SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
jessica rosenworcel
FCC Chair Rebukes DeSantis-Run Florida for Threatening TV Station Over Abortion Ad
Another critic said that "this is the latest proof that there is no limit to how low DeSantis will stoop to censor free speech and punish dissent."
Oct 09, 2024
Federal Communications Commission Chair Jessica Rosenworcel on Tuesday called out a Florida agency for threatening a Tampa NBC affiliate with prosecution for airing an advertisement in support of a state abortion rights proposal on the November ballot.
"The right of broadcasters to speak freely is rooted in the First Amendment," Rosenworcel said in a statement. "Threats against broadcast stations for airing content that conflicts with the government's views are dangerous and undermine the fundamental principle of free speech."
Floridians Protecting Freedom's ad is designed to build support for Amendment 4, which if approved by voters next month would alter the Florida Constitution to outlaw pre-viability prohibitions on abortion care, including Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis' six-week ban, which took effect earlier this year and has already been shown to harm patients.
The 30-second ad features a Tampa resident who was diagnosed with brain cancer while pregnant. Caroline, who already had one child at the time, says that "the doctors knew if I did not end my pregnancy, I would lose my baby, I would lose my life, and my daughter would lose her mom."
"Florida has now banned abortion even in cases like mine," explains Caroline, who received abortion care in 2020, before the U.S. Supreme Court reversedRoe v. Wade and enabled bans like the one signed by DeSantis. "Amendment 4 is gonna protect women like me. We have to vote yes."
Florida journalist Jason Garcia revealed Monday that last week, John Wilson, general counsel at the state Department of Health (DOH), wrote to WFLA-TV vice president and general manager Mark Higgins, claiming that the ad contains information that is "categorically false" and constitutes a "sanitary nuisance," which could lead to criminal proceedings if it is not removed.
As HuffPostreported Tuesday:
It's unclear if the agency only sent the letter to the NBC affiliate, or to others as well. Either way, a threat like this could have a chilling effect on publicly advocating for the pro-choice measure, just weeks away from when it will be in front of voters. Florida's Department of Health did not respond to HuffPost's request for comment.
The sanitary nuisance law is meant to curb conditions that can threaten or impair Floridians' health. It normally pertains to issues like overflowing septic tanks and problematic garbage disposals.
Attorneys for Floridians Protecting Freedom swiftly sent a letter to WFLA leaders, arguing that the DOH interjection "raises serious First Amendment concerns—indeed, it reflects an unconstitutional attempt to coerce the station into censoring protected speech," and "the advertisement is true."
The DOH letter "vaguely outlines the limited instances where abortions are allowed in Florida but fails to provide any evidence showing that Caroline's statements are false," the lawyers wrote. "Caroline was diagnosed with stage four brain cancer when she was 20 weeks pregnant; the diagnosis was terminal."
Florida's ban has limited exceptions for abortions after six weeks—before many people even know they are pregnant. In cases of rape and incest, patients can receive care up to 15 weeks, if they can manage the burdensome paperwork. Abortions to protect the health or life of a pregnant person require two physicians to assert in writing that such care is necessary.
"The only instances where the Agency for Health Care Administration has provided guidance that abortions are permitted after six-weeks' gestation are when there is an immediate threat to the pregnant person's life," the lawyers noted. "Caroline's diagnosis was terminal. Practically, that means that an abortion would not have saved her life, only extended it. Florida law would not allow an abortion in this instance."
The group of attorneys is far from alone in criticizing the Florida DOH's attempt to get the ad off the air. Aaron Terr, director of public advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), toldPopular Information that the department's letter stretches "the meaning of sanitary nuisance beyond recognition."
"Terr told Popular Information that even if the ad was false and violated Florida's sanitary nuisance law, the enforcement of the law against a political ad would be unconstitutional," the outlet added. "Terr notes that the First Amendment contains 'no general exception for false speech or misinformation, and that's because of the danger of the government having a general power to dictate what is true or false, especially when it comes to political speech.'"
As Slate's Mark Joseph Stern reported Monday:
Rebecca Tushnet, a professor at Harvard Law School and a First Amendment specialist, told me that the DeSantis administration's threat is "about as blatant a violation of the First Amendment as you'll see."
Jennifer Safstrom, director of the First Amendment Clinic at Vanderbilt Law School, condemned the administration's letter as an unconstitutional "weaponization of state law to suppress speech" that's "designed to have a chilling effect on advocates during a time critical to voter outreach." Alexander Tsesis, a professor at the Florida State University College of Law, said it seemed "absurd to threaten prosecution," and pointed out that stations' own "editorial decisions" are protected by the First Amendment. Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, a professor at Stetson Law, called the incident yet another episode in DeSantis' "long recent history of violating the First Amendment with abandon."
Seth Stern, director of advocacy of Freedom of the Press Foundation, similarly said in a Wednesday statement that "this is the latest proof that there is no limit to how low DeSantis will stoop to censor free speech and punish dissent."
