Afro-Netizen

Watch: Comcast/NBC's Big Diversity Problem (VIDEO)

NBC and Comcast execs reveal their major diversity problems during a Feb. 25 House investigation on Comcast's proposed takeover of NBC.

What do you think?

"Push-polling" net neutrality

By James Rucker

Guest Contributor

A little over a week ago I delved into a troubling topic: Why are so many civil rights groups and members of the Congressional Black Caucus opposing net neutrality? It seemed strange to me that leaders in communities of color would be echoing discredited telecommunications industry talking points.

For those not familiar with the term "net neutrality," it describes the rules and practices that currently keep the Internet a free and open communication medium. Net neutrality guarantees that blogs, small businesses, and organizations are on a level playing field with the largest corporations. Whether you're GM or an individual, the content you put online is accessible and delivered in the same way, with the same priority, and nothing is blocked. For communities of color, net neutrality is key. It keeps barriers to Internet entrepreneurship low so that anyone with a good idea and some technical savvy can join the 21st century economy.

Predictably, the major players in the broadband industry have been fighting the FCC's efforts to adopt rules that would solidify net neutrality principles into law, because scrapping net neutrality would enable them to make even more money by creating new revenue streams. Ironically, civil rights leaders and CBC members have joined the dominant players. Their stated reasoning: the belief that net neutrality rules could hurt efforts to close the digital divide. The problem is that, as far as I can see, the argument doesn't hold water. It falls apart whether you approach it from the perspective of business, common sense, or history.

"My hope in writing my first post was that it might encourage civil rights leaders who have opposed or questioned net neutrality to publicly explain their positions."

My hope in writing my first post was that it might encourage civil rights leaders who have opposed or questioned net neutrality to publicly explain their positions. Given what's at stake, I think its incumbent on leaders opposing or questioning net neutrality to publicly make clear why. Unfortunately, none have done so.

While leadership remained silent, my post did elicit some responses, which follow the same pattern--uncritically echoing industry talking points while trying to change the subject from the arguments I put on the table. Take, for example, the open letter posted by Navarrow Wright, a former television and Internet executive and current strategic consultant. I gather from Wright's resume that he is an accomplished and intelligent guy, but his criticism of my piece typifies the shoddy argumentation and confusing of issues from the loudest voices against net neutrality. While Wright failed to engage the arguments I put on the table, in the interest of public debate, I want to take on his assumptions one by one.

Wright opens:

... the civil rights groups fought hard to make sure the FCC developed the principles of net neutrality--this is nothing new, we've been living with net neutrality since 2004. Those principles made it possible for you to create Color of Change and for Senator Barack Obama to become President Obama. You should thank the people that helped make it all happen. Instead you question their sincerity.

It's his first attempt to side-step the issues. The question isn't about whether the civil rights organizations in question were at one point instrumental in establishing our current net neutrality principles (a claim which I have yet to find any evidence to back up). The question is why these leaders are opposing the policy now, and it's one they should be able to answer. Over and over during the course of this debate, many of these leaders have acted as though it's disrespectful (or worse) to ask them for evidence to back up their claims about net neutrality. This appears to be a tactic designed to shut down any discussion of the actual issues at hand.

Wright continues by echoing the industry talking point, "We all know the fight today is between Google and the ISPs." While there are several powerful business interests at play, it has no bearing on my concerns or arguments. The broadband industry would love to portray the fight over net neutrality as one between themselves and Google, but my support for net neutrality reflects the views of thousands of independent filmmakers and musicians, community organizers and activists, and Internet entrepreneurs struggling to harness the power of the Internet to launch new products. And while we look at who's talking, I think it's important to look at the relationships in play. My organization hasn't taken a dime from Google or any other corporation with a key interest in either side of the debate. Many of the organizations most vocally opposing net neutrality would have difficulty saying the same.

Wright continues:

Don't you think the FCC should answer the questions raised by the civil rights leaders and CBC? Why is it wrong to ask the FCC to make sure the rules they are proposing will not widen the digital divide? Why is it wrong to ask the FCC to make sure the rules they develop will not lead to regressive pricing which would shackle poor people? Why is it wrong to ask that the costs be borne by the people that cause them and not by the under-served? Why are you so afraid of the answers to these questions? 

