Net Neutrality Advocates Won't Appeal Loss (arstechnica.com)
- Reference: 0178618396
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/25/08/08/222237/net-neutrality-advocates-wont-appeal-loss
- Source link: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/08/net-neutrality-advocates-wont-appeal-loss-say-they-dont-trust-supreme-court/
> "Trump's election flipped the FCC majority back to ideologues who've always taken the broadband industry's side on this crucial issue. And the justices making up the current Supreme Court majority have shown hostility toward sound legal reasoning on this precise question and a host of other topics too," [4]said Matt Wood, VP of policy and general counsel at Free Press. [...] "The 6th Circuit's decision earlier this year was spectacularly wrong, and the protections it struck down are extremely important. But rather than attempting to overcome an agency that changed hands -- and a Supreme Court majority that cares very little about the rule of law -- we'll keep fighting for Internet affordability and openness in Congress, state legislatures and other court proceedings nationwide," Wood said.
>
> Besides Free Press, groups announcing that they won't appeal are the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, New America's Open Technology Institute, and Public Knowledge. "Though the 6th Circuit erred egregiously in its decision to overturn the FCC's 2024 Open Internet order, there are other ways we can advance our fight for consumer protections and ISP accountability than petitioning the Supreme Court to review this case -- and, given the current legal landscape, we believe our efforts will be more effective if focused on those alternatives," said Raza Panjwani, senior policy counsel at the Open Technology Institute. Net neutrality could still reach the Supreme Court in another case. Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior counselor of the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, said that "the 6th Circuit decision makes bad policy as well as bad law. Because it is at odds with the holdings of two other circuits, we expect to take the issue to the Supreme Court in a future case."
[1] https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/01/02/206258/us-appeals-court-blocks-biden-administration-effort-to-restore-net-neutrality-rules
[2] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/08/net-neutrality-advocates-wont-appeal-loss-say-they-dont-trust-supreme-court/
[3] https://tech.slashdot.org/story/25/01/06/0237226/america-still-has-net-neutrality-laws---in-states-like-california-and-new-york
[4] https://www.freepress.net/news/public-interest-groups-decline-seek-supreme-court-review-fcc-open-internet-rules
We know what the kangaroo court will say (Score:2)
> there are other ways we can advance our fight for consumer protections and ISP accountability than petitioning the Supreme Court to review this case -- and, given the current legal landscape, we believe our efforts will be more effective if focused on those alternatives
The SCOTUS absolutely will side with the current administration and then it's game over, man . At least leaving things the way they are now leaves the door open for it to just be yet another in the long line of messes for the next administration to clean up. Cue obligatory assuming there is a next administration , ad nauseam.
Re: (Score:2)
The next president will still have a Supreme Court dominated by conservatives.
Clarence Thomas is 77, and Sam Alito is 75. They might choose to retire during Trump's last year so other conservatives can replace them.
No other justice is likely to die or retire during the next presidential term.
\o/ (Score:1)
> Trump's election flipped the FCC majority back to ideologues who've always taken the broadband industry's side on this crucial issue
How awesome is it that not only are there people in the world who cannot make decisions for the greater good but that such people are in charge of things which affect others. W00t! for civilization - may we one day approach such a thing.
With the gerrymandering in Texas (Score:1)
And also Louisiana and well every other Red State I think it's safe to say you aren't going to be getting anything through Congress.
It's possible Gavin newsome has the cojones to get the Democrat governors together to counteract the gerrymandering with their own gerrymandering, but after so many years of my party rolling over I'll believe it when I see it.
Still if he wants to be president he doesn't have a lot of options. At the rate we are going there aren't going to be elections in 2026 let alone
Re:With the gerrymandering in Texas (Score:4, Insightful)
The fix to gerrymandering is passing the 1st proposed amendment in the bill of rights that limited the size of house districts to 50,000 people. It passed congress but has never been ratified by enough states. Gerrymandering is inevitable, but it is far harder to significantly influence control when you have many more districts. You end up with a house that not only will represent us better, but whose members are actually more representative of us instead of just another bunch of wealthy members of the political class.
Re: (Score:2)
Any amendment requires approval by three-quarters of the state legislatures.
32 of 50 states voted for Trump.
There is no way that red states are gonna vote against their own interests.
Re: (Score:2)
The Dems will have difficulty counter-gerrymandering.
Some states, such as California, have voter-approved non-partisan groups (usually retired judges) do the redistricting. The legislature can't overturn that. It would have to go back to a voter referendum, which is difficult, expensive, and time-consuming.
But a bigger problem is that gerrymandering just doesn't work as well for Democrats. Their voters are more concentrated in urban areas that are easy for Republicans to corral into a few districts, while r
Re: (Score:3)
Complaining about gerrymandering is like saying "Having a town full of arsonists isn't the problem - the problem is that we're giving too many of the arsonists packs of matches." Messing with how representation is allocated is like deciding who gets the packs of matches. But no matter how you hand them out, the real problem is that there are too many people willing to burn things down.
Gerrymandering only works when the party in power has supermajority support in the first place and can afford to dilute the
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed.
As Douglas MacArthur once said, "There is no substitute for victory."
The real solution is for Democrats to start winning elections again.
Unfortunately, that requires Democrats to address the concerns of working-class voters and talk to people in language they understand.
I don't see that happening.