The Center for Media Justice is deeply disappointed by the recent ruling of the D.C. Court of Appeals that the Federal Communications Commission has no authority to stop Comcast from blocking, slowing, or otherwise discriminating against content they don’t like. This decision prevents the FCC not only from ensuring open Internet protections, but also from ensuring full broadband adoption and affordability in communities pushed furthest to the margins. Will you let big media companies like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T take away your voice? Please protect Broadband access for communities of color and the poor by emailing chantel@centerformediajustice that you will sign on to the letter to the FCC attached.

As civil rights leaders, grassroots activists, philanthropic leaders, small businesses, artists, and members of marginalized communities- we all use the Internet to reach larger audiences and manage our daily lives. In the context of extreme media bias and significant barriers to media access, the openness of the Internet provides us a necessary path to democratic engagement and social change in the 21st Century.

Parul Desai of the Media Access Project commented, “Because this case has turned into a lawyers’ debate over technical issues, it is easy to lose sight of its importance to freedom of speech and expression. ISP interference to lawful uses of the Internet must not be tolerated, and the Commission must have the power to adopt rules to prohibit such practices.”

Will you stand with Commissioner Clyburn, President Obama, the Center for Media Justice, the Media Action Grassroots Network, the Open Internet Coalition, and civil rights leaders Color of Change, Center for Community Change, the Applied Research Center, the National Hispanic Media Coalition and others to encourage the FCC to be bold and ensure their jurisdiction by defining broadband as a Title II Universal Service?

Please take action at ColorofChange.org, and sign on to the letter attached by emailing [email protected] with your name, org, and the number of people your org represents.

CMJ, the grassroots members of the Media Action Grassroots Network, and the more than 300 organizations nationwide that have taken the pledge to be Digital Inclusion Champions maintain the FCC must have the authority to protect all Internet users against the uncompetitive, profit-bearing values of corporate Internet Service Providers. Despite this ruling, the FCC remains a powerful and important decision-making body and the only vehicle through which those at the margins can define and defend our right to online content that is meaningful to our lives. The FCC has the authority to do this, and to fulfill their mandate to protect the public interest they must make broadband a Title II Universal Service.

Please learn more about the issue through our latest interviews on the subject on the KPFA morning show, National Public Radio, and Hard Knock Radio, or listen to the voices of grassroots leaders, and marginalized communities on the national demand for an open Internet without corporate gatekeepers.

In the words of author Chris Rabb, “This minor victory for Big Telecom may very well be their Waterloo in their battle against Internet freedom.” Your voice will make a difference.

In solidarity,

Malkia A. Cyril, amalia deloney, Karlos Guana Schmieder, Oshen Turman

The Center for Media Justice Action Team

Malkia A. Cyril, Executive Director, Center for Media Justice

Cross-posed from HuffPo.

The debate over Open Internet Protections and civil rights is heating up…

In a response to my recent call for the voices of young leaders of color to be heard on the issue of strong open Internet protections, Commissioner Robert Steele, President of the National Association of Black County Officials, harkens back to the “old days”, when according to him, young leaders of the past a) worked closely with civil rights veterans, b) demonstrated how their cause would address a clear danger to “minorities”, c) got their “facts” right, and d) held government accountable. But many of us live in the legacy of the struggles between Malcolm X and the civil rights veterans of that day. We are clear that the loss of self-representation poses a clear and present danger to communities of color. We know that industry reports may be considered biased by some. And we understand that corporate accountability is as crucial as government accountability, and work hard for both. Young leaders of today are powerful, thoughtful, crucial leaders and the widest users of mobile broadband today. It would be as tragic to squander the potential of young leadership in the fight for an Open Internet, as it would be to squander the potential of the Internet itself.

I agree with Mr. Steele when he suggests that full broadband adoption and open Internet protections are both possible — if, and only if, the FCC defines broadband as a universal service and ensures the strongest possible protections for an open Internet. Communities of color and the poor cannot thrive with less. It’s time for our voices to be heard.

Mr. Steele raised the very relevant concern that “poorly designed network management regulations could lock in place the digital divide”. This is absolutely true, and will definitely occur if network management rules do not limit the ability of Big Media companies and Internet Service Providers to manage networks to make a profit. I encourage the FCC and all those who care about the rights of people of color online to take a stand.