"It comes on the heels of his efforts to rewrite defamation law to make it easier for the rich and powerful to bankrupt their critics, his Stop WOKE Act stunt, and other similarly unconstitutional nonsense," Stern noted. "A governor who is confident in his policies and secure in his leadership would welcome debate and correct statements he believes are misleading rather than trying to weaponize trash disposal laws against the free press."
"But DeSantis is not that governor. His administration's conduct would be silly if it weren't such a transparent bully tactic," he added. "Floridians care about the First Amendment, which is why DeSantis' outrageous censorship campaigns keep failing. We hope the news outlets he targets will not only ignore him but loudly shame him."
The governor has come under fire for various actions throughout the fight for Amendment 4. As Garcia highlighted on social media, while targeting Caroline's ad, "the DeSantis administration is running taxpayer-funded television commercials attacking Amendment 4 on ESPN, CNN, Fox News, The Weather Channel, and more."
The ads are part of what the ACLU of Florida has called an "unconstitutional misinformation campaign," which also includes a government website. Additionally, as Common Dreamsreported last month, multiple state residents have had law enforcement come to their homes to confirm that they signed the petition to get Amendment 4 on the ballot.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Unacceptable': Court Blocks Net Neutrality Rules During Legal Battle
"Today's ruling is a setback, but a temporary one," said one campaigner. "The nation's communications regulator must be able to oversee the nation’s communications infrastructure."
Aug 01, 2024
Net neutrality advocates on Thursday sharply condemned a U.S. appellate court decision blocking implementation of the Biden administration's broadband policy while a legal challenge launched by the telecommunications industry moves forward.
Federal Communications Commission Chair Jessica Rosenworcel joined with Commissioners Anna Gomez and Geoffrey Starks in April to reclassify broadband as a public service under Title II of the Communications Act—undoing damage done during the Trump administration.
Internet service providers (ISPs) are fighting to stop the FCC's order. After temporarily delaying the rules last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit just granted a stay. Oral arguments aren't expected until October or November.
"The 6th Circuit's stay will leave Americans without critical net neutrality protections and leave the Federal Communications Commission without its rightful authority over broadband," warned U.S. Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) in a joint statement Thursday.
"We need net neutrality to protect the free and open internet and ensure that internet gatekeepers cannot control what we see, who we talk with, and how we communicate online."
"That is unacceptable," added the senators, who have led the fight for reviving net neutrality rules in Congress. "We need net neutrality to protect the free and open internet and ensure that internet gatekeepers cannot control what we see, who we talk with, and how we communicate online."
Advocacy groups were similarly critical. John Bergmayer, legal director at Public Knowledge, said that "it is unfortunate that the court granted the ISPs' request for a stay of the FCC's net neutrality rules. These rules would bar broadband providers from throttling connection speeds, blocking websites, and discriminating in favor of preferred internet traffic."
"Millions of Americans have expressed support for these rules by submitting comments with the FCC urging the agency to enact these protections," he noted. "Consumers need net neutrality rules as well as the other consumer benefits provided by the FCC's recognition that broadband is a 'telecommunications' service, including online privacy, public safety and national security, and affordable, competitive broadband service."
"Despite this court's action, we remain confident that the FCC's rules—and classification of broadband as a telecommunication service under Title II of the Communications Act—will ultimately be upheld, just as they were before—or that Congress will step in to reinstate these popular and necessary protections," Bergmayer added.
Free Press vice president of policy and general counsel Matt Wood also characterized the stay as unfortunate but stressed that "we believe that the litigation to follow will dispel these unfounded phone-and cable-company arguments about Title II's supposed harms and about the commission's authority to classify broadband providers properly under the statute."
"Industry lobbyists and other net neutrality opponents have argued, loudly but cynically, that the Trump-era repeal somehow spurred broadband deployment and speed increases, claiming that the rules' presence impairs those upgrades. This is nonsense, as Free Press has shown time and time again by examining the companies' own financial statements and investor briefings," he highlighted. "Today's order unfortunately accepts the false premise that the FCC's rules prevent broadband providers from rolling out new products. ISPs make such claims only in court; they never make them to their investors."
"Today's ruling is a setback, but a temporary one. The nation's communications regulator must be able to oversee the nation’s communications infrastructure," Wood continued. "While we hit a procedural hurdle today, Free Press is determined to see the FCC's decision go into effect. The 6th Circuit will still need to evaluate the ISPs' and FCC's arguments in full when it reviews the case on the merits. We're confident that we will ultimately prevail in this case, even in the wake of this disappointing outcome and even in light of recent Supreme Court decisions aimed at weakening federal agencies' oversight."
Rosenworcel was also determined to defend the FCC's decision, declaring Thursday that "the American public wants an internet that is fast, open, and fair. Today's decision by the 6th Circuit is a setback but we will not give up the fight for net neutrality."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Everyone Should Celebrate': FCC Restores Net Neutrality Rules
"Today marks the last day that internet service providers can continue to put profit over people," said one advocate.