Throughout his piece he asserts that the civil rights groups are only “asking questions" that we “shouldn’t be afraid to answer.” After reading it a couple of times, I realized where I had seen this technique before: Wright’s piece -- and the broader arguments he seeks to defend -- are the rhetorical equivalent of a push poll.

"Push polls are a well known and highly effective political trick. They ask questions that insert into the public consciousness a false idea, positioning a baseless assumption as plausible."

Push polls are a well known and highly effective political trick. They ask questions that insert into the public consciousness a false idea, positioning a baseless assumption as plausible. Navarrow Wright, and the civil rights organizations he is defending, are effectively “push-polling” net neutrality. They are asking the question, “If you knew that net neutrality would widen the digital divide, would you support it?” The question is asked without any evidence to suggest that the premise of the question is true, but the question itself alters the frame of the debate. The effect has been real--FCC commissioners who know the truth about net neutrality are being held hostage by debunked theories, as they don’t want to be perceived as embracing policy that could hurt minority communities.

Finally, Wright suggests that the FCC has a bad record on issues of concern to communities of color:

Maybe you don't quite grasp why minority leadership is vexed. Perhaps you're too young to understand why many of our elders, who've given their lives and wear the scars of the struggle, feel the need to seek the truth. You might not understand why they don't trust the FCC to get it right. Understandable mistakes if this is your first foray into media and communications issues...but there is a long history behind their deep skepticism and it makes sense that they would question the FCC on its intended course of action.

Putting aside the personal attack against me, if you follow Wright's reasoning then we should obstruct the ability of the US Congress to make laws even when they're in the interest of our communities, as is the case with net neutrality. For example, in 1964 Congress had a very poor record of protecting the interests of communities of color. Would he have then questioned whether we could trust Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act?

Let me restate what I keep hearing from net neutrality’s detractors. The reasoning seems to be that if we give broadband providers the legal authority to discriminate on content, which will allow them to increase their profits, they will suddenly become benevolent and invest in expanding their networks or lower broadband prices. The reasoning is just not borne out by reality. These companies are earning as much as 80 percent profit margins on their broadband services; despite this, they haven't--except when forced--made broadband more affordable for poorer communities in any systematic way that would spur adoption. Worse, it was just reported that major broadband companies are actively attempting to block broadband expansion and adoption plans by smaller players when it presents competition for them.

I'd still like to hear a response from those groups that say they represent the interests of communities of color, but are in line with the broadband providers. If there's a credible argument to be made against network neutrality, I'd like to hear it and engage it. I've put my arguments out there, and I've addressed the opposing arguments. Now I hope other civil rights leaders will join the conversation.

Watch: President Obama reaffirms his administration's strong support for Internet freedom aka "net neutrality" (VIDEO)

Mainstream Media’s Tea Party Tryst

By Sikivu Hutchinson

Guest Contributor

Its déjà vu all over again as the mainstream media trumpet the ascent of the so-called tea party movement.  In its rush to frame the recent victory of Republican State Senator Scott Brown in the Massachusetts Senate race as a tea party triumph mainstream media have given more ammo to the politics of racial hysteria.  Last fall’s health care reform inspired outburst of anti-Obama anti-government hysteria officially inaugurated a return to the in-your-face “populism” of angry white men. 

Thinly disguised as saber-rattling against big government, race-baiting propaganda has been revitalized as the Republican strategy for taking back the country.  A bolded asterisk should be stamped on these tired broadsides, as big government never includes defense, domestic law enforcement, prisons, functioning stoplights or pothole free roads for ozone shredding SUVs.

Instead of critiquing the real roots of these spasms of white supremacist “reclamation,” mainstream and even some liberal-progressive media have largely parroted the view that there was some new and unprecedented backlash in Massachusetts.  Head scratching pundits counsel Democrats to “listen” to the sentiments of the tea baggers and stop parodying them as ignorant philistines.  Yet Massachusetts state Attorney General Martha Coakley was simply a weak candidate. 

Like most Democrats she took the support of black and Latino constituencies for granted and failed to do the campaign trench work required to win election.  Kowtowing or trying to “understand” the motives of a narrow segment of the Massachusetts electorate simply legitimizes a long strain of American politics that dates all the way back to Strom Thurmond's twenty-four hour filibuster against the 1957 Civil Rights Bill.

