The FCC Is Refusing To Release Emails About Ajit Pai's 'Harlem Shake' Video (vice.com) 84
bumblebaetuna writes from a report via Motherboard: On the eve of the net neutrality repeal, just as tensions and public debate over the issue were reaching a fever pitch, someone in the FCC decided it would be a good idea to have chair Ajit Pai ridicule legitimate concerns of internet users with a video featuring an outdated meme and a pizzagate conspiracy theorist. Now, citing the infamous b5 FOIA exemption, the Federal Communications Commission is refusing to release emails related to the planning of the video. The b5 exemption is supposed to protect "inter-agency or intra-agency memorandum or letters which would be privileged in civil litigation," but each agency interprets that meaning differently.
Where are the leaks? (Score:2)
Re: Where are the leaks? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You do realize that this is people blaming Ajit Pai for something Ajit Pai did?
You do understand that the FCC and Ajit Pai were wasting taxpayer money to make fun of tax payers, and those tax payers are completely entitled to complain about this example of wasteful corruption?
I don't understand why you want to talk about Hillary or thunderstorms. Trying to change the subject is a very weak strategy. It makes you look like a loser. If you have a reason why the public servants in the FCC should be wasting y
total fucking transparency (Score:3, Insightful)
Tough shit. it's my tax dollars, I get to know what it is spent on.
Re: total fucking transparency (Score:1)
A recreation of the orgy scene from "Eyes Wide Shut" with Ben Carson, Scott Pruitt, and Ajit Pai banging it out wearing masks on top of expensive furniture...
Re: (Score:2)
Who would WANT to see that?
Re: (Score:2)
Given the sheer number of people sueing him (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Didn't that already happen? Thanks Obama!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> kick the bum out that appoints him.
Obama appointed him to the FCC, so that "bum" has already been kicked out.
Re: (Score:1)
Obama was forced to, so this isn't Obama's fault.
Re:Given the sheer number of people sueing him (Score:5, Insightful)
Correct. Obama was forced to appoint him.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Given the sheer number of people sueing him (Score:5, Informative)
Obama appointed him to the FCC for a 5 year term. Trump appointed him to be CHAIRMAN of the FCC in Jan 2017 when he took office, and then nominated him for another 5 year term. Since net neutrality was only appealed AFTER he became CHAIRMAN, and that was the result of Trump, I don't think it's fair to blame Obama.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"he might have a leg to stand on here"
Not really, as that FOIA can just be refiled and forced as part of discovery in a civil case. Both sides are privileged to the information in such a manner, not just one.
Re:Given the sheer number of people sueing him (Score:5, Insightful)
he might have a leg to stand on here. Still, none of this really matters. The only way to solve this is to kick the bum out that appoints him.
Since he is being sued claiming that he intentionally destroyed net neutrality, I do not believe any memos, emails, or any other written documents related to the creation of that video would be considered privileged during civil litigation. That video tends to suggest that he doesn't give a damn about the best interests of the people of the US, and that he brazenly mocked the people he is supposed to be serving. So the first thing any plaintiff is going to ask for is communication regarding the video.
Re: (Score:2)
Not when the overwhelming majority of petitioners, and people polled about Net Neutrality in general, are opposed to the overturning. "Best interest of the people," in this case, is probably more accurately stated as "majority will of the people."
Re: (Score:1)
I'm a lawyer and I'm stumped.
Privileged generally means communications with a lawyer protected by attorney-client privilege. There are a few other minor privileges, but that's the main one.
To qualify, it has to be a communication for purposes of legal advice. The pr
Re: (Score:2)
I think that is a misunderstanding of what b5 means/is for.
Suppose that there is a lawsuit against the FCC (that's a stretch, right? /s). Suppose that the plaintiff files for discovery. That--discovery--means that the FCC has to turn over materials related to the lawsuit. At this point, this is where the misunderstanding may lie.
You see, b5 does not mean that materials that would be turned over in discovery are exempt from FOIA. Actually iB5 says that materials that are protected by privilege and therefor
The actual letter (Score:4, Insightful)
Did MuckRake file a similar FOIA request to find out who thought it was a good idea for the President to take time out of his schedule and make a video of his March Madness bracket? Or who thought it was a good idea to dress up a group of hospital administrators in lab costs for a presidential press conference about PPACA?
I'm sure they did - since the issue is government waste, not petty party politics, right?
Dickery (Score:5, Informative)
" since the issue is government waste"
You might want to limit the scope to that, but it was Ajit being a dick at a time when his job requires he be professional and consider the feedback.
Running a consultancy, as required by law, when you've already made your mind up, is bad governance. Accepting millions of duplicate comments from fake ids, is bad governnance. Saying industry talking points that are flat out untrue is bad governnance.
So now the telcos are free to screw over their customers again, and he is to blame.
Re:The actual letter (Score:5, Insightful)
who thought it was a good idea for the President to take time out of his schedule and make a video of his March Madness bracket?
Holy butthurt batman!! You are torqued the president did an interview with ESPN. Really? Really?? Are you going to start bitching about the presidential easter egg roll now too?
Since you obviously don't understand the role of the president - a lot of it is about unifying the country. Participating in non-partisan public rituals like sports is one way that's done. Its literally his job. Not that the current president could ever be bothered to do anything more unifying than a stilted recitation of somebody else's words from a teleprompter - but all the prior 44 presidents took that part of the job seriously.
