Some have suggested that the FCC is overstepping its bounds by taking any action at all without waiting for Congress to legislate. We respect the Congressional prerogative to legislate on these matters. It is not clear, however, that there is a consensus on legislation, and the legislative process often takes time. There are a host of competing priorities that will keep Congress busy in the near term and a thorough re-write of Internet-related provisions will have to compete with these priorities. Even though some are advocating a "rifle shot" legislative strategy, it is more likely that Congress will take a comprehensive look at broadband issues, which makes it unlikely that legislative reform could move quickly.Source: "In the Matter of Framework for Broadband Internet Service," Comments of the American Library Association, the Association of Research Libraries, and EDUCAUSE, Federal Communications Commission, GN Docket No. 10-127 (circa September 2003). See also, "Comments of the American Library Association, the Association of Research Libraries, and EDUCAUSE in the Matter of Framework for Broadband Internet Service," by Association of Research Libraries, Association of Research Libraries, circa September 2013.
FCC action in the near-term will act as a "spare tire" to ensure that consumers are protected and to implement the Goals of the National Broadband Plan while Congress decides upon its course of action. Preserving the open Internet and implementing the NBP are high-priority issues that deserve to be addressed as soon as possible. Meanwhile, action in the near-term by the FCC will give powerful interests who oppose net neutrality and aspects of the broadband plan an incentive to deal in good faith with Congress.
Did you understand that? We respect that Congress has the exclusive right ("prerogative") to legislate but it will take too long because there isn't "consensus" so the Executive Branch's FCC should simply make up the law? That's what ALA just said as shown above. Is ALA not advocating for a violation of the constitutional separation of powers? Isn't this an ALA ethics violation, at a minimum?
"Spare tire." That is a cute way to make violating the US Constitution palatable. Why the rush? Oh, to thwart the "powerful interests who oppose net neutrality." And ALA astroturfing for Free Press is not a powerful interest? Very powerful if it convinces people to violate the Constitution.
And of course ALA knows what "good faith" is when it hails violating the Constitution as an "incentive to deal in good faith with Congress." Recall that ALA promoted net neutrality anonymously in possible violation of the law—and not in good faith—by engaging in political activity and propagandization under dozens of anonymous names on Wikipedia:
- "ALA Pushes Net Neutrality on Wikipedia; Political and Pecuniary Interests Promoted Anonymously by ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom May Violate Ethical and Tax Codes," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 20 December 2010.
- "Tech at Night: Net Neutrality Reactions Continue, ALA, Copyright, Trademark, the New Madden Curse," by Neil Stevens, RedState, 28 December 2010.
- "Tech at Night: ALA, Wikipedia, Astroturf, Net Neutrality," by Neil Stevens, RedState, 30 December 2010.
It is not good faith for ALA to teach the opposite of the law in a case it lost in the US Supreme Court to mislead library trustees nationwide into leaving communities exposed to the harms of pornography. This is also with respect to matters of concern to the FCC to which ALA now complains about the good faith of "powerful interests":
- "How State Library Associations Endanger Children; NJ Libraries and You: Not Perfect Together," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 13 August 2013.
For more detail on the complete lack of good faith at ALA in matters of relevance to the FCC, see what the author of the Children's Internet Protection Act had to say about ALA—and me:
- "Children's Internet Protection Act Author Ernest Istook Interviewed," by Dawn Hawkins, Morality in Media, 17 April 2012.
So, comment below, is this or is this not a call for unconstitutional action to usurp power from the people? From a library association, no less, that wants us to believe it is all concerned about the First Amendment, public libraries, school libraries, and access of children to inappropriate material.
NOTE ADDED 10 SEPTEMBER 2013:
- "Tech at Night: Net Neutrality Oral Arguments Were Today. NSA Smashes Tor," by Neil Stevens, RedState, 9 September 2013.
URL of this page: safelibraries.blogspot.com/2013/09/ALASeeksToViolateConstitution.html