Slashdot Mirror


The FCC Is Refusing To Release Emails About Ajit Pai's 'Harlem Shake' Video (vice.com)

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it would be a good idea to have chair Ajit Pai ridicule legitimate concerns of internet users with a video featuring an outdated meme and a pizzagate conspiracy theorist.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.

84 comments

  1. Where are the leaks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Someone really should leak those e-mails.

    1. Re:Where are the leaks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We found the trumptard.

    2. Re: Where are the leaks? by Type44Q · · Score: 2

      We dont need to blame Idjit Pai for anything other than the spineless shit that he's already fumbled with style - really, isn't that enough?? - but thanks for playing. Fucking lowlife.

    3. Re: Where are the leaks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey look at the rhetoric spouting bot here. *boob* aren't you precious. Now die

    4. Re:Where are the leaks? by number6x · · Score: 2

      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 your money ridiculing Americans and making fun of Americans, please lay out your arguments and enlighten us.

  2. Come on guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would you force some poor down-trodden government employee to wade around in that muck? You know it's *not* gonna be Ajit that would be doing it.

    Have a heart.

  3. total fucking transparency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Tough shit. it's my tax dollars, I get to know what it is spent on.

    1. Re: total fucking transparency by Anonymous Coward · · 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...

    2. Re: total fucking transparency by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Who would WANT to see that?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re: total fucking transparency by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      There's a market for it. You and I both know that. I say we put it up as bait and imprison anyone who shows interest.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    4. Re: total fucking transparency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure it's someone's fetish.

  4. Given the sheer number of people sueing him by rsilvergun · · Score: 2, 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.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Given the sheer number of people sueing him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The only way to solve this is to kick the bum out that appoints him.

      Didn't that already happen? Thanks Obama!

    2. Re:Given the sheer number of people sueing him by greenwow · · Score: 3, Informative

      > kick the bum out that appoints him.

      Obama appointed him to the FCC, so that "bum" has already been kicked out.

    3. Re:Given the sheer number of people sueing him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Obama was forced to, so this isn't Obama's fault.

    4. Re:Given the sheer number of people sueing him by greenwow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Correct. Obama was forced to appoint him.

    5. Re:Given the sheer number of people sueing him by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    6. Re:Given the sheer number of people sueing him by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "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.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    7. Re: Given the sheer number of people sueing him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama's appointment ended May 2017. That he's still there, and got promoted to chairman has nothing to do with Obama.

    8. Re:Given the sheer number of people sueing him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the officially sanctioned narrative was that "Trump undoes all the Obama appointments"... Anyhow, non-USian here, so just some morbid curiosity.

    9. Re:Given the sheer number of people sueing him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another non-USian here. I think the takeaway is that the whole "sanctioned narrative" metanarrative is bunk.

    10. Re:Given the sheer number of people sueing him by jittles · · Score: 4, 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.

    11. Re:Given the sheer number of people sueing him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama appointed him to the FCC for a 5 year term. Trump appointed him to be CHAIRMAN of the FCC in Jan 2017

      Yeah, the US Democratic Party appointed that pillar of freedom, justice, and civil rights Tom Wheeler (aka 'Mr. MPAA' 'Mr. Hollywood' 'Mr. Disney') as chairman of the FCC. A real principled move there. Way to take the high ground.

      And all those racist attacks on Pai, even in the MSM, also reveal a lot about how much and what kind of principles many on the Left in the US, who are mostly Democrats, live by.

      Watching Americans chase their tails and tilt at windmills has quite a large amount of schadenfreude attached to it.

    12. Re:Given the sheer number of people sueing him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And all those racist attacks on Pai, even in the MSM

      Go ahead and link that. Otherwise, I'm calling bullshit on your bullshit.

      "MSM" is a dead giveaway that you're retard, by the way.

