Reps. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas and Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., introduced the 2015 Speak Free Act Wednesday to “enhance free speech protections for consumers on the Internet” by protecting Americans from frivolous lawsuits targeting their First Amendment rights, a joint news release said. “These lawsuits, known as SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation), pose a threat not only to free speech, but to the modern information economy,” the release said. “Protecting our right to free speech drives economic opportunity by paving the way to new forums for expression, like YouTube, or by facilitating the rise and fall of products or services through competition and honest buyer feedback,” it said. The legislation would create a federal anti-SLAPP law similar to the state laws in effect in Texas and California, “where expensive court proceedings are delayed and claims can be dismissed if the defendant can show that a SLAPP suit cannot succeed on the merits,” the release said. “The SPEAK FREE Act ensures nationwide protections against SLAPPs without preempting strong state laws like California’s pioneering anti-SLAPP law,” Eshoo said. “If you post an honest review on sites like Yelp or TripAdvisor, or if you stand up and voice your opinion about any issue of concern for you or your community, you shouldn’t have to fear being silenced by someone with money to burn who is abusing our legal system,” Farenthold said. “Most of us are familiar with the expression ‘I disapprove of what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’ That attitude toward free speech is more important than ever in the information age,” he said. The bill is co-sponsored by Reps. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., Trent Franks, R-Ariz., and Jared Polis, D-Colo. Information Technology and Innovation Foundation Vice President Daniel Castro called the bill a “necessary policy reform,” in a news release. If a patient endures a terrible visit to the dentist and posts a factual account of her experience online, he or she shouldn't be threatened with a lawsuit if the post isn't taken down, Castro said. SLAPPS are “designed to censor public speech by invoking the court system to intimidate critics and prevent bad publicity,” he said. It’s often easier for a defendant to retract an unflattering statement than to fight the lawsuit, even if it’s true, because state laws insufficiently protect online speech, Castro said. "While certain states have passed laws to stem the tide of meritless lawsuits filed for the sole purpose of stifling public debate, it is time that we address the issue on a federal level," said Internet Association CEO Michael Beckerman. “The right to free speech -- including online reviews and comments from customers -- is critical to our rights as Americans and should not be curtailed,” he said. “After more than six years of hard work, and with support from more than 100 organizations and businesses, for the first time a bi-partisan bill to enact federal anti-SLAPP legislation has been introduced in Congress,” said Public Participation Project (PPP) founder and Board President Mark Goldowitz, also director of the California Anti-SLAPP Project. “While some states have combated this form of bullying by enacting anti-SLAPP laws, almost half of the states do not have legislation that protects against SLAPPs,” said the PPP news release. This allows plaintiffs to file their SLAPPs in jurisdictions where anti-SLAPP protections are absent or weak, it said. “Federal anti-SLAPP legislation would close these loopholes and protect Americans in all states and at the federal level from SLAPPs.”
The three witnesses testifying on FCC process overhaul before the House Communications Subcommittee Friday are Stuart Benjamin, associate dean-research at Duke Law; Free State Foundation President Randolph May; and Robert McDowell, former FCC commissioner now with Wiley Rein. Benjamin focuses on telecom law and co-authored Telecommunications Law and Policy. All three witnesses testified on improving FCC process before the same subcommittee in July 2013. The Friday hearing, at 9:15 a.m. in 2322 Rayburn, will focus on three draft measures circulated by subcommittee Democrats and a new version of the FCC Process Review Act put together by Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., ranking member Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., and Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill. “Together, these bills aim to further the Subcommittee’s efforts to minimize the potential for procedural failings and abuse, and to improve agency transparency, efficiency, and accountability,” the GOP memo said. The revamped FCC Process Review Act “is the product of several months of bipartisan Subcommittee negotiations and represents a significant step towards a better-functioning agency,” producing “a collaborative process in which the Commission establishes the parameters to achieve congressionally established goals,” it said. “The Commission is charged with setting its own deadlines and minimum comment periods for rules and publication of FCC documents and with developing performance measures for program activities, which will provide parties and the public certainty and accountability. In addition, the required notice of inquiry asks the FCC to seek public comment on particularly complex issues that warrant further examination and improvement.” It would compel an annual scorecard of commission activities and lets FCC commissioners “engage in non-public, collaborative discussions, which currently are prohibited by the Sunshine Act.” The subcommittee has said it plans to mark up process legislation next week.
Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Ed Markey, D-Mass., reintroduced the Protecting Student Privacy Act, legislation they introduced last year that would update the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act “to ensure that students are better protected in an interconnected world,” a joint news release said. “The PreK-12 educational software and digital content market currently is worth more than $8 billion, with approximately 95 percent of school districts sending student records to companies that manage important necessary school services,” it said. “Only 7 percent of the same school districts sign contracts that directly prevent the companies from selling students’ data that includes everything from grades, to test scores, attendance records and family relationships,” it said. “Data analysis holds promise for increasing student achievement, but it also holds peril from a privacy perspective,” Markey said. “There are threats to students when their personal information is in the hands of private companies, and we need to make sure parents have the tools to protect their children.” Hatch agreed that all students' personal data should be protected when stored by third parties. “This legislation establishes security safeguards to ensure greater transparency and access to stored information for students and parents,” he said. “It also includes a provision prohibiting data mining for marketing or advertising purposes, and provides other commonsense protections for students’ personally identifiable student data.”
TVFreedom lauded the introduction of the Community Access Preservation Act (S-1244) by Sens. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., and Ed Markey, D-Mass., and urged its passage. TVFreedom is a broadcaster coalition including NAB among its members. “Like local broadcast TV stations, PEG (public, educational and government) access channels serve [an] integral role in American culture, helping keep television viewers informed about what is going on in their hometowns and serving as the primary source of educational and local government programming in cities, towns and suburbs across the country,” a TVFreedom spokesman said Wednesday. “In these challenging economic times in which the budgets of local governments are shrinking and municipalities are asked to do more with less, it is critical that lawmakers factor this into their legislative agendas as they seek to empower local governments to deliver public service television programming to their communities,” John Rocco, president of American Community Television, said in a statement.
Legislation requiring the president to disclose in his or her annual budget request to Congress the top-line spending levels at the 16 federal agencies known to conduct intelligence activities was introduced Wednesday by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Reps. Peter Welch, D-Vt., and Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., a joint news release said. Top-line spending levels for federal intelligence activities are now treated as classified information, the release said. The 9/11 Commission recommended top-line spending be declassified, which is what the Intelligence Budget Transparency Act would do, the release said. The bill was endorsed by former Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind., who was vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. “America needs competent and effective intelligence gathering agencies,” and “Congress must exercise prudent and diligent oversight to assure the American taxpayer is getting what it’s paying for,” Hamilton said. Wyden said: “My House colleagues and I are pushing to declassify the top-line budget numbers for each intelligence agency to provide Americans with more information about how their tax dollars are spent, in a responsible manner that protects national security.” He said he introduced a bill about 10 years ago that required the overall intelligence budget to be public and said national security hasn't been harmed by the release of the information. “The top-line intelligence budgets for America's 16 intelligence agencies are unknown to the American taxpayer and largely unknown to the Members of Congress who represent them,” Welch said. “It's led to dubious policies, wasted money and questionable effectiveness,” he said. “Requiring the public disclosure of top-line intelligence spending is an essential first step in assuring that our taxpayers and our national security interests are well served," Welch said. The legislation would apply to the Air Force Intelligence, Army Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, Coast Guard Intelligence, Defense Intelligence Agency, the Departments of Energy, Homeland Security and Treasury, Drug Enforcement Administration, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Marine Corps Intelligence, National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, NSA and Navy Intelligence.