If a really dumb space alien landed in the middle of a tea party protest it wouldn't need a decoder ring to tell them what the demographic “411” is when it comes to power and privilege in the United States.  Before Massachusetts, so-called disaffected white independents were only one slimy teabag away from their “birther” brethren.  In the 2008 campaign

Obama won a mere 43% of the white vote, greater than either Gore in 2000 or Kerry in 2004, but miniscule when considering the carnage left by the Bush administration.  As historians have noted, the Democrat Party has never recovered from the mass exodus of whites after the passage of the 1964 Civil and 1965 Voting Rights Acts.  Hence the post-racialism which conservatives tout as an outcome of Obama’s election has simply never been borne out in the numbers.  

On the black side of Flat Earth, black conservatives valiantly uphold this dramatic tradition of casting the universe as one giant self-reflection.  Recently, in commemoration of Martin Luther King's birthday, African American commentators were trotted out on MSNBC and NPR to assess the nation's racial climate.  Questioned by MSNBC’s Chris Matthews during a race roundtable John McWhorter, a pundit at the conservative Manhattan Institute, proclaimed his love of segregation, noting that it's a good thing—Cleveland, Philadelphia, D.C., Detroit, Milwaukee, Baltimore and South Los Angeles aside—when black people live together.  On NPR conservative watchdog Joe Hicks swaggeringly boasted that he could go anywhere in the country without fear of legal barrier, reminding the listening audience that King probably would have opposed affirmative action had he been alive today. 

Like their white counterparts, black conservatives hew faithfully to Ronald Reagan’s old caveat that facts are “stupid things.”  On the phenomenon of lending discrimination against homebuyers and homeowners of color they can't be bothered to read decades of research documenting the institutional basis for segregation. 

On the issue of African American over-incarceration they point to black matriarchs like the fictitious Mary Johnson of the film Precious and baggy pants wearing young black males.  Over-incarceration is merely a symptom of poor blacks' refusal to assimilate. Similarly, the fact that blacks and Latinos are more likely to live in areas that are environmentally toxic, with little access to healthy shopping alternatives is really just evidence of their failure to learn how to say “ask” instead of “axe” in order to take advantage of all the higher paying private sector jobs that would spring them from the ghetto.

The conservative tradition of cultural and historical illiteracy is now a permanent and defining part of the political landscape.  Due to its influence the general tenor of the country is proudly unabashedly hostile to evidence and documentation.  Global warming is a liberal conspiracy.  Evolution is cultural propaganda and any research-based evidence is deeply suspect.  The Supreme Court's recent ruling giving corporations free reign to influence peddle and steal elections have liberated them from “second class citizenship.”

The Fox regime’s scant coverage on Haiti, coupled with “Boss” Limbaugh’s reduction of the nation’s mammoth death toll, destruction and human suffering to a money pit exacerbated by too much global welfare, is bolstered by the witch-hunting moral authority of Pat Robertson.  The media’s new love affair with the tea party phenomenon is entirely in service to a racist narrative in which capitalism and imperialism are endangered and the white electorate is the underdog minority.  In the hype of the old its 1995 all over again, and the militia are massing at the gate.

Sikivu Hutchinson is the editor of BlackFemLens.org and the author of the forthcoming book Moral Combat: Black Atheism, Gender Politics and Secular America.

Why Are Some Civil Rights Groups & Leaders on the Wrong Side of Net Neutrality?

By James Rucker

Guest Contributor

It’s said that politics creates strange bedfellows. I was reminded how true this can be when I traveled to D.C. in recent weeks to figure out why several advocacy groups and legislators with histories of advocating for minority interests are lining up with big telecom companies in opposition to the FCC’s efforts to pass “Net Neutrality” rules.

Net Neutrality is the principle that prevents Internet Service Providers from controlling what kind of content or applications you can access online. It sounds wonky, but for Black and other communities, an open Internet offers a transformative opportunity to truly control our own voice and image, while reaching the largest number of people possible. This dynamic is one major reason why Barack Obama was elected president and why organizations like ColorOfChange.org exist.

So I was troubled to learn that several Congressional Black Caucus members were among 72 Democrats to write the FCC last fall questioning the need for Net Neutrality rules. I was further troubled that a number of our nation’s leading civil rights groups had also taken positions questioning or against Net Neutrality, using arguments that were in step with those of the big phone and cable companies like AT&T and Comcast, which are determined to water down any new FCC rules.

Most unsettling about their position is the argument that maintaining Net Neutrality could widen the digital divide.

First, let’s be clear: the problem of the broadband digital divide is real. Already, getting a job, accessing services, managing one’s medical care—just to mention a few examples—are all facilitated online. Those who aren’t connected face a huge disadvantage in so many aspects of our society. Broadband access is a big problem -- but that doesn't mean it has anything to do with Net Neutrality.

Yet some in the civil rights community will tell you differently. They claim that if broadband providers can earn greater profits by charging content providers for access to the Internet “fast lane,” then they will lower prices to underserved areas. In other words, if Comcast — which already earns 80 percent profit margins on its broadband services — can increase its profits under a system without Net Neutrality, then they’ll all of a sudden invest in our communities. You don’t have to be a historian or economist to know that this type of trickle-down economics never works and has always failed communities of color.

Whether the phone and cable companies can make more money by acting as toll-takers on the Internet has nothing to do with whether they will invest in increased deployment of broadband. If these companies think investing in low-income communities makes good business sense, they will make the investment. Benevolence doesn’t factor into the equation.

On my trips to Washington, I met with some of the groups and congressional offices questioning or opposing Net Neutrality. I asked them what evidence they had to back up claims that undermining Net Neutrality would lead to an expansion of broadband to under-served communities, or that preserving Net Neutrality would thwart expansion. Not one could answer my question. Some CBC members hadn’t yet been presented with a counter to the industry’s arguments; others told stories about pressure from telecom companies or from other members of congress. As one CBC staffer told me, many CBC members have willingly supported the business agenda of telecom companies because the industry can be counted on to make campaign contributions, and they face no political backlash.

I also heard from people who don’t consider themselves against Net Neutrality, but who say their issue is prioritizing broadband expansion over maintaining Net Neutrality—as if the two have some intrinsic competitive relationship. When I’ve asked about the relationship, again, no one could provide anything concrete.

To those taking positions against Net Neutrality, I ask what sense it makes to undermine the very power of the Internet, especially for our communities, in order to provide access to everyone, presuming for a second the two were even connected. It’s like what we have with cable — our communities are saturated with programming that they cannot control, with no benefit of empowerment for anyone. Again, no one with whom I talked had an answer to this point.

Thankfully, there are an array of grassroots, media and social justice organizations that have not followed this line of reasoning and are actively supporting Network Neutrality, such as the Center for Media Justice and the Applied Research Center. Black and brown journalists and media groups who understand the need for unconstrained expression on the part of our communities are on the same page as well: the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, UNITY: Journalists of Color, the National Association of Latino Independent Producers, the National Association of Black Journalists, and the National Hispanic Media Coalition have all been vocal supporters of Net Neutrality.

Prominent lawmakers, including CBC members Reps. John Conyers, Maxine Waters, and Donna Edwards are vocal supporters, as are House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President Obama — who has pledged to “take a back seat to no one” on the issue. And last week, Mignon Clyburn, a commissioner at the FCC, called out advocacy groups entrusted by many to represent our communities, for making half-baked arguments that completely miss the boat on the importance of Net Neutrality to our communities.

As Clyburn pointed out, far from being just a concern of the digital elite, Net Neutrality is essential to what makes the Internet a place where people of color and marginalized communities can speak for ourselves without first asking for permission from gatekeepers, and where small blogs, businesses, and organizations operate on a level playing field with the largest corporations. Net Neutrality regulations are needed to protect the status quo, because the telecom industry sees an opportunity for profit in fundamentally altering this basic aspect of the Internet.

In the coming weeks I plan to head back to DC to continue to fight for Net Neutrality. I’m hoping that on my next trip some of the anti-Net Neutrality civil rights groups or CBC members will heed my call and explain their position. I would like to believe that there is more to the “civil rights” opposition to Net Neutrality than money, politics, relationships, or just plain lack of understanding. For now, I’m doing my best to keep an open mind. But I don’t think it will stay that way for much longer.

James Rucker is a co-founder of ColorOfChange.org.

Haitian Ambassador to the U.S. Raymond Joseph responds to senile televangelist Pat Robertson's racist ramblings

Responding to Pat Robertson's racist assertion that Haiti won its freedom as the modern world's first independent Black nation as the result of making a "pact with the devil", Haiti's Ambassador to the U.S. Raymond Joseph stated on The Rachel Maddow Show that if Haiti's liberation was "a curse", it was a curse that greatly benefited the United States.

Paraphrasing Ambassador Joseph (with the help of Wikipedia's entry on the Louisiana Purchase), the ambassador deftly pointed out that the successful liberation of Haiti by its largely enslaved African-descended people caused Napoleon to lose its significant sugar exports rendering the former colony and the Louisiana territory strategically and monetarily inconsequential to him.

So, as a direct result of the successful uprising in (then) Saint-Domingue and the sale of the Louisiana Territory to the young United States, our country double in size for $15 million (or ~$.03/acre) in 1803. This massive acquisition of land from France just over 200 years ago gave us the modern-day states of . . .

"Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, parts of Minnesota that were west of the Mississippi River, most of North Dakota, nearly all of South Dakota, northeastern New Mexico, the portions of Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado east of the Continental Divide, and Louisiana west of the Mississippi River, including the city of New Orleans."

So, thank you, Ayiti!

May you rise from the ashes yet again with liberty, justice, and democracy for all.

Again, to donate to the earthquake relief aid in Haiti, please text 501501 and $5 will go to the Yéle Relief Fund, or go here to support Yele.org.

Proof for my liberal peers that "color-blindness" is a bad thing (or "Hewlett Packard doesn't care about black people!") (VIDEO)

[H/T to IshBadiddle for the heads-up via Mashable.com]

When my White liberal colleagues who have drunk the Web-is-color-blind Kool-Aid, and rant quixotic about the transcendent power of technology as the great equalizer, what praytell do they think about this . . . ?

This seems like a perfect 21st century example of the continuing harm of racial invisibility. Next time you think about spouting "color-blindness" as a good thing, watch this video again.

Just like the well-meaning people who think this is a laudable goal or quality in people, the HP techs who're responsible for this glitch probably didn't mean to develop the software to discriminate against dark-skinned people. Nevertheless, the result is the same isn't?

Invisibility sucks, people.

In fact, I'm pretty sure there was a pretty important piece of literature written on this very topic back in 1947. Now, what was that book called?

What do you think?

We must not let Big Telecom segregate the Internet

By Malkia Cyril, Chris Rabb and Joseph Torres

Originally published on The Huffington Post and cross-posted elsewhere

When Fox News’ Glenn Beck called President Barack Obama a racist this past July, the online advocacy group ColorOfChange.org launched a campaign to convince advertisers to boycott the show. To date, some 280,000 people have joined the effort, and more than 60 companies have pulled their ads.

CNN parted ways with Lou Dobbs last month after civil rights groups and Presente.org mobilized thousands of Latinos online to call on CNN to dump the talk show host for spewing hate against immigrants for years.

None of this — not these advocacy efforts, not countless small business success stories, not even the election of President Barack Obama — would have happened without a free and open Internet. For communities of color, the Internet provides us with a unique opportunity to speak for ourselves without first seeking the approval of gatekeepers or having to secure major funds to do so. But the big telecommunications companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast want to create an effectively segregated online community where they will act as our gatekeepers.

[T]he big telecommunications companies

like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast

want to create an effectively segregated online community

where they will act as our gatekeepers.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is now considering new rules that could protect the fundamental principle of “Network Neutrality” once and for all. Net Neutrality prohibits Internet service providers (ISPs) from blocking, discriminating against or deterring Internet users from accessing online content and applications of their choice — such as e-newsletters, blogs, social networking sites, online videos, podcasts and smart-phone apps. It is not that network owners are secretly plotting to stifle free speech – at least not usually.  But they have an undeniable, rational interest in creating a pay-for-play model for the treatment of communication on the Internet.  Commercial websites that pay will get speed and quality and the non-commercial uses of the Net will be collateral damage – relegated to the slow lane.  It’s not necessarily that they want to block our speech for political reasons; it’s that our speech is not important to them because it’s not going to make them money.

Many of the most valuable things we do online

are non-commercial; they exist because the Internet is

the first mass media system with no gatekeepers

to dole out privilege to the highest bidder.

The Internet provides our communities with a medium to access services, find jobs, connect to friends, make inexpensive international phone calls to family members, and to advocate for social change.  Many of the most valuable things we do online are non-commercial; they exist because the Internet is the first mass media system with no gatekeepers to dole out privilege to the highest bidder. That freedom and openness is what makes the Internet different from broadcasting and cable.  It makes it valuable to our communities.  We can’t allow Comcast, AT&T, Verizon and other broadband providers to deliver substandard Internet service to our communities.

Telecom Companies Want to Create Second-Class “Netizens”

But the big phone and cable companies want to get rid of Net Neutrality and control how the public accesses the Internet. These companies want to charge websites extra tolls to secure the fastest speeds online, while favoring their own content and services over their competition’s. Those unable to pay will be banished to the slow lane online, becoming second-class “netizens” without the same freedoms given to those with more money and influence.

This threat to Internet freedom isn’t hypothetical. Verizon got caught blocking text messages sent by the pro-choice group NARAL to its own members – though they backed down immediately under public pressure. Comcast has also illegally interfered with file-sharing on its network, a practice that earned them a rebuke from the FCC.

Even though President Obama pledged he would “take a back seat to no one” on Net Neutrality, the big phone and cable companies are pulling out all the stops to derail it, including deploying Karl Rove¬–style scare tactics within our communities and using their massive resources to block Obama’s agenda. In the first nine months of 2009, they employed nearly 500 lobbyists and spent some $74 million to influence Congress and the FCC. Their misinformation has even convinced Glenn Beck that Net Neutrality is an attempt by President Obama to take over the Internet.

Who will protect the online rights of marginalized communities against the raw profit motive of big business? We urge leaders in our community not to yield to the underhanded scare tactics that corporations like AT&T have used on our communities.

We Must Reject a Separate but Unequal Online World

One of those scare tactics is the claim, pushed by phone and cable companies, that Network Neutrality poses a threat to digital inclusion. Nothing could be further from the truth. Not only does Net Neutrality expand media diversity and access by ensuring fairness and nondiscrimination by big corporations, it will prevent the kind of media consolidation that has happened in the broadcast industry by helping our communities develop a diversity of civic and commercial online enterprises on a scale that represents our growing online numbers.

It’s not necessarily that they want to block our speech for political reasons;

it’s that our speech is not important to them

because it’s not going to make them money.

A primary reason for the digital divide is that the cost of fully engaging in the online world is just too expensive for many in our community. Broadband in the United States is among the slowest but most expensive of any industrialized nation. After years of consolidation, the largest telecom companies have gotten away with price-gouging our communities because of a lack of competition in the broadband market. More choices for broadband service – not permitting more discrimination – are the key to bringing down costs.  Scrapping Net Neutrality in order to consolidate control over the Internet by cable and phone companies is not the answer. More market control won’t give them more incentive to sell low-cost high-quality services to low-income communities.  Our communities will still be subject to the same business case that have marginalized us in the first place –households that don’t have a lot of money to spend.  Shareholders aren’t charities, and we are foolish to expect otherwise. 

But more importantly, we should not be sacrificing an open Internet to bribe phone and cable companies not to practice forms of red-lining.  The answer to the digital divide cannot be to deliver a second-class, closed Internet to our communities. 

The historic fight against discrimination by groups like the NAACP and the League of United Latin American Citizens has led to great societal change, laying the groundwork for the election of a president of color. We urge our colleagues in the civil rights community to fight with us to ensure that telecom and cable companies are not allowed to discriminate against our communities or interfere with our capacity to speak for ourselves without first asking AT&T, Verizon or Comcast for permission.

Several civil rights groups have spoken out in favor of passing Net Neutrality regulations, including the National Hispanic Media Coalition, UNITY: Journalists of Color, and ColorOfChange.org.

[W]e should not be sacrificing an open Internet

to bribe phone and cable companies not to practice forms of red-lining.

We are living through a critical moment in our nation’s history. The FCC is going to decide whether the Internet will remain an open platform that allows for the greatest number of voices to participate in our democratic society, or whether it will be a closed network controlled by the big telecom companies.

We are concerned about the dire consequences of living without Internet freedom. It would create a separate but unequal online world where our communities are unable to use the Internet to compete or to advocate for justice when we have been wronged.

We need civil rights, media justice, community-oriented and grassroots organizations to stand together to make sure effective Net Neutrality regulation will protect our communities from the predatory practices of the phone and cable industries.

[L]iving without Internet freedom . . . would create a separate but unequal online world

where our communities are unable to use the Internet

to compete or to advocate for justice

when we have been wronged.

As with past civil rights struggles that successfully expanded access, thwarted discrimination, destroyed legalized segregation, and created broad opportunity, so too will the cause for Internet freedom.

Malkia Cyril is the executive director of the Center for Media Justice. Chris Rabb is the founder of the online community Afro-Netizen and is a visiting researcher at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. Joseph Torres is the government relations manager of Free Press and former deputy director of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists.

Haunting movie "Precious" portrays the Black matriarch as villain

The Black Matriarch as Villain

By Juell Stewart

Republished courtesy of ColorLines.com

"Precious" is a haunting film that stays silent on how the political realities of 1980s Harlem shaped women. Clareece ‘Precious’ Jones (Gabourey Sidibe) is the shining star of her own imagination in the new movie Precious, which hits theaters nationwide on November 6.  Surrounded by bright lights and flashing cameras, she’s a magazine cover model with dreams of being in music videos and having a light-skinned love interest. The only thing she has to overcome are her circumstances—and boy, are there plenty of hurdles ahead of her.   The recipe is familiar: Start with an unfailingly tragic character, pile on the hardships, throw a few famous names on the credits, then sit back and watch the Oscar nominations roll in.  [B]eneath the film was something that I found to be problematic:  a reliance on the villainization of Black matriarch —rather than a mention of systemic race issues— to make the larger message of “pulling yourself up by your bootstraps” more palatable. Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire could have been just another one film championing the underdog, but the powerful performances and unabashedly raw storytelling saves it from falling through the cracks. Precious is pregnant, illiterate, unloved and unwanted. Her mother, Mary, (played to chilling, cruel perfection by Mo’Nique) works harder at destroying her daughter’s self-esteem than she does anything else. Precious silently endures unbridled physical and sexual abuse at home, only to experience the ridicule of her peers at school and around Harlem.   It’s a wonder that anyone could survive the sort of utter despair that Precious lives in every day, but despite being illiterate in the ninth grade, she excels in math and is encouraged by a concerned teacher to pursue an alternative education during her pregnancy—a suggestion that her mother meets with a better one: to start collecting welfare and not to worry about education. Luckily, Precious escapes academic purgatory and enrolls in an alternative school for pregnant students, where she meets a series of nurturing figures who instill in her the sense of love and self-worth that was absent from her household for 16 years.  In addition to her teacher and mentor Ms. Rain (played by Paula Patton), there’s her classroom of tough-yet-supportive peers, and Lenny Kravitz as a nurse who shows her what is likely the most positive male role model that she has seen in her young life.   There has already been considerable Oscar buzz surrounding both Mo’Nique and Sidibe, and the film has received numerous accolades, including the Grand Jury Prize for the Dramatic category at Sundance and the People’s Choice Award at the Toronto International Film Festival. The actors and director Lee Daniels deserve the praise they’ve received for making such a powerful movie.   But beneath the film was something that I found to be problematic: a reliance on the villainization of Black matriarch—rather than a mention of systemic race issues—to make the larger message of “pulling yourself up by your bootstraps” more palatable.   This is a problematic image to see in white media, but it’s even more disheartening to see in examples of Black media. What’s so problematic about Mary is that the woman is made into a monster with no redeemable qualities—a decision that isn’t only lazy on behalf of the filmmakers, but also wholly irresponsible to the African-American community. But director Lee Daniels makes the critical mistake of ignoring the social and political reality that his characters inhabit.  Besides a title card in the beginning of the film and some outdated hairstyles, we as the audience see little of the forces that compel Mary’s actions. To ignore 1987 Harlem as the foundation for the permanent Black underclass created by the Reagan Administration through its abhorrent social reform policies—including the War on Drugs and welfare reform—is to ignore a crucial aspect of his characters’ lives.   The political forces at work during the period operated in a much larger scope than the familial level portrayed in the film.  And that’s why it was a grievous error for Daniels to paint a portrait of Mary as a one-dimensional demon, seemingly devoid of any ounce of compassion toward even her own offspring.

Read more

America's CTO Aneesh Chopra explains the Obama Administration's reasons for supporting Internet freedom (via "net neutrality")

H/T to Free Press for aggressively promoting this important civil rights initiative . . .