Mr. Steele invited me to join the call of some civil rights groups to ask the FCC to rebut the findings of industry economists who suggest that “dis-incentivizing deployment (and thus adoption) and shifting costs from wealthy cost-causers to low and middle income consumers”. Though I appreciate the outreach and look forward to fighting a good fight for open Internet protections together- these are in fact not the likely outcomes of strong open Internet protections. It would be interesting to know who funded these “findings” since there is plenty of other theoretical and empirical data that suggests just the opposite; these “findings” recommend a “trickle down” approach that has never ever worked out- especially not for people of color. So, unfortunately, I can’t co-sign such an approach.

The truth is, strong open Internet protections encourage investment and deployment, because they prevent ISPs from profiting from artificial scarcity; and nothing about network neutrality will prevent ISPs from charging heavy users more. The only reason additional costs would be dumped on poor and working class consumers is if private companies are given too much rope to hang us with. We can prevent that by ensuring the FCC imposes strong non-discrimination protections in network neutrality rules, thereby limiting corporate control over the Internet. I support — and I believe Mr. Steele would agree — stopping corporate bullies, not rewarding them with more control.

That is the mandate of the network neutrality rules championed by FCC Mignon Clyburn- – who is, as Mr. Steele put it, “our greatest hope”. Champion of the “have-nots”, FCC Commissioner Clyburn has described the Internet as the greatest communications advancement in a generation, and proclaimed a civil rights mandate to not cede the Internet to corporate interests and control. I am among the hundreds of thousands who agree. Anything less than the strongest open Internet protections possible would deepen the digital divide for generations to come. In an information age, when our ability to shape social policy depends on our ability to define and control our representation, strong Internet protections are a must.

FCC Commissioner Clyburn is not alone. President Obama has articulated a firm commitment to preserving an Open Internet through the strongest possible Internet protections. The community organizations of the Media Action Grassroots Network, who work to expand media access and representation for communities of color and the poor, have called on the civil rights community to demand corporate accountability through strong Internet protections. Unity Journalists of Color, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, and the National Hispanic Media Association all support the strongest possible protections to preserve fair representation for all communities on the Internet, as do thousands of other local, state, and national organizations working in Black, Latino, Asian, Arab and South Asian, and Native American communities. I agree with those who believe the FCC should address the concerns of the civil rights community, and as a part of that community — I hope the FCC fulfills it’s mandate to protect our interests and secure our rights online.

It’s clear that the civil rights mandate is to ensure full broadband access and adoption while defending representation online. Many members of the civil rights community agree that the best way to narrow the digital divide is to define broadband as a universal service, and codify the strongest open Internet rules possible that narrowly define reasonable network management and ensure that every voice and idea has a chance by preventing the blocking or prioritizing of content based on profit.

But some in the civil rights community are legitimately concerned that limiting the ability of wealthy corporations to increase their profit through broad and discriminatory management of their networks might have a negative impact on broadband build out and access for communities of color, the poor, and other historically disenfranchised groups. As a result, they are hesitant to support rules that may curtail the flexibility of corporate media giants to block or prioritize content to make money. I understand this concern, and encourage our civil rights leaders to consider strategies and telecommunications positions that would give companies like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast -who made an 80% profit last year on their Internet video sales alone — less room to digitally redline communities of color, and support the FCC to hold these companies accountable. In the fight for equal Internet access, it’s time for a new strategy. Perhaps veteran civil rights groups can take on the choke-hold influence of corporate investment in communities of color and poor communities that has led to the massive privatization of all public infrastructure — including our hospitals, our schools, and now, with the recent Supreme Court decision to lift limits on corporate political spending- our government. Mr. Steele raises the question of whether the FCC should be trusted to create policy to close the digital divide. It’s a good question. My answer is that it is their mandate to do, and I’d rather the FCC fulfill their mandate than cede the power to AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon- – which some would prefer.

If we are unable to secure the strongest open Internet protections, will the increased profits of media companies be used to lower Internet costs or deploy broadband into rural and poor communities? Having grown up in the context of a massive digital divide despite the extraordinary profits of media companies and ISP’s, these companies will go where the money is, as they have done for decades, unless somebody stops them.

I hope Mr. Robert Steele, all those in the civil rights community, and the FCC will stand with and for us — people of color, the young, the poor and working class, the rural, the migrants, the women- who desperately need and vigorously support the strongest Internet protections available, and champion the rights of communities of color online as we fight for an empowered Internet experience.

As Executive Director for the Center for Media Justice, I have been working for equal media access and fair representation for almost a decade. My father was a leader in the Black Panther Party. Unlike Sarah Palin, the political figure Mr. Steele laughably compared me to, my mother was a founding member of the NY Black Panther Chapter, coordinator of the NY BPP Breakfast Program, a member of SNCC, an educator, and a long-time activist for the rights of the disenfranchised. Before she died, she and I talked often about the news stories about black “crack babies”, brown “super-predators” and “criminals”, beige “terrorists” — and she reminded me of the threat posed to social policy when media access is prioritized over representation and consumer rights. Through my mom’s memory, and her legacy, the fight for media representation and an empowered media experience for people of color is a fight I hold dear.

The the fight for an open Internet is a fight for our mothers, our children, and our future. Let’s not be confused. The fight for an open Internet is an inter-generational fight that requires all members of the civil rights community — veterans and leaders of a new generation — to have the foresight and clarity to respond effectively to a new generation of media problems and opportunities. None of us should be willing to cede representation to get access, or accept any less than the strongest Open Internet protections possible.

Follow Malkia A. Cyril on Twitter: www.twitter.com/movementrising

Depressed by Dial-up, Groups Call for Action on Broadband, Net Neutrality

February 15, 2010

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. – Members of New Mexico’s congressional delegation say they stand with the many New Mexicans who are depressed by dial-up. Today’s national broadband day of action is calling attention to the need for affordable, high-speed access to an open Internet, in communities of all sizes. New Mexico lawmakers sent a letter to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) this month in support of extending the existing Universal Service Fund rules and resources to broadband.

There’s a “Show Your Love for Broadband” event coming up at noon today in Albuquerque’s South Valley. Organizer Andrea Quijada, who is executive director with the New Mexico Media Literacy Project, says the message is simple.

“What we’re saying is, we want broadband to be accessible for everyone, and we want Internet freedom; we don’t want any roadblocks.”

Quijada says there are many communities in New Mexico that have outgrown their old dial-up modems but don’t yet have affordable broadband options, including some parts of the Duke City.

“There are areas of Albuquerque where some Internet providers will only provide dial-up and do not provide broadband. And we know, given what is taking place on the Internet now, dial-up is insufficient.”

Amalia Deloney, coordinator for the Media Action Grassroots Network (MAG-net) says an open Internet with guaranteed network neutrality is essential to ensure that every idea has a chance to be communicated.

“That’s whether it’s about small business development, whether it’s artists being able to exchange music online, whether it’s immigrant communities who need to be able to access Skype to be able to have conversations with communities back in their countries of origin.”

Making “net neutrality” the rule would prevent Internet providers from blocking or slowing down certain kinds of online content in favor of others. Providers such as Comcast argue that they should have the power to operate their networks however they see fit, but the FCC claims it has broad jurisdiction over many forms of interstate communication, including the Internet.

Today’s event is at the South Valley Economic Development Center at noon.

More information is available at pitch.pe/44969

Singing For Broadband Access

Cross-posted from Huffington Post.

James Bell, Founder and Executive Director of the W. Haywood Burns Institute.

Last week, the Bureau of Justice Statistics released a report that revealed about 12 percent of youths nationwide held in state-run, privately run or local facilities reported some type of sexual victimization including forced sexual activity with other youth and staff. Staff sexual misconduct was higher in state-run facilities.

It was the first report of its kind by the Justice Department, and the prevalence of sexual abuse by staff, particularly female workers, shocked even advocates. At our offices, we drew a deep breath and acknowledged the report as an addition to a growing list of reminders that incarcerating youth – the majority of whom are locked up for nonviolent offenses – is expensive, unproductive and harmful.

Every day, youth across the country who are incarcerated find themselves facing harms ranging from mental, emotional, physical and sexual abuse, to a lack of nutritious food and basic necessities including clean undergarments and adequate bathing supplies, and a lack of education and future opportunities. The majority are denied their liberty for minor offenses, and are placed in the mercy of a system that has been proven broken and in need of a serious and immediate overhaul.

Groups across the country work daily to protect and defend the rights of youth already incarcerated. We work to ensure youth will not be unjustly detained in the first place. As we look to persuade the public and the legislature to act upon the urgency we feel to transform the system, I refer to reports of some of the most egregious harms inflicted upon youth in the custody of the juvenile justice system.

Sadly, sometimes the most heinous incidents are the best aid in reminding us of how much needs to be done. Any of these children could have been yours, in some tragic twist of fate.

In 2009, the U.S. Department of Justice released a report graphically documenting the persistent brutality and routine neglect of youth of color with mental health. The report summarized the results of a two-year investigation and highlighted abuse including a 300-pound guard forcing a girl to the ground so violently (she had threatened to urinate on the floor) that the girl suffered a concussion. Another girl with mental health issues was placed in isolation for three months without treatment. She apparently deteriorated in the process, never changed out of her pajamas, and was forcibly restrained at least 15 times.

