Trump's wacky lawsuit, and other tall orders
Plus, FCC spectrum fights and another round of the Szóka-Volokh common carriage debate
Did you know that men, not women, were the original market for high-heeled shoes? Here in D.C., it’s not uncommon to hear gentlemen commiserating with their female friends about how grueling it must be to have to wear heels to match their business attire. (I’d venture to say us girls might not have it so bad — at least I didn’t have to wear a suit in this week’s 90-degree weather.) But if they went back in time a few centuries, they’d be the ones walking on their tiptoes!
In Ancient Greece, leading male actors wore platform heels onstage to represent their importance to the narrative. By the Medieval era, men in Persia threw on a pair of heels for a more utilitarian purpose: to hold them securely in their stirrups when they stood up on a horse. Once the fashion debuted in Europe in the fifteenth century, high heels became associated with power, exclusivity, and masculinity. Only centuries later did they become popular specifically for women.
Who knows? The macho stiletto could always come back into style, if the fashion world gets in the mood to stir up a bit of Louis XIV energy. Stay on your toes — figuratively, for now.
Spectrum Wars. We rarely get involved in FCC spectrum fights, but we couldn’t stay silent on the attempts to reallocate the 12 GHz spectrum for mobile terrestrial use in a way that produces highly destructive interference to NGSO space systems. In our Reply Comments, Jim explains why Section 303(y) of the Communications Act requires the FCC to reject “flexible use” arguments if they result in either harmful interference or a reduced economic incentive to invest in the affected technology. In this instance, the proposed reallocation would also hamstring U.S.-based satellite broadband companies and enable Chinese domination of space-based broadband. Our prior comments are here and here.
Social Media Regulation. On the latest Tech Policy Podcast, Berin and Professor Eugene Volokh engaged in Round 3 of their debate over whether social media can permissibly be analogized to common carriage. The exchange proved just as entertaining and enlightening as Round 1 (hosted by FedSoc) and Round 2 (hosted by UCLA Law). For this encounter, Eugene and Berin had a new twist to discuss: District Judge Robert Hinkle’s order last week enjoining enforcement of Florida’s social media speech regulation, SB 7072. In that order, Judge Hinkle said that a social media website is somewhat like a common carrier. Eugene explained why he’s sympathetic to that view (even if he thinks the judge was right to enjoin the Florida law), while Berin explained why he thinks it’s flatly wrong.
Speaking of the Florida case, Corbin was interviewed for, and quoted in, a Washington Examiner piece on Judge Hinkle’s order. He noted state legislators’ penchant for using rhetoric that, by revealing their political hostility toward “Big Tech,” (further) kneecaps the constitutionality of their social-media speech bills.
Trump’s Lawsuits. Donald Trump filed lawsuits against Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube on Wednesday, claiming that they violated his First Amendment rights. Ignoring a plethora of judicial precedent to the contrary, Trump argued that Section 230 transformed the platforms into government actors, and indeed that Section 230 itself is unconstitutional. Needless to say, Ari had thoughts, some of which he shared on Twitter when the complaints were filed. He then made the rounds in the media, being quoted in Forbes, Barron’s, Daily Beast, Law360 (paywall), Raw Story, and Law & Crime on the absurdity of Trump’s legal claims. We will certainly have more to say about these lawsuits soon, so stay tuned!