    13. Re:Given the sheer number of people sueing him by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Only if Obama was force to MAGA. But no, he answered to a different master than the one I worship.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    14. Re:Given the sheer number of people sueing him by thegreatbob · · Score: 1

      For those that don't give a flying {word of choice}, MSM = mainstream media, i think. I looked it up today, and I have apparently been correctly ignoring content containing it. Given the quality of comments typically containing it, I had long assumed it was a vulgar/sexual thing.

      --
      There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
    15. Re: Given the sheer number of people sueing him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything that Trump does wrong is Obamas fault - don't you read Breitbart or are you stuck in the MSM narrative?

    16. Re:Given the sheer number of people sueing him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the US Democratic Party appointed that pillar of freedom, justice, and civil rights Tom Wheeler (aka 'Mr. MPAA' 'Mr. Hollywood' 'Mr. Disney') as chairman of the FCC. A real principled move there. Way to take the high ground.

      My how quickly we forget that, unlike Mr Shit Pie, Tom Wheeler actually served the people and not his former corporate masters.

    17. Re:Given the sheer number of people sueing him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      Or that his interpretation of the best interests of the people of the US differs from yours, and that he brazenly mocked you and others sharing your opinion.

      You're heavily overstating your case, here.

    18. Re:Given the sheer number of people sueing him by SB5407 · · Score: 1

      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 therefore would be protected from having to being turned over in discovery are are also protected from being released under FOIA--because they are protected under privilege*.

      *Attorney/client privilege, I assume.

      Does that make sense?

    19. Re:Given the sheer number of people sueing him by Samurai+Nigel · · 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."

    20. Re:Given the sheer number of people sueing him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that Ajit is trying to block release of information regarding his discussions of this video it seems quite unlikely that the is just in disagreement of the public.

    21. Re:Given the sheer number of people sueing him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

      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 privilege doesn't shield information that is available elsewhere. Having non-lawyer third parties on the communication voids the privilege. Privilege is also voided if the communication was for purpose of committing a crime or tort.

      I have a hard time seeing how this video and production material would qualify for privilege. Let's assume there were FCC attorneys copied on all the documents, and that there were no third parties on them. You'd still have a hard time making the case that all these video-making materials were made for purposes of seeking legal advice.

      Even if you pass all those hurdles you might fall under the crime/fraud exception. If the materials show that Pai had decided the net neutrality issue well before taking public comment that is at best an ethical violation of duty, and may constitute a crime by a federal employee (even doing something as simple as representing a relative before another federal agency, such trying to help with their social security benefits, is a crime for federal employees). I don't know the entire criminal code for federal employees or presidential appointees but it wouldn't surprise me.

      There's also a FOIA exception for government material that "deliberative and pre-decisional". However you would not call that material "privileged", and that's not the b5 exemption cited here.

    22. Re:Given the sheer number of people sueing him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, I'll bite.

      What master do you worship and what master do you think he answered to?

      Why do you think America isn't / wasn't great to begin with?

      In long form, please.

      And as an aside... Your comment history appears negative and snide. I think someone needs a hug.

    23. Re:Given the sheer number of people sueing him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you agree with him, is that how you're stumped? You both are stating no privilege and there clearly is no privilege on any of those communications that would limit FOIA or legal discovery requests.

    24. Re:Given the sheer number of people sueing him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you agree with him, is that how you're stumped?

      Yes I agree with the original poster. What I'm stumped about is how the FCC could possibly claim these materials are privileged. Sorry for not making that clear earlier.

  5. Say it isn't so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Corruption in an Ajit Pai run FCC? I am shocked! Shocked I say!

  6. The actual letter by kenh · · Score: 3, 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?

    --
    Ken
    1. Re:The actual letter by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    2. Re:The actual letter by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re:The actual letter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A fine example of whataboutism.

    4. Re:The actual letter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since you obviously don't understand the role of the president - a lot of it is about unifying the country.

      Now that's beyond funny!