Meanwhile idjit pai's video wasn't about unifying shit. It wasn't even about explaining or promoting his ideas. It was about making sure that people who disagreed with his policy goals knew he thought they were idiots. In essence, it was just a video of him masturbating.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure they did - since the issue is government waste, not petty party politics, right?
When was "government waste" part of the net neutrality debate?
When was calling out an independent regulator for literally ridiculing the people they exist to protect while ignoring the concerns of a large portion of business and the population to instead favour the vested interests of the very people they should be independently regulating "petty"?
By linking this case to the other two you have done a good job of showing that you have zero understanding of what the issues are.
Re: (Score:1)
FAIL! Ummm actually it absolutely does! "Whataboutism" is NOT used to describe any time someone says "What about", its a specifically defined tactic which uses logical fallacies to create the appearance of hypocrisy to discredit an opponent without having evidence with the intent of deceiving other public viewers. Whether or not points of argument are valid or not has NO bearing on the ultimate intent to deceive required for something to be "Whataboutism". Very old tactic, so old the Latin name for it i
Re: (Score:2)
Your scathingly incisive commentary on America's double standards, oppression, and outright racism towards Oompa Loompas and Cheetotians brings much needed illumination to the plight of ocher people everywhere. No one should be singled out because of the color of their skin, no matter how day-glo, flourescent, or garishly it clashes with every other color this side of Lovecraftian nightmares.
Seriously though, you make a really good point. There was so much overhead involved with discussing policy during th
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That Obama appointed him is irrelevant. Obama was required to appoint a (at the time) minority (republican) candidate, and that was who the GOP chose. It could have been any conservative really... Ajit or anyone else. When Republicans took power and elevated their puppet to Chairman, that's when shit started to hit the fan.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You excuse his approval of Pai because Obama had no choice? He could have refused and told Republicans to nominate another candidate - he chose not to, so he chose to accept Pai.
Re: (Score:2)
Obama made him part of the commission but it took a Trump to make him chairman.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Obama made him part of the commission but it took a Trump to make him chairman.
Don't be so modest, without Hillary as his opponent, we wouldn't have gotten Trump as President.
Re: (Score:2)
Now how does she come into the equation again?
Judicial Review i (Score:2)
Judicial Review is a corner stone of the tripartite governmental system used by much of the developed work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
sufficient grounds for dismissal (Score:1)
Performing the Harlem Shake alone should be considered sufficient grounds for dismissal.
Re: (Score:2)
Just in case anyone needed more proof that he doesn't know shit about the medium he's trying to regulate...
Who cares? (Score:2)
Unless he does the shake on the top of the Empire State Building, slips and splats a few 100 feet below, I don't care.
But if he does, I sure want to see it, I need something to lighten my mood.
Re: (Score:2)
Can he be holding Jeff Sessions when he falls?
Maybe It's The Precedent... (Score:5, Interesting)
If the FCC were to agree to this request and provide the details, they also set a precedent - a legal precedent - in which they have turned over materials in this way. Once they do this, anyone who in future might want to get access to other FCC materials would then be able to cite this case in support of their argument for disclosure.
I do not agree with this as grounds for refusing the request.
Everything our governments do for us, is paid for by us. There will necessarily be certain aspects of security for which a government would have no choice but to decline a request on the grounds of national security. However, the conditions for claiming these grounds should be clearly and explicitly defined and kept under constant review. There should be an independent "insider" with the authority to review any documents that a sitting government of the day refused to disclose. There should be robust appeals mechanisms.
At the end of the day, governments exist to serve the people that elect them. When a government - or a branch of government - refuses a request like this, they make an implied statement of "we are more important than you", or "we are superior to you". At it's mildest, this is how corruption in office starts. At the worst, this is how dictatorships form.
There need to be limits on this, of course. The public have a right to understand anything that any FCC Chair has said or done in their capacity as a member of the FCC, paid for by the public dime. There is a right for transparency in decision-making and government to help ensure that government remains fair and free from corruption and outside influence.
In hindsight, perhaps this was the wrong request to make. It has allowed the FCC to decline a request for something that would most likely have been merely embarrassing to the current FCC Chair, but in so doing creates the precedent that I mention above. Perhaps this powder should have been kept dry for something a little more egregious, and/or something that could not have been "reasonably refused".
Re: (Score:1)
This could go to court but there is overwhelming legal precedent for this type of FOIA request. FOIA explicitly defines 9 exemptions for which the government can deny providing information where the communications around Pai's video do not fall under any of them. This is exactly the type of request FOIA was created to allow.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Daily Caller video producer Martina Markota is one of the people dancing with him in the video. The same Martina Markota who's one of the big proponents of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory.
Facism, by the way, is apparently a word you don't understand.
"[L]egitimate Concerns" (Score:2)
Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Whhooopty-do- (Score:2)
This guy has all but given the finger to the publicin public> . Of course he's 100 kinds of wrong in what he had considered private communications. Of course he balks at releasing it, and of course it's going to come out anyway.
This dude is stalling while he and his legal team work out a plan to somehow mitigate the coming shitstorm.