LANSING, Mich. – The Trump administration has the right to repeal Obama-era net-neutrality protections, according to a decision issued Tuesday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The ruling means internet service providers such as Verizon, AT&T and Comcast will continue to have the legal right to block or slow down websites they don't like or charge more for faster internet service.

Timothy Karr, senior director of strategy for the nonprofit group Free Press, said the ISPs now may be emboldened to push websites that they own, and thus stifle competition and freedom of expression.

"It's really the 'wild West' out there," he said. "Without net-neutrality protections, control over the internet falls into the hands of these very large phone and cable companies that have their own interests in prioritizing certain content over others."

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Agit Pai, a Trump appointee and former attorney for Verizon, welcomed the decision, saying net neutrality has stifled telecom investment.

The decision did, however, make it clear that the FCC cannot block state-level net-neutrality laws, such as the one California passed last year. Michigan's Legislature has enacted no similar protections.

In April, the U.S. House passed the Save the Internet Act, which would restore the protections. Sens. Debbie Stabenow and Gary Peters, both D-Mich., co-sponsored the Senate version, but it was blocked by the Republican leadership.

Karr said a lot depends on the next election.

"Realistically, much of this rests on November 2020 and what happens with elections in Congress, and who ends up as president of the United States," he said. "Depends on who's in power."

The biggest internet service providers, who spent millions lobbying for the repeal, have not implemented anti-competitive policies thus far – but have not ruled out doing so in the future.

The ruling is online at cadc.uscourts.gov.


get more stories like this via email

The Missouri Broadcasters Association is among the parties filing a lawsuit, claiming a state law that requires extensive redactions in court documents is unconstitutional.

The lawsuit, filed in Jefferson City, challenges a law passed last year that mandates attorneys and judicial officers redact the names of all witnesses and victims in lawsuits and criminal proceedings.

Dave Roland, president and CEO of the Freedom Center of Missouri, represents the plaintiffs. He said these restrictions severely limit the news media's ability to effectively monitor the judicial system - which in turn harms the public. He added the law also has cost implications.

"The redaction requirement dramatically increases the cost of litigation, such that it is putting certain types of legal actions and certain motions beyond the financial capacity of a number of litigants," he said.

Roland added the plaintiffs agree that in some situations - involving children, or sexual assault - names should be kept private. But they contend a blanket law to redact all names violates both the Missouri and U.S. Constitutions.

The bill was spearheaded by Rep. Justin Hicks, R-St. Louis. A hearing date for the case has not yet been set.

Chad Mahoney, president and CEO the Missouri Broadcasters Association, voiced concerns about the law's impact on journalists' ability to report accurately.

"We support protecting those who need to be protected for their safety, but we think this goes way too far. It's making it very difficult for journalists to do their jobs and to fully inform the public," he continued.

Mahoney said historically, the courts have been the most open and transparent branch of government, and that has changed with some of these recent actions.


get more stories like this via email

O.J. Simpson's death has the nation looking back on the infamous murder trial that resulted in his acquittal. Experts say one of the lasting impacts is news coverage and how people consume it.

The lengthy trial proceedings from the mid-1990s were televised, setting a pathway for cameras in the courtroom.

Jane Kirtley, a professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota's Hubbard School of Journalism, said it also ushered in a cottage industry of pundits brought in to analyze the events of each day. That made it easier for people to get a recap during a 24-hour news cycle, but she added that there was a drawback to getting so much information through analysis.

"It also meant that people could suspend their critical thinking, to a certain extent," she said, "and I believe we're still seeing that today. The rise of social media has only made it easier."

However, she said it did expose issues with how criminal cases are handled, and viewers were able to see it firsthand. Given how the accessibility of information has exploded since the trial, Kirtley said, news consumers can't lose sight of the need to examine where they're getting it from. That includes whether the source is producing the news themselves, and if the details are being vetted.

Tessa Jolls, president and CEO of the Center for Media Literacy, said the trial firmly established entertainment as a core element of news coverage, making it profitable. She said outlets still have to reel people in with this approach to survive in a challenging landscape, but added that a sensationalized case such as this one sometimes helps with engagement in a positive way.

"They were seeing what the news organizations chose to show, and that gave people a chance to talk to each other and compare notes," she said. "In that sense, I think people probably did become savvier."

The trial also touched on racial issues and domestic violence, and Jolls said it was natural for people to have strong emotions about the developments. But she noted that it serves as a reminder for audiences to not let their gut feelings cloud how they weigh the facts presented to them.

"We need to see that our emotions are definitely present and that they may be swaying our thinking," she said, "and so, it's important to ask questions, to be skeptical."


get more stories like this via email

Missouri lawmakers are concerned with protecting people from the potential risks of the increasing accessibility of AI-generated images and videos.

The Innovation and Technology Committee is planning to vote on the Taylor Swift Act, a bill aiming to make it illegal to publish or threaten to publish AI-generated sexually explicit images of people.

Rep. Adam Schwadron, R-St. Charles, authored the bill and said it is important to be proactive in protecting ordinary citizens.

"They were able to take it down for her," Schwadron acknowledged. "However, common Missourians would not have the same protections afforded to her. Not everyone is Taylor Swift."

The bill would allow victims of the fake image attacks to sue the creator in civil court and recover the offending images. Rep. Bridgette Walsh, D-St. Louis, also supports the bill and said it is necessary in this day and age, given how easy videos and images are to access and create.

Schwadron noted while they will need to learn how to track items originating from the dark web, he is optimistic the legislation will cover most common offenses.

"The cases that we are seeing across the country of classmates that are being attacked by other classmates of theirs that is creating these images and it's affecting young girls and even boys and those are a lot easier to track when they're being shared from phone to phone," Schwadron explained.

Schwadron added the name "Taylor Swift Act" was fitting due to her ties with the state of Missouri and her recent ordeal with explicit deepfakes.


get more stories like this via email