Hello! Did you miss your chance on Pi Day back in March (3/14)? Today (7/22 in the U.S. but 22/7 in most of the world) is Pi Approximation Day! Yeah, 22/7 (3.1818) isn’t quite π (3.14159) but it’s close enough for government work—and policy work—so we’re going with it. Let’s eat.
Summit. Thanks to all who showed up to the TechFreedom 2022 Policy Summit or watched online. Our first post-pandemic live event connected some key themes in our work. Berin moderated “Truth, Misinformation, and the Role of Experts in an Era of Crisis,” with Jennifer Kavanagh (Truth Decay), Jonathan Rauch (The Constitution of Knowledge), and Gordon Crovitz (NewsGuard). FTC Commissioner Noah Phillips kicked off “Trust, Institutional Design, and the Future of the Administrative State,” then joined a panel led by Corbin and including Michael Munger, Steven Teles, and Larry Downes. Ari discussed “Common Carriage, Social Media, Broadband, & the First Amendment” with Geneveive Lakier, Christopher Yoo, and Blake Reid. All three panels are on YouTube. To round out the day, Corbin hosted a special live recording of the Tech Policy Podcast with Quinta Jurecic of the Brookings Institution. One participant called it the best event we’ve ever done!
FCC. On Monday, Jim filed reply comments to the FCC regarding the assessment of 2022 annual regulatory fees—the fees imposed on licensees that fund the FCC’s operations. The Commission must have actual authority over an entity before levying regulatory fees. Especially after the Supreme Court’s recent decision in West Virginia v. EPA, an administrative agency can’t undertake new regulations just because it’s a good idea; regulations must be grounded in clear statutory authority. Our analysis was also quoted in Broadband Breakfast. For more, check out Jim’s previously submitted comments regarding the FCC’s 2021 regulatory fees and Corbin’s deep dive on the West Virginia v. EPA decision. Our press release can be found here, and shared on Twitter here.
Space Law. On Tuesday, Jim filed comments in response to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy’s (OSTP) Request for Information on a national science and technology strategy for U.S. activities in cislunar space (the region beyond geostationary orbit and out to the vicinity of the Moon). Our comments note the vital importance of developing a commercial economy. Science alone can’t be the ultimate driver for cislunar development; any top-down, government procured program for developing cislunar space will suffer the same fate as each attempted return to the Moon since Apollo. For more of Jim’s work on space, check out his recent comments on NASA’s “Moon to Mars Objectives,” and our previous comments on OSTP’s Orbital Debris Strategic Plan. Our press release can be found here, and shared on Twitter here.
First Amendment. On Tuesday, Techdirt published Andy’s op-ed Andy on California’s AB 2408, the Social Media Platform Duty to Children Act. The bill would impose a duty on social media platforms to avoid addicting minor users. While doubtless well-intentioned, the bill would likely violate the First Amendment by limiting how platforms display, amplify, and curate content for minor users. Andy predicts that AB 2408 will run into the same First Amendment roadblocks as the recent social media bills enacted in Texas and Florida.
Another state, another piece of unconstitutional social media legislation! This time, it was a Texas state bill that would ban minors under 18 from social media. As Ari told Frisco Enterprise, minors have First Amendment rights, and banning them from social media entirely would be unconstitutional. For more of our analysis on other unconstitutional Texas social media legislation, check out our Supreme Court amicus brief regarding Texas’s HB20.
EARN IT Act. The Competitive Enterprise Institute calls the bill one of the worst tech bills pending today—and quotes Berin and Ari’s February letter explaining how it would likely undermine both user privacy and criminal prosecution of crimes against children. Effectively compelling private companies to monitor their users’ communications may sound like an improvement, but it would convert the voluntary efforts of companies into state action subject to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. Because private companies don’t, and can’t, obtain warrants before conducting such monitoring, any evidence they obtain would be tainted, and courts would likely toss out any criminal prosecutions based on such evidence.
Above: Corbin confers with Noah Philips while Steven Teles, Michael Munger, and Larry Downs look on at the 2022 TechFreedom Policy Summit.