Apr 25, 2024
Open internet advocates on Thursday applauded the Federal Communications Commission's long-anticipated vote to revive net neutrality rules and reestablish FCC oversight of broadband.
The 3-2 vote along party lines to reclassify broadband as a public service under Title II of the Communications Act came seven months after FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel announced the push in the wake of the U.S. Senate confirming Commissioner Anna Gomez.
Commissioner Geoffrey Starks joined Rosenworcel and Gomez to launch the rulemaking process last year and finalize the policy change on Thursday. Commissioner Brendan Carr and Nathan Simington both aligned with the powerful telecom industry by opposing the effort to prevent internet service providers from blocking, throttling, or engaging in paid prioritization of lawful online content.
Demand Progress Education Fund senior campaigner Joey DeFrancesco said the revival "has been desperately needed" since former FCC Chair Ajit Pai—an appointee of former Republican President Donald Trump—led the "disastrous decision" in 2017 to gut a 2015 agency policy codifying the principle that has been foundational to the internet since its inception.
"Internet access is not a luxury, but a necessity to participate in society and survive in our modern economy," DeFrancesco stressed. "The FCC's new rule will ensure the commission has the full ability to expand broadband and the authority to ensure access to an open internet."
"The FCC's vote today returns the internet to the American people."
Free Press co-CEO Craig Aaron declared that "everyone should celebrate today's FCC vote."
"Public support for net neutrality is overwhelming, and people understand why we need a federal watchdog to protect everyone's access to the most essential communications platform of our time," he noted. "The FCC heard the outcry and did its job: delivering on promises to stand with internet users and against big telecom companies and their trade groups, which have spent untold millions of dollars to spread lies about net neutrality and thwart any oversight or regulation."
Aaron praised Rosenworcel and her staff for leading the restoration effort, as well as Starks and Gomez for working with her to reverse the Trump FCC's move and ensure "that the agency can once again protect internet users whenever big phone and cable companies like AT&T, Comcast, Spectrum, and Verizon attempt to harm them."
"Big cable and phone companies won't be able to pick and choose what any of us can say or see online. Net neutrality is a guarantee that these companies will carry our data across the internet without undue interference or unreasonable discrimination," he emphasized. "This is what democracy should look like: Public servants responding to public sentiment, taking steps to protect just and reasonable services and free expression, and showing that the government is capable of defending the public interest."
Michael Copps, a former FCC commissioner and current Common Cause special adviser, was similarly enthusiastic, saying that "if I weren't out of the country today, I would be personally at the FCC jumping up and down, saluting the majority for reinstituting the network neutrality rules that were so foolishly eliminated by the previous commission."
"Our communications technologies are evolving so swiftly, affecting so many important aspects of our individual lives, that they must be available to all of us on a nondiscriminatory basis. And they must advance the public interest, protecting consumers, fostering competition, and providing us all the news and information we need as we fight to maintain our democracy," he continued. "We still have much to do; but today, let's celebrate a huge step forward."
The vote notably comes during an election year—and as Democratic President Joe Biden, a net neutrality supporter, is gearing up for a November rematch against Trump.
"The internet is crucial to civic engagement in the United States today. It functions as a virtual public square where social justice movements organize and garner support," said Common Cause's Ishan Mehta. "The FCC's vote today returns the internet to the American people."
Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at the ACLU, also piled on the praise, proclaiming that "today marks the last day that internet service providers can continue to put profit over people."
"We are thrilled that the FCC now has the authority it needs to protect consumers, promote the exercise of First Amendment rights online, and ensure that everyone has access to high-quality, affordable internet," she said. "However, we urge the commission not to exercise its authority to preempt consistent state laws that grant consumers additional protections."
John Bergmayer, legal director at Public Knowledge, also celebrated the vote while stressing that the commission's work is far from over. In addition to warning of court fights to come, he said that "broadband providers will continue attempting to rebrand their old plans for internet fast and slow lanes, hoping to sneak them through."
"The FCC will need to diligently enforce its rules," Bergmayer argued, "including clarifying that discrimination in favor of certain apps or categories of traffic 'impairs' and 'degrades' traffic that is left in the slow lane, and that broadband providers cannot simply take apps that people use on the internet every day and package them as a separate 'nonbroadband' service."
"The FCC must also ensure that practices that are not expressly prohibited but still unreasonably interfere with the ability of end users to freely use the internet, or of edge providers to freely compete, are disallowed," he added. "These practices include discriminatory zero-rating and network interconnection practices."
Like Leventoff, he also recognized the vital role of states with stricter policies, saying that those "with excellent net neutrality and broadband consumer protection statutes, like California, can be a nationwide model for other states and the FCC to adopt to strengthen their own rules."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular