Connect with us

Opinions

New threats to LGBT free speech rights

Loss of net neutrality, globalization treaty could doom some content

Published

on

FCC, businessman, laptop, gay news, Washington Blade
FCC, businessman, laptop, gay news, Washington Blade

Absent strong government response, a cocktail of two repressive policy changes could push controversial sites off the Internet.

By SEAN HOWELL & PETER IAN CUMMINGS

Few could argue that the Internet hasnā€™t revolutionized gay life. A generation came out on the web, with freedom to launch a website based solely on popularity. We both did that, creating the social networks XY and Hornet. (In fact, equal Internet access may be how you found The Blade.)

That open culture could end soon, unless the Federal Trade Commission and Obama administration strongly defend free speechā€”not just by words, but by actions. Otherwise, independent voices on the Internet could be replaced by corporate websites or wealthy subsidiaries of Comcast, Google, AOL, and Facebook; or silenced altogether.

Absent strong government response, a cocktail of two repressive policy changes could push controversial sites off the Internet. The first is the loss of net neutrality.

In January the Circuit Court of Appeals for D.C., in Verizon v. FCC, struck down FCCā€™s Open Internet Order, which had required Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to carry all traffic, at the same speed, without extra charge to providers. For example, under the stricken rule, Washingtonblade.com streams at the same speed as a mainstream site like AOLā€™s Huffington Post.

But now, each ISP could make deals with sites willing to pay, or excommunicate controversial sites it dislikes. Or ISPs might mirror chain stores that replace brand names with in-store brands. For example, Comcast could replace gay newspapers and sites with ComcastGay.com, collecting advertising revenue from such generic sites.

Now, perhaps some ISPs wonā€™t take advantage of their new powers to charge powerful media companies for speed. But many willā€”for profit, political reasons or both.

One might expect aggressive FCC and White House action protecting free speech. Think again. The administration is pushing the semisecret Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a new globalization treaty requiring ISPs here and around the Pacific to read (a.k.a. deep-monitor) the Internet and report violations to international law enforcement. That puts enormous regulatory and compliance requirements on social and news websites, making it even harder for us to compete with Facebook, Huffington and Comcast.

Of course, FCC brought these problems on itselfā€”as noted in the D.C. Circuit decisionā€”by classifying the Internet as an ā€œinformation serviceā€ rather than a ā€œcommon carrierā€ (like the telephone), where carriage discrimination is always barred.

So why hasnā€™t FCC simply reclassified the Internet as a common carrierā€”instantly reinstating net neutrality?Ā Follow communications companiesā€™ lobbyists and campaign contributions, says Matt Wood, policy director of Freepress, the D.C. nonprofit fighting for net neutrality. ā€œRemember the ISPs have lobbyists on both sides of the aisle,ā€ Wood says. ā€œThis is something of a bipartisan mistake.ā€

In a January editorial, Wired stated it more strongly: ā€œThe problem isnā€™t the ISPs, itā€™s the FCC.ā€

Absent the stricken rule or common-carrier reclassification, warns New America Foundationā€™s Marvin Ammori, ā€œAT&T, Verizon, and Comcast will be able to deliver some sites and services more quickly and reliably than others for any reasonā€”whim, envy, ignorance, competition, vengeance, whatever. Or no reason at all.ā€

Worse, the proposed TPP globalization treaty requires ISPs to deep-monitor all email and websites for ā€œcopyright infringementā€ ā€” to scan everyoneā€™s email and all web pages, then set up a strict enforcement regime. Under TPP, ISPs must enact a ā€œsix strikesā€ procedure canceling websites and email addresses after six so-called ā€œinfringements.ā€

With net neutrality stricken and the surveillance requirements in place, ISPs have both the means and reasons to control controversial speech (and perhaps hand the data to the NSA). Our experience in many countries across several decades shows that, given such power, LGBT content is often first to fall. There are many examples: Facebook treats gay content unequally right now, South Korean ISPs routinely ban gay content, and even the UKā€™s British Telecom blocked LGBT social networks in the early 1990s, putting several out of business.

Why should we think ISPs across the TPPā€™s 11 countries wouldnā€™t use these intrusive systems to bankrupt or silence inconvenient speech?

The administration should know better. FCC should reclassify the Internet as a common-carrier communications service, and Congress should deny the administration fast-track authority to pass the TPP. If the United States stands for anything, it stands for free speech.

Sean HowellĀ is founder and CEO of the gay social networkĀ Hornet.Ā Peter Ian Cummings, publisher ofĀ BĀ magazine, also publishedĀ XY Magazine.Ā 

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Opinions

Rosenstein: Vote for Angela Alsobrooks and April McClain-Delaney

Two strong, accomplished women for Maryland

Published

on

I am endorsing two strong accomplished women for Maryland. The first is Angela Alsobrooks, for United States Senate. Second is April McClain-Delaney for Congress in Marylandā€™s 6th District. Both women are superbly qualified, and will fight hard for, and be a credit to, the people of Maryland.

Angela Alsobrooks is county executive of Prince Georgeā€™s County. She was born and raised in Maryland. She is a graduate of Duke University, and the University of Maryland, School of Law. She was the first full-time Assistant Stateā€™s Attorney to handle domestic violence cases in Prince Georgeā€™s County. She made history as the youngest, and first woman, to be elected Prince Georgeā€™s County Stateā€™s Attorney where she stood up for families, taking on some of Marylandā€™s worst criminals, while treating victims and the accused with dignity and respect. Under her tenure, violent crime dropped by 50 percent.  

Alsobrooks has said, ā€œThis year we know the rights of women to control their own bodies and healthcare, is at the top of the list of concerns for so many Marylanders, and decent people across the country, both men and women.ā€ Because of this Maryland must elect a strong woman to ensure we win the fight on this issue. There are many reasons to support Alsobrooks. One is if we look at the United States Senate, what is clearly missing, is an African-American woman. That is a disgrace. Marylanders have the ability to make that right by voting for Angela Alsobrooks. 

But there are other reasons to vote for Angela. She understands how federal policy impacts states and counties, directly impacting her constituents, because she has dealt with the issues that arise from the bills Congress passes. Angela is a pragmatic progressive, and will work across the aisle to get things done. Nothing prepares you more for negotiating with Republicans in Congress, than negotiating with a county council and community activists, and she has done both successfully for many years. She will continue to fight for LGBTQ equality having named the first LGBTQ liaison in PG County. She supports legislation to fight climate change, and supports student loan forgiveness. Maryland leaders know Alsobrooks is the right candidate. She has been endorsed by Gov. Wes Moore, Lt. Gov. Aruna Miller, Sen. Chris Van Hollen and former Sen. Barbara Mikulski, Congressmen Jaimie Raskin, Steny Hoyer and Glenn Ivey; and an overwhelming number of local legislators and leaders in PG County. They all know how good she is, and how much she will do for Maryland, and the nation. I urge a vote for Angela Alsobrooks in the Democratic Senate primary.

I also join a hero of mine, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Congressmen Steny Hoyer and Dutch Ruppersberger, along with a host of Maryland legislators and office holders, who have endorsed April McClain-Delaney. She has more than 30 yearsā€™ experience in communications law, regulatory affairs, and advocacy, across a broad spectrum of government, private sector, and non-profit engagements. She has served as the Washington director and a board member of Common-Sense Media, a leading non-profit dedicated to how media impacts kids health and wellbeing. Her policy and advocacy efforts have spanned digital citizenship, bridging the digital divide, and tech equity issues, privacy matters, spectrum, and internet governance. She has served as assistant general counsel and regulatory affairs director at Orion Satellite where she oversaw domestic and international regulatory efforts in approximately 20 countries, and served as one the founding board members of the International Satellite Association.

In addition to her professional endeavors, she has served on numerous boards and councils. These include the Meridian Womenā€™s Leadership Council; Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security; Georgetown Law Center (past chair); Northwestern University Board of Trustees; the International Center for Research on Women; Innocents at Risk; and the Sun Valley Community School. She is a graduate of Northwestern University and has her JD from Georgetown Law Center.  Delaney is the best candidate to win the 6th District for Democrats. Delaney understands rural Maryland having grown up on a farm in Iowa. She understands government today, serving as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, U.S. Department of Commerce, in the Biden administration. 

When it comes to the issue of protecting a womanā€™s right to control her own body and healthcare, no one will match April in her vigilance. She is a mother fighting for the rights for her four daughters. She is a strong supporter of LGBTQ rights, and will support policies to fight climate change, support debt relief for students, and will work to protect our national security. She understands what it means to work across the aisle without giving up any of her principles. She is the kind of person we need in Congress. I urge a vote for April McClain-Delaney in Marylandā€™s 6th Congressional District, Democratic primary.Ā 

Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist. He writes regularly for the Blade.

Continue Reading

Opinions

Unique financial planning challenges for trans community

Overcoming roadblocks in journey to living an authentic life

Published

on

Approximately 2.6 million Americans identify as transgender, according to the U.S. Census Bureau Household Pulse Survey in 2023. This community faces many financial, legal, and estate planning challenges, resulting in higher rates of financial instability compared to the general population. However, these challenges are not generally understood or even discussed. 

At JPMorgan Chase, weā€™re dedicated to providing awareness and education to help all communities ā€” including members of the LGBTQ+ community ā€” reach their financial goals. Our team at J.P. Morgan Wealth Management recently published a new white paper to offer actionable tips for transgender adults to help them overcome some of the specific obstacles they face with planning.

Here are some key takeaways:

Inaccurate identity documents create a foundational problem

Hundreds of thousands of transgender people in the U.S. do not have a single piece of identification that correctly identifies their gender or chosen name. Many people, including those in the broader LGBTQ+ population, have never thought about what their lives would be like if they lacked accurate identity documents. 

Having accurate identity documents is essential for so many aspects of everyday life ā€“ applying for school or a job, finding a place to live, exercising the right to vote and boarding a plane. Presenting inaccurate identification in these situations can subject transgender individuals to unfair discrimination and harassment. But correcting name and gender markers on identity documents can be complicated, expensive, time-consuming, and in some cases, impossible.

The U.S. State Department has adopted one of the most simple and progressive policies for correcting gender markers in the world. Since June 2021, medical certification is not required to change the gender marker in oneā€™s passport. Transgender people should consider updating their U.S. Passport book or card immediately and use that document as primary identification. Passport books and cards are valid for 10 years, even if policies change during that time.

Credit issues are common for trans community 

Transgender individuals who are able to successfully obtain new identity documents still frequently face credit issues. Unlike changes to oneā€™s last name after a marriage or divorce, informing banks or other creditors of a change to oneā€™s first name on accounts does not automatically cause credit reporting agencies to update that personā€™s credit file. The credit reporting system can often be problematic for transgender people after a name change, with many reporting that credit files are never updated or that their credit scores decline.

This can create a cascading effect in numerous areas of oneā€™s financial life, and it goes beyond borrowing. Credit files are frequently checked in employment decisions, pricing insurance, establishing utility and phone service and applying to rent a home. 

Until policies change, transgender individuals should directly contact each creditor and credit reporting agency and follow each organizationā€™s specific procedures and documentation requests. And they should carefully monitor that the changes are actually made and do not result in a credit score change.

Emergency and end-of-life documents should be carefully reviewed

Transgender people often have special health care needs and face unique forms of disparate treatment in accessing care, and cannot speak for themselves in these circumstances. End-of-life planning is often difficult to think about, but itā€™s especially critical that this community works with their attorneys and trusted advisors to create customized emergency and end-of-life legal documents. 

The people named in these documents who could become decision-makers ā€“ typically trusted friends or supportive family members ā€“ should be empowered to direct health care providers to meet the patientā€™s wishes and preserve their chosen name and gender identity, as well as service providers, such as funeral home employees, to honor the deceasedā€™s wishes about their appearance during memorial services.

The laws for these documents are complicated, and they vary depending on the state or territory. If possible, these documents should be prepared by experienced attorneys who routinely work with members of the LGBTQ+ community. 

The bottom line

Transgender individuals in the United States face unique financial, legal and estate planning challenges that create roadblocks in their journey to living an authentic life. Careful planning can help mitigate some, but not all, of these obstacles.

JPMorgan Chase & Co., its affiliates, and employees do not provide tax, legal or accounting advice. You should consult your own tax, legal and accounting advisors before engaging in any financial transaction. J.P. Morgan Wealth Management is a business of JPMorgan Chase & Co., which offers investment products and services through J.P. Morgan Securities LLC (JPMS), a registered broker-dealer and investment adviser, member FINRA and SIPC.

Joseph Hahn is executive director of Wealth Planning & Advice at J.P. Morgan Wealth Management.

Continue Reading

Opinions

University students have a right to protest

But they must not threaten Jewish students on campus

Published

on

Students at Columbia University have set up a tent city to protest the war in Israel. (Screen capture via CBS News New York YouTube)

I support the right of students at Columbia University, and other colleges, to protest. They must understand they are protesting on private space. What I also find interesting is how many of them see their right to protest, and right to free speech. 

The First Amendment gives us a right to free speech, but it doesnā€™t specify what exactly is meant by freedom of speech. Defining what types of speech should and shouldnā€™t be protected by law, has been left to the courts. Clearly free speech has its limits. Obscene material such as child pornography, plagiarism of copyrighted material, defamation, or threats, arenā€™t allowed. Also not protected under the First Amendment is speech inciting illegal actions, or soliciting others to commit crimes. Private employers, and universities, are allowed to set their own guidelines as to what speech is allowed for their employees, and on their campuses. 

The debate over student protests at Columbia University is not a new one. I remember when the Student Afro Society (SAS) and the basically all-white Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), demonstrated and took over buildings at Columbia in 1968. Some were protesting the Vietnam War, others what they deemed would be a segregated gym in Morningside Heights, and Columbiaā€™s infringement on a minority community. Both legitimate causes. Those demonstrations took a nasty turn when students took over buildings and cut off water and electricity to them. They held a sit-in, in the presidentā€™s office, and took a dean hostage. Police were called and in some cases it got violent. We are not at the 1968 stage yet in the current demonstrations, and if outside agitators donā€™t get involved, it may not get to that. 

I agree with some of what the demonstrators are calling for, including having Israel rethink how it is conducting this war, protection for the Palestinian people, and immediately providing them with food and medicine. I donā€™t agree with their call to support BDS, which is the disinvestment in Israel. BDS is a Palestinian non-violent movement begun in 2005. I also see hypocrisy in what some of the protesters are saying. While they claim Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, which many disagree with, the same people are calling for genocide against Israel by supporting Hamas. It is Hamasā€™s stated goal to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, ā€œfrom the river to the sea.ā€

Calling out Israel for its tactics, is not anti-Semitic. But attacking, and calling out Jewish students on campus, telling them to go back to Poland, which we have seen on video, and making them feel unsafe, is. Then there is the totally outrageous statement, ā€œZionists donā€™t deserve to live.ā€ made by Khymani James, one of the student leaders of the Columbia, pro-Palestinian student protest encampment. He made the comments during and after a disciplinary hearing with Columbia administrators that he recorded and then posted on Instagram. I hope the president of Columbia University will be able to negotiate an agreement with the peaceful student demonstrators, including amnesty for some of those students who were arrested, if the students agree to certain parameters for continuing demonstrations. One being they cannot make other students feel unsafe on campus. 

I find it abhorrent that House Speaker Mike Johnson has inserted himself at Columbia University, calling for President Shafik to quit. It is a totally inappropriate political stunt. The same goes for Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) who called for the Biden administration to revoke the student visas of all foreign students who are demonstrating. Those students came to the United States for an education, because we are a free country. If they agree to the guidelines of the university, and what is recognized as acceptable free speech, we should continue to welcome them, and allow them to voice their feelings. Again, as long as they donā€™t threaten others while they do so. 

I am Jewish, and a strong supporter of the State of Israel. That support has not stopped me from calling on the Israeli people to rid themselves of Netanyahu, and his right-wing government. I oppose the settlements, and support a real two-state solution. But for that to happen not only will the Netanyahu government have to go, but the Palestinian people will have to reject Hamas. I have not heard the call for Hamas to release the hostages they took, whether those hostages are alive or dead at this time. 

I strongly believe in the right to protest, and for Americans, and those here legally, to speak out. In 1969, I came to D.C. to protest the Vietnam War in front of the Justice Department and was tear-gassed. I had a right to protest in a public space. Since that time, I have participated in many demonstrations. Some around the White House supporting rights for the disabled community, LGBTQ rights, womenā€™s rights, and in the ā€˜80s, demanding the government recognize, and do something about HIV/AIDS. The difference was in these demonstrations, those who disagreed were not threatened. The demonstrations I participated in, took place in public space, not the quad at Columbia University, or other university campuses, which is private space. Students who protest there must understand that. 

My hope is none of the peaceful student demonstrators at Columbia, and other institutions, those who do not threaten fellow students, are thrown out, losing the chance to earn a degree. Those students chose to go to their schools because they thought they would get a good education, and believed graduating from those schools would be good for their futures. 

Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist. He writes regularly for the Blade.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular