By now, most readers of this space are all too familiar with
the ugly personal attacks on Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit
Pai occasioned by the agency’s mid-December action repealing the public
utility-like regulations imposed on Internet service providers in 2015. I don’t
want to recount here the substance of the personal attacks and invective hurled
at Chairman Pai except to say that they range from foul epithets to crude
racist innuendo to – shockingly – outright death threats. Even his wife and young
children have not been immune.
If you want just one sample, take a look at “The
Torment of Ajit Pai” by Noah Rothman in Commentary.
It’s no secret that I support the Commission’s Restoring Internet Freedom Order (RIF Order). But this is not about
the merits of the Commission’s action. I understand there are arguments on both
sides of the issues that advocates hold passionately.
But it should go without saying that it’s one thing to
advocate your views passionately and another altogether to engage in personal
attacks like those against Chairman Pai that, even now, continue unabated.
Those government officials, whether currently at the FCC or in Congress, who
are leading efforts, through whatever avenues, to overturn the FCC’s RIF Order bear a special responsibility
to speak out forcefully and unequivocally against the personal attacks. Former Commissioner
Michael Copps, commendably, did so early on. So, too, should leaders of other
groups opposed to the FCC’s action.
It’s possible that we may have slipped up along the way –
and if so I express my regrets – but I have tried hard since the founding of
the Free State Foundation in 2006 to stick to debating the merits of the issues
at hand – and to avoid engaging in personal attacks, no matter the depth of
disagreement. It’s been my firm conviction that, regardless of any personal name-calling
engaged in by those with opposing views, going down that path necessarily undermines
the civil discourse on which the rule of law and the integrity of the
administrative process ultimately depend.
That’s why, over the years, I’ve made a point of emphasizing,
even while disagreeing with this or that particular action, that I didn’t
question the good faith or intentions of those on the other side. For example,
in a 2007 blog
on net neutrality (yes, we were debating net neutrality in 2007!), I said this
while disagreeing with then-Commissioner Michael Copps: “I don’t for one moment
question his good faith or good intentions.” Again, in a 2011 blog,
disagreeing with him, I emphasized: “I have never questioned Commissioner
Copps’ good faith.”
Of course, I often opposed the legal and policy positions of
former Chairman Tom Wheeler. But in doing so, several times, as in this 2014 Perspectives,
I made a point of not questioning his “good intentions.” Indeed, when Mr.
Wheeler faced attacks concerning his fitness to serve during his confirmation
hearing, I publicly defended him.
As for Commissioner Clyburn, I said this in a 2016 blog:
“I don’t always agree with [her] positions. But I respect her good faith in
arriving at those positions, and I’ve always been pleased to have Commissioner
Clyburn participate at Free State Foundation conferences to explain and
advocate her views.”
With regard to those parties with whom my views are most
often at odds regarding net neutrality, I said this in a 2014 blog:
“I do not question the good faith or motivations of the consumer advocates
advancing this claim….”
Finally, in responding directly to a piece written by Gigi
Sohn, former top staffer to Tom Wheeler, I said this in a 2017 Perspectives:
“I’ve known Gigi for many years, and, as she knows, I’ve considered her a
friend even though we generally disagree on matters of communications law and
policy.” And I added: “I’ve always believed, and still do, that differences in
philosophical or policy perspective shouldn’t stand in the way of reasoned
discussion and debate – or of friendship.”
I stand by that last statement and will always continue to
do so. Perhaps they have been doing so already, but, if not, I think it’s
incumbent on my friends – that’s the “of friendship” part – who are leading the
fight against the Restoring Internet
Freedom Order to demand that those engaging in personal attacks cease and
desist.
In the name of civil discourse and reasoned debate, which
are essential bedrocks of our democracy, we should all be able to agree that
it’s time for the ugly personal attacks on Chairman Pai to stop.
Posts
