3 ms·

The actual dissent[1] seems fairly reasonable at first glance. It's based on two objections: * "First, Congress did not clearly authorize the FCC to issue the

The actual dissent[1] seems fairly reasonable at first glance. It's based on two objections: * "First, Congress did not clearly authorize the FCC to issue the net neutrality rule." * "Under the Supreme Court's landmark decisions in [cites 2 precedents], the First Amendment bars the Government from restricting the editorial discretion of Internet service providers, absent a showing that an Internet service provider possesses market power in a relevant geographic market." It really disturbs me how few people bother to look -- even a cursory glance -- before developing a profanity-laden opinion on the subject. [1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=608357842885836722&q=U.S.+Telecom+Association+v.+FCC&hl=en&as_sdt=4,130 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=608357842885836...

wool_gather 8y ago
The majority opinion thoroughly rebuts the arguments in the dissent. Have you read it as well? It's a good read if you've become interested in the subject. Official link (PDF) for those who don't like Google: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/06F8BFD079A89E13852581130053C3F8/$file/15-1063-1673357.pdf https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/06F8BFD0...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- roenxi 8y ago
  GP might or might not, but that isn't relevant - presumably everyone on HN could already mount a decent argument in favour of net neutrality, even without reading the opinion of legal experts. Law is a highly technical field that is full of detail, nuance and far-reaching consequences. There is a good reason why legal opinions are usually long written documents - the issues are complex. Anyone who selects one sentence as a soundbite and holds it up as the thing itself is (in an inconsequential way) undermining the integrity of the legal system. Judges write opinions that are about the length they need to be to express their reasoning. To criticise the opinion, it is necessary to have separate evidence of the result of the ruling or to have read the opinion. Quoting one sentence of the opinion from an article is not sufficient.
  - wool_gather 8y ago
    I'm not defending the original comment, I'm just replying to the one I'm replying to. Whether or not that commenter has read both the dissent and the majority opinion is 100% relevant to their comment.
matt4077 8y ago
I'll bite: The two precedents cited both involved Turner Broadcasting, a cable company. Searching both opinions, the term "internet" does not appear once. Gorsuch's assertion that these precedents decided that "the First Amendment bars the Government from restricting the editorial discretion of Internet service providers" is therefore wrong, bordering on dishonest. The idea that "Congress did not clearly authorise the FCC to issue the net neutrality rule." is some new far-right legal theory. The whole idea of agencies like the FCC is to implement the specifics of relevant laws. Rule-making is half of what agencies do, the other half being the enforcement of these laws and rules. This task of specification is delegated to agencies because they are better set up to react to changing circumstances. Almost by definition the rules and regulations they establish are not "clearly authorised by congress", at least not by what Gorsuch seems to be alluding to with "clear authorisation", i. e. the rule itself already being specified in the authorising legislation. Instead, congress tasks agencies with a set of subjects and/or industries, a set of principles, and a best-effort set of initial rules they can think of. The agencies then operate within that framework. Indeed, there is even a second meaning of the very word AGENCY: the capacity to act independently and to make free choices. I'll do the rest as just quoting the most preposterous ideas: * "[net neutrality] fundamentally transforms the Internet by prohibiting Internet service providers from choosing the content they want to transmit to consumers and from fully responding to their customers' preferences. The rule therefore wrests control of the Internet from the people and private Internet service providers and gives control to the Government."* Jesus fucking christ. Some of the same entities that provide cable television service — colloquially known as cable companies — provide Internet access over the very same wires. If those entities receive First Amendment protection when they transmit television stations and networks, they likewise receive First Amendment protection when they transmit Internet content. It would be entirely illogical to conclude otherwise Jesus fucking christ. the FCC has not shown that Internet service providers possess market power in a relevant geographic market. Jesus fucking christ.
aerovistae 8y ago
Your expansion on Kavanaugh's argument does not seem to deepen it, but rather reword it. Indeed, there are times where I feel a profanity-laden opinion is justified without reading too far. If I were to say homosexuality should be punishable by prison time, I would expect a profanity laden response without much depth. Some things are just outrageous, and outrage is a sensible response.
- jeffdavis 8y ago
  I did not reword his arguments. Those are his words, see the opinion and search for them.

wool_gather 8y ago

The majority opinion thoroughly rebuts the arguments in the dissent. Have you read it as well? It's a good read if you've become interested in the subject. Official link (PDF) for those who don't like Google: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/06F8BFD079A89E13852581130053C3F8/$file/15-1063-1673357.pdf https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/06F8BFD0...

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
roenxi 8y ago
GP might or might not, but that isn't relevant - presumably everyone on HN could already mount a decent argument in favour of net neutrality, even without reading the opinion of legal experts. Law is a highly technical field that is full of detail, nuance and far-reaching consequences. There is a good reason why legal opinions are usually long written documents - the issues are complex. Anyone who selects one sentence as a soundbite and holds it up as the thing itself is (in an inconsequential way) undermining the integrity of the legal system. Judges write opinions that are about the length they need to be to express their reasoning. To criticise the opinion, it is necessary to have separate evidence of the result of the ruling or to have read the opinion. Quoting one sentence of the opinion from an article is not sufficient.
- wool_gather 8y ago
  I'm not defending the original comment, I'm just replying to the one I'm replying to. Whether or not that commenter has read both the dissent and the majority opinion is 100% relevant to their comment.

matt4077 8y ago

I'll bite: The two precedents cited both involved Turner Broadcasting, a cable company. Searching both opinions, the term "internet" does not appear once. Gorsuch's assertion that these precedents decided that "the First Amendment bars the Government from restricting the editorial discretion of Internet service providers" is therefore wrong, bordering on dishonest. The idea that "Congress did not clearly authorise the FCC to issue the net neutrality rule." is some new far-right legal theory. The whole idea of agencies like the FCC is to implement the specifics of relevant laws. Rule-making is half of what agencies do, the other half being the enforcement of these laws and rules. This task of specification is delegated to agencies because they are better set up to react to changing circumstances. Almost by definition the rules and regulations they establish are not "clearly authorised by congress", at least not by what Gorsuch seems to be alluding to with "clear authorisation", i. e. the rule itself already being specified in the authorising legislation. Instead, congress tasks agencies with a set of subjects and/or industries, a set of principles, and a best-effort set of initial rules they can think of. The agencies then operate within that framework. Indeed, there is even a second meaning of the very word AGENCY: the capacity to act independently and to make free choices. I'll do the rest as just quoting the most preposterous ideas: * "[net neutrality] fundamentally transforms the Internet by prohibiting Internet service providers from choosing the content they want to transmit to consumers and from fully responding to their customers' preferences. The rule therefore wrests control of the Internet from the people and private Internet service providers and gives control to the Government."* Jesus fucking christ. Some of the same entities that provide cable television service — colloquially known as cable companies — provide Internet access over the very same wires. If those entities receive First Amendment protection when they transmit television stations and networks, they likewise receive First Amendment protection when they transmit Internet content. It would be entirely illogical to conclude otherwise Jesus fucking christ. the FCC has not shown that Internet service providers possess market power in a relevant geographic market. Jesus fucking christ.

aerovistae 8y ago

Your expansion on Kavanaugh's argument does not seem to deepen it, but rather reword it. Indeed, there are times where I feel a profanity-laden opinion is justified without reading too far. If I were to say homosexuality should be punishable by prison time, I would expect a profanity laden response without much depth. Some things are just outrageous, and outrage is a sensible response.

jeffdavis 8y ago
I did not reword his arguments. Those are his words, see the opinion and search for them.