California Passes Net Neutrality Laws, To Face Lawsuit by DOJ
| ROBYN BECK / AFP/Getty Images |
On Sunday, California governor Jerry Brown signed strict net neutrality regulations that goes against the Federal Communication Committee's ruling in December and return standards to what they were like during the Obama administration. The Department of Justice will file a lawsuit, claiming that California is undermining federal policy on what is a federal responsibility per Attorney General Jeff Sessions: "Under the Constitution, states do not regulate interstate commerce - the federal government does...Once again the California legislature has enacted an extreme and illegal state law to frustrate federal policy"(CNN).
As you may know, a key event in the net neutrality process occurred last December of 2017, when the FCC under Chairman Ajit Pai voted to repeal laws passed in 2015 which prevented companies from being able to control download speed based on website and provided free access to all websites to the public. In addition to removing those laws, the FCC specifically passed a provision that would prohibit states from attempting to create individual regulations as to limit confusion on the companies' part. In spite of that, California has opted to try its hand at restoring net neutrality and the result remains to be seen.
This topic most relates to the previous unit we just finished about federalism. Here, we see both a failure and success of the democratic process, where the federal policy does not accurately reflect the sentiment of the people, but a closer, more in tune state government understands the beliefs of its people and can implement such a law. Of course, there's also the negative aspect of duality in which two different sets of regulations are in place, making it confusing on what the actual law is. Nevertheless, given the supremacy clause and the enumerated power of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, I would predict that the Department of Justice will win the case and have California's law invalidated. However, as has been the case for a number of movements, perhaps this action by California will spark other states into enacting their own regulations, 22 of whose attorney generals have already been pushing to rescind the deregulation by the FCC.
Sources:
https://money.cnn.com/2018/09/30/technology/california-net-neutrality-law/index.html
https://www.cnet.com/news/californias-gold-standard-net-neutrality-becomes-law/
http://www.publicconsultation.org/united-states/overwhelming-bipartisan-majority-opposes-repealing-net-neutrality/
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-net-neutrality-california-legislation-20180827-story.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/janetwburns/2018/07/06/california-revives-stronger-net-neutrality-bill-after-public-backlash/#48ccade313ec
4 comments:
Although I would personally love for Net Neutrality Laws to pass in California, I think the federal government is right in this case -- the internet, as a method of communication that facilitates sales between states, does fall under the jurisdiction of the commerce clause. With the supremacy clause, California does not have the right override the federal government. Therefore, I find it quite likely that California will lose the upcoming lawsuit.
I agree with Emily, the government does seem to be legally right in this case. However, I think the Net Neutrality decision last year was disappointing, especially since over 80 percent of Americans and 75 percent of Republicans were in favor of Net Neutrality. I think that it has become increasingly apparent that many politicians go against public opinion/ are not truly representative of their constituents. It will be interesting to see what happens during the midterms for sure.
People have a tendency to flip-flop sides of the federalist argument depending on their stances on the debated issue. It's difficult, because as much as I support net neutrality legislation in California, it would be hypocritical of me to argue state's rights in this particular case simply because I disagree with the federal government. The state's rights argument long been used as a justification for bigoted or unjust legislation and to apply it in this case would be to legitimize it in those cases as well. I do not think the government is acting in the best interests of its people on this particular issue; however, as much as I would like to see net neutrality retained in California, constitutionally (and given the current makeup of the Supreme Court) the law does not seem to be on California's side.
That said, public opinion is largely opposed to the repeal of net neutrality (seems social justice bloggers and edgy right-wing memelords can find common ground, after all). The best we can hope for is a federal reversal of the FCC's repeal, but given this administration's decision-making history, I'm not holding my breath.
Post a Comment