richer than we are now," Eschelbach Hansen pointed out. "Because we have had an era of low top tax rates for decades."

Eschelbach Hansen stressed higher personal tax rates have virtually no impact on long-term economic growth, and lower personal tax rates lead to less economic growth, because people tend to take advantage of the lower rate by moving their income.

"Instead of reinvesting it in your business, where it will grow your business and grow the economy, you'll be more likely to just take it as personal income, which is not going to stimulate growth," Eschelbach Hansen explained.


get more stories like this via email