    5. Re:The actual letter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something being a whataboutism does not automatically render the points invalid, and often is a reminder that one should get their own house in order before finding faults in others.

    6. Re:The actual letter by Anonymous Coward · · 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 is "Tu quoque" and has been a standard Soviet propaganda tool going all the way back to Stalin.

  7. pizzagate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've watched the video. Where's the pizzagate conspiracist?

    270k dislikes, lol.

    1. Re:pizzagate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shush, stop validating what you're told. You're supposed to hate the orange one and ensure failure by sabotaging anyone who advisies him.

    2. Re: pizzagate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Grow up, cracker. Stop watching gay black porn, faggot.

    3. Re:pizzagate? by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      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 the Obama years, it had a chilling effect on debate. Even discussing the economic advisability of passing the largest tax increase in history during a recessed economy could result in what seemed to be reasoned and intelligent people resorting to a canned "You're a racist!!!" remark designed to shut down any discourse.

      I do enjoy the freedom to question and criticize the president without risking losing my job or being beaten up by an overreacting SJW, but the same irrational responses keep popping up when people try to discuss policy.

      For instance, asking a questions like: "does the recent wave of nationalist sentiment throughout the western world, along with the "Washington outsider" Trump as president, provide the US with a political smoke screen dense and large enough to cover us while we readjust our manufacturing sector's global standing and address trade imbalances that will boost our economy for the long term, all the while maintaining a safe fall back position for entrenched political interests and parties who can plausibly distance themselves from Trump's policies once his term/s are over?" can still result in people calling you a "NAZI!" or saying "Thanks, Igor. Keep up the good work or we will make sure your babushka will glow bright enough to read Alexander Litvinenko's autopsy report in her Siberian dungeon cell."

      All I can really say is that the shrill and outraged tone of what passes for political discourse these days is a far cry from anything productive, structured, or intelligent. Any public political statement more controversial than an open can of green beans will result in incoherent emotional rambling from a good portion of the respondents. In such a contentious, infantile, and unhinged atmosphere it is impossible to have meaningful discussions. I fear the result of this cultural shift to personal attacks as a viable response to political speech will result in silencing the most reasonable voices through self-censoring. Mature and educated individuals won't dare speak their minds. They have better things to do than deal with torrents of inane pejorative excrement flung at them by helplessly malfunctioning self-victimizing political illiterates. That leaves only the most strident, vicious, and ignorant with a voice.

      I hope you have enjoyed this great experiment in liberty. We will be closing shortly. Please gather your shit and get the fuck out.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
  8. I wish Obama hadn't approved him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajit_Pai:

    "He has served in various positions at the FCC since being appointed to the commission by President Barack Obama in May 2012,"

    1. Re:I wish Obama hadn't approved him by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    2. Re:I wish Obama hadn't approved him by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Obama made him part of the commission but it took a Trump to make him chairman.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:I wish Obama hadn't approved him by kenh · · Score: 2, 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.

      --
      Ken
    4. Re:I wish Obama hadn't approved him by kenh · · Score: 2, 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.

      --
      Ken
    5. Re:I wish Obama hadn't approved him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > elevated their puppet to Chairman

      Is this kind of like how the Democrats nominated and then elevated their puppet to President?

    6. Re:I wish Obama hadn't approved him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is up with all the false equivalencies coming from the anti-Obama crowd?

    7. Re:I wish Obama hadn't approved him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I imagine that the selection was not unlike picking one's most favoritest turd from the cesspit.

    8. Re:I wish Obama hadn't approved him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why do we have to have partisanship to regulate communications policy?

    9. Re:I wish Obama hadn't approved him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was just thinking about that this morning...

      Suppose the Democrats had invented time travel and gone back and pulled Hitler out of his bunker just before the end of WWII and run him as their candidate against Trump. If some sophisticated, discerning, and well-reasoned voter, such as Paul Krugman or Lawrence Lessig, had been like "OK, as bad as Trump is, we can't risk letting Hitler get control of the USA's nukes - so I'm voting for Trump." Well, I would find that to be not only excusable but perhaps even understandable.

