261
US agency does not have authority to reinstate net neutrality laws, court rules
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2025
261 points (99.6% liked)
News
23757 readers
3077 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Congress. They need to take responsibility and pass an actual law, not let regulatory agencies invent them on their own.
I am a supporter of net neutrality but I can also see a point to this ruling.
How did the FCC come to exist?
It would appear that it was by a law that didn't give it the authority to implement net neutrality rules.
Again, I am a supporter of net neutrality. I think it's a good thing. Which is why it behooves Congress to actually implement it. Do it right and then the court won't keep overturning it like this.
It gave them the authority to regulate communications. Net neutrality rules are well within that scope. The paradigm that you're asking for is not a sustainable way to run a country of 300 million plus people. Congress has the power to delegate specific policy decisions to said agencies.
SCOTUS can kiss my ass. We shouldn't recognize any of their decisions anymore.
Again, I am not asking for this paradigm. I'm describing what the paradigm currently is.
Evidently not. Saying "but they should have that power" isn't going to get net neutrality actually implemented. Because they don't, as evidenced by the fact that they got shut down when they tried.
It's clear you're arguing from ignorance as your argument is patently absurd.
The judgement is partisan, inconsistent with established case law, and relies on (at best) specious distinctions between "information service" and "telecommunication service". Griffin creates a distinction without a difference to manufacture the perception of judicial leverage where none exists.
It's like arguing the DEA has no purview over cannabis because the Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973 refers to "marihuana". It's clear what the intention of the law is even if the language is imprecise. To argue that ISPs provide some new class of service that's legally distinct from all other telecom service and therefore immune to regulation is an argument made out of ignorance, stupidity, corruption, or some combination of the three.
And yet the courts keep overturning these rules. That's what I'm saying is happening, and that's what's happening. What's "from ignorance" about this?
In some manner or another, that's what's happening. If that's not what's supposed to be happening then the system that's allowing that to keep happening needs to be fixed. Either by changing the system or by changing how the system is supposed to work to match what's actually happening.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. I'm saying "the way the US government works doesn't match what the US constitutions says" and I'm getting angry responses saying "no, it's not working that way!" Yes, that's what I said.
All of this net neutrality back-and-forth would go away if Congress would simply pass a clear, unambiguous law saying "yes there should be net neutrality." Is that what's wanted? If so then do that.
You're arguing that congress doesn't have the authority to delegate policy to federal agencies. This is where I disagree. They do not need a specific mandate to take action. That's not what the Constitution says, and that's not what legal precedent said until a wholly ineligible SCOTUS claimed otherwise. They have no enforcement arm whatsoever. Federal agencies should continue regulating as normal and ignore the courts. If Congress wants to pass a law stating "this is HOW we want you to regulate this specific area", that's great (they wont, because inaction is fine with conservatives). But I'm not accepting this magical waiving of a wand to now put the entire day to day operation of our federal government in the hands of Congress.
I'm not arguing it. The courts are arguing it.
We're not actually disagreeing, because I'm not actually arguing a position here. I'm not saying what anything should be.
What your missing is that it's not "the courts" it's "the court". The corrupt as fuck Supreme Court made a ruling that lesser courts are obliged to follow. There is no intellectually rigorous reasoning, just corruption in the highest court in the land.
Okay, "the court" instead of "the courts." It still doesn't fundamentally change what I'm saying here.
What your saying, no. Your basis for saying it? Absolutely. You have made zero arguments for this interpretation of the constitution beyond an appeal to the authority of "the courts". When "the courts," is actually"one court" that we all know is beyond corrupted by the corporations who benefit, your appeal to authority becomes meaningless.
How many times do I need to repeat this? I'm not making any arguments for or against any particular interpretation of the constitution. What I'm doing is pointing out that the various organs of the US government - Congress, regulatory bodies, courts - are interpreting it differently and as a result are performing in a dysfunctional manner.
I've made zero arguments because I'm not trying to make an argument. I'm describing what's happening, not arguing about how it should be happening. You're endlessly battering a strawman here.