House appropriators proposed giving NTIA far less money than it requested for FY 2016. House Appropriations Commerce Subcommittee Republicans released their draft proposal for an appropriations bill encompassing the Commerce Department and NTIA. NTIA would receive $35.2 million for FY 2016, but the administration had requested $49.2 million for the year. Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker has testified on the department’s need before appropriators in both chambers this year. The GOP proposal would allocate $8.2 billion for Commerce, below the FY 2015 amount by more than $250 million, and below the funding request by $1.6 billion. The National Institute of Standards and Technology would receive $855 million, $9 million less than it received this fiscal year. The Republicans argued that “core” NIST functions are preserved, such as cybersecurity activities. The proposal also “continues language prohibiting funds to relinquish the responsibility of Department of Commerce with respect to Internet domain name system functions,” appropriators said in a news release, which was the subject of two House hearings Wednesday. “None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to relinquish the responsibility of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration with respect to Internet domain name system functions, including responsibility with respect to the authoritative root zone file and the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority functions,” the draft text said. The subcommittee plans to mark up the bill Thursday at 10:30 a.m. in H-140 of the Capitol.
Telecom consultant Ev Ehrlich is continuing to press Congress for net neutrality legislation. He targeted Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., in an op-ed for The Charleston Gazette Monday, repeating arguments he has made in other opinion pieces. Ehrlich, a Commerce Department official in the Clinton administration, slammed the FCC’s net neutrality order and said “a bipartisan group of Senators have produced a bill that ensures all the consumer protections advocated for by President [Barack] Obama, but without the legal and political risks of regulation.” He was referring to draft legislation from Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune, R-S.D., which lacks Democratic support. “It’s everything the Obama Administration asked for, only it avoids the utility treatment of the Internet,” Ehrlich said. “But will Sen. Manchin, a known compromiser and member of the Commerce Committee with jurisdiction in this matter, help to advance the bill? He certainly should.” Manchin has said he's receptive to bipartisan legislation on net neutrality.
Several leading tech organizations sent a joint letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Monday encouraging the passage of the USA Freedom Act (HR-2048) introduced by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., ranking member John Conyers, D-Mich., and Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., a news release said. The letter signed by BSA|The Software Alliance, the Computer & Communications Industry Association, the Information Technology Industry Council, the Internet Association, Reform Government Surveillance, the Software & Information Industry Association and TechNet, said “public trust in the technology sector is critical” and has declined since the U.S. surveillance programs were revealed two years ago. Editorial boards from USA Today, The Washington Post, The News & Advance, Tampa Bay Times, The Des Moines Register and Los Angeles Times support passage of the bill, the House Judiciary Committee said in a news release Monday. The full House is expected to vote on the bill either Wednesday or Thursday, according to the House leader’s schedule. The USA Patriot Act expires June 1. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., continues to support a clean reauthorization of the law (see 1505070041), saying the statute wasn't ruled unconstitutional. The judges “did not conclude Section 215 was unconstitutional, nor did it order a halt to the program, but rather remanded further decisions to the district court,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said Friday. “Other district courts have found that Section 215 is legal and constitutional, as have at least 15 different federal judges serving on the FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] Court on 41 occasions,” Feinstein said. There's strong support among the American people and in the Obama administration to “restructure the program in a way that requires the government to get FISA Court approval before obtaining specific call records from telecommunications companies,” Feinstein said. She said she was open to supporting such a reform, but also said “we must continue to provide the tools the intelligence community needs to do its job.”
The House Appropriations Commerce Subcommittee plans to mark up an appropriations bill that will include its Commerce Department FY 2016 budget proposal Thursday at 10:30 a.m. in H-140 of the Capitol, a committee notice said. Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker testified before the subcommittee earlier this year (see 1503030054). The committee didn't post its budget proposal and a spokeswoman for Subcommittee Chairman John Culberson, R-Texas, didn’t comment by our deadline.
The House Communications Subcommittee promises to mark up FCC process revamp bills next week. The committee tweeted Monday that it will hold a markup next week “on Republican & Democratic bills to improve @FCC process & #transparency,” not naming a date. The subcommittee had a hearing on such draft legislation at the end of April and plans a second this Friday at 9:15 a.m. in 2322 Rayburn, considering a version of the FCC Process Reform Act and Democratic drafts from Reps. Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y.; Dave Loebsack, D-Iowa; and Doris Matsui, D-Calif.