      On the other hand, suppose the Democrats had invented a cloning/replication technology that allowed them to make an exact copy of Trump and run this cloned-Trump against the Republicans real-Trump in the last presidential election. Well, in that case, I would expect a sophisticated, discerning and generally well-reasoned voter to either vote third party, leave it blank, or perhaps even stay home from the election entirely.

      More generally, as the two main candidate become more and more distasteful then a larger and larger difference between the candidates should be required to prevent people from voting third party. So that's puzzling to me - because, from where I am way out in the political weeds, I didn't really see that much difference between Trump and Hillary. They both seemed like filthy rich New Yorkers with barely disguised contempt for ordinary working class Americans.

      But all those ordinary working class Americans who voted for Trump must have either genuinely liked Trump - or thought that Hillary was, like, Hitler-levels of bad. Because very few ordinary working-class Americans voted third party - even in states where the electoral college system made their votes irrelevant.

    10. Re:I wish Obama hadn't approved him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because they don't have any other argument

    11. Re:I wish Obama hadn't approved him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's say Bernie won the primaries. Do you really think middle America would have voted for a socialist jew?

      No, what got Trump in was the circus act of the GOP primaries. And it was won by the fattest clown in town.

    12. Re:I wish Obama hadn't approved him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm saying Obama had no choice because the actual person appointed is irrelevant. ANYONE Obama had to appoint would have taken the same actions as directed by their party. That's why I used the term Puppet.

      If he had rejected Pai, asked for a new candidate, and appointed that person, History would've played out in much the same way just with a different face and name. And people would still be here saying "But Obama appointed him!!!!11!!"

    13. Re:I wish Obama hadn't approved him by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Now how does she come into the equation again?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  9. Judicial Review i by Martin+S. · · Score: 1

    Judicial Review is a corner stone of the tripartite governmental system used by much of the developed work.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  10. sufficient grounds for dismissal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Performing the Harlem Shake alone should be considered sufficient grounds for dismissal.

    1. Re:sufficient grounds for dismissal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  11. Dickery by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  12. Stings if you're the butt of the deep state's joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't it. Thanks Obama for setting such a shining example that brings such things to pass.

  13. Worst Thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He did the ultimate Internet crime of using an outdated meme.

    1. Re:Worst Thing by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Just in case anyone needed more proof that he doesn't know shit about the medium he's trying to regulate...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  14. Shill me once... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...shame on you.
    Shill me twice...shill me.... won't be shilled again!

    Dubya

  15. Who cares? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Who cares? by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      Can he be holding Jeff Sessions when he falls?

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
  16. Maybe It's The Precedent... by ytene · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Just a guess here, but maybe the reason for declining this isn't solely down to the identity of the current FCC Chair.

    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".

    1. Re:Maybe It's The Precedent... by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      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.

      It doesn't create a legal precedent because it hasn't gone to court.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Maybe It's The Precedent... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    3. Re:Maybe It's The Precedent... by SinGunner · · Score: 2

      That's a lot to write for someone who doesn't seem to understand how the FOIA works. Next time, save my OCD some time and read, don't write: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  17. Pizza-gate conspiracy theorist - Where?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where in video is there a pizza or a lurking conspiracy theorist?

    Looks like sour grapes from people who have no sense of humor - and hate that someone reacts this way when they tell everyone the world is going to end over a rule in place **two years**.

    fascism never smelt so strong in america as when the left decided to replace reasoned arguments with mob invective. Shocking a "thinking" site is putting up with the moronic behavior.

    1. Re:Pizza-gate conspiracy theorist - Where?? by Samurai+Nigel · · 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.

  18. "[L]egitimate Concerns" by MSTCrow5429 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

    --
    Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
  19. Whhooopty-do- by WolfgangVL · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.