[ad_1]
Since Trump's election, the state of California has filed numerous lawsuits against the federal government to block various Trump administration laws, but this weekend it's the US Department of Justice. United who fought against the Golden State.
On Sunday, nearly an hour after California Governor Jerry Brown passed the unprecedented Network Neutrality Bill, which aimed to uphold and enforce the rules of neutrality of the network of the era Obama in California, the Ministry of Justice brought a lawsuit to block it.
"The Department of Justice should not have to spend precious time and resources to sue today, but we have a duty to defend the prerogatives of the federal government and protect our constitutional order." said Sunday Attorney General Jeff Sessions. "We will do it with vigor. We are convinced that we will prevail in this case because the facts are on our side. "
The California bill in question, SB822, is the most comprehensive approach adopted by states to counter the FCC's decision to overturn network neutrality regulations. SB822 would prevent Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from stifling or blocking websites, in addition to imposing restrictions on behaviors such as "zero ranking", that is, allowing access to websites only under certain conditions.
READ MORE: How YouTube has become a powerful propaganda organ of the far right
The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Ajit Pai, expressed support for the prosecution in a statement. Although he is not officially registered as an applicant for the complaint, Mr. Pai said he "looks forward to" working with the Department of Justice to "ensure that the 39; Internet remains free from any federal or state regulation "as required by federal law. [remains] the field of engineers, contractors and technologists, not lawyers and bureaucrats. "
"I am pleased that the Justice Ministry has taken legal action," said Pai. "The Internet is by nature an interstate information service."
More specifically, the complaint states that the bill is "pre-empted by federal law and therefore violates the supremacy clause of the US Constitution". However, it is this specific clause that has driven many legal experts to determine who has authority over the Internet. – and whether or not the FCC has the right to complain, or if the move is merely political.
Given that the US Court of Appeals of the Supreme Court of Canada circuit hears appeals of the FCC decision to restore Internet freedom, it will be up to the CCD circuit to interpret the decision of the FCC to remove ISPs from Title II. Title II is a clause stating that ISPs are subject to the same regulations as other telecommunication companies; it was applied for the first time in 2015. But in the very controversial reversal that took place during the vote by 3 votes against 2 in December, it was removed.
If ISPs are not regulated, then they have a free reign. Does this mean that the FCC can still regulate them?
Barbara van Schewick, a professor of law and electrical engineering at Stanford Law School, told Salon that this could only be tried in the US Circuit Court of Appeals in February 2019.
"States declare that the FCC decision to preempt states was invalid, and it is true that pre-emption does not prevent states from adopting their own rules of neutrality", said van Schewick. "If it's valid and the FCC is right, this preemption prohibits states from adopting their own rules of net neutrality."
Oregon, Washington and Vermont are also trying to preserve net neutrality through legislation. It's interesting, van Schewick said, that the Department of Justice has chosen to take action now, but that's because California's bill is the most comprehensive.
"The California bill is the first state-level law that would really bring back all the protections of net neutrality," Van Schewick said.
Gus Hurwitz, associate professor of law and co-director of the Space, Cyberspace and Telecommunications Technology Law Program at the College of Law of the University of Nebraska, told Salon that the Department of Justice had the right to complain.
"I am firmly convinced that the FCC has preempted California legislation and I expect the Justice Department to succeed in its litigation against the state," said Hurwitz, adding that 39 he felt that California's legislation was indirectly inconsistent with FCC rules because the Internet is an "interstate service".
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra is indifferent to the Justice Department trial.
"While the Trump administration continues to ignore the millions of Americans who have expressed strong support for the rules of net neutrality, California, a country of countless start-ups, giants of technology and nearly 40 million consumers, will not allow a handful of energy brokers to dictate sources for We remain deeply committed to the protection of freedom of expression, innovation and justice. " said Becerra in a statement.
Jessica Rosenworcel, one of two Democrats among the five FCC Commissioners, said the California bill was "a welcome development."
"It's good for consumers, for businesses and for all those who connect and create online," Rosenworcel said in a statement. "The Justice Department has indicated that it will challenge the new California law in court. Unfortunately, this confirms that Washington does not listen to the American people. "
Source link