In 2008, The New York Times reported that the Louisiana state legislature voted to close the Jetson Center, a large prison-style facility near Baton Rouge plagued by fights and reports of sexual violence. A young man reported being locked in a cell for about seven weeks: “This is where the guards beat, kick, stomp and punch you. I was beaten so badly in there in there by a guard that he broke my eardrum. The sex in there is horrible. The female guards, and even some male guards, were having sex with the kids….And there were rapes, but they weren’t reported very often. If a kid was raped on a guard’s watch, the guard would get fired and the other guards were going to make sure the kid paid for telling.”

In 2007, reporters in Texas found that more than 750 juvenile detainees across the state had alleged sexual abuse by staff over the previous six years. Officials in Austin ignored what they heard, and in rare cases where staff were fired and their cases referred to local prosecutors, the prosecutors typically refused to act. “Not one employee of the Texas Youth Commission during that six-year period was sent to prison for raping the children in his or her care,” according to the New York Review of Books.

In 2006, Martin Lee Anderson didn’t make it past his first day at the Bay County Juvenile Boot Camp before he was abused to death. After “drill instructors” at this youth boot camp facility forced him do a fitness run with a 20-minute confrontation, Martin collapsed and died as a result of complications from a sickle cell trait.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Professor Simon Johnson coined the phrase “intellectual capture” in reference to the nation’s kneeling at the altar of the gods of Wall Street. In essence, we are “intellectually captured” by the notion that whatever is good for Wall Street is good for America. Johnson goes on to posit that this intellectual capture is so powerful that it prevents the public and powerful politicians from exercising common sense and challenging basic assumptions.

This recent report, and this brief look at an ever-growing list of abuses, demonstrates clearly that our notions of crime and punishment for young people have us intellectually captured and clueless. Society at large, as well as the opinion shapers, the elites and those who wield power seem to be afraid to say what we all know to be true. Using cells to change the behaviors of teenagers is ineffective, expensive and more likely to increase crime.

Two-thirds of youth in detention are incarcerated for nonviolent offenses. What about incarceration only for those who pose a proven public safety risk? What about keeping nonviolent youth and those with minor offenses in community-based programs that involves therapy and engages their families? What about rehabilitation? Employing these methods has been shown to reduce crime, and the likelihood of abuse, and save money.

These ideas should no longer be novel or untried. San Francisco’s District Attorney Kamala Harris has it right. In her new book Smart on Crime she invites us to get a clue about being, well, smart on crime. She observes that two thirds of inmates return in two years. The numbers are similar for youth as well. By comparison, two decades ago, Missouri replaced its guards with counselors and its cells with bunk beds. The new model focused on changing behavior through therapy rather than physical restraints. Today, only one in four of the youths who have gone through the state’s system are re-incarcerated within three years of release.

How many more reports, tragedies and thrown away lives will we continue to endure? How long will we continue to waste precious dollars on this failed approach? How much longer will we, as a society, continue to be clueless and intellectually captured by the myth of “tough on crime”?

It’s time to get a clue.

The following is a guest blog by James Bell, Founder and Executive Director of the W. Haywood Burns Institute. HBI and Community Justice Network for Youth are partners in CMJ’s Racial Justice Framing Project.

“>*Pacifica’s Mitch Jesserich spoke to James about reauthorization of the JJDPA and the BI’s new report!

A recent incident in Omaha, Nebraska brings urgency to an issue soon to be debated in Congress regarding the handling of youth offenders by juvenile and criminal justice systems. In this case, police shot a 15-year-old boy in the chest following a traffic stop. Investigators said the boy shot at police first. The case has led one local senator to call for an overhaul of Nebraska’s juvenile justice system that would identify “aggressive juvenile offenders.”

This is a dangerous reaction to a singular incident. But it is not uncommon. Politicians often legislate by anecdote. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

When one examines this case further, it becomes clear that for Nebraska State Sen. Brad Ashford to use this particular incident as an example of why the city’s “most aggressive juvenile offenders need to be more readily identified,” is a slippery slope. Ashford told an Omaha television station that he is working on legislation that would do just that.

“The best way to unclog the juvenile court system, and the best way to prevent violence amongst juveniles, is to catch these young people early as they exhibit behaviors that indicate they will very likely shoot somebody someday,” Ashford told KETV Omaha.

There is no evidence that any justice system can viably identify and “catch” potential violent offenders. Indeed, years of reactive legislation by politicians demonstrate that just because they have a bully pulpit and power does not make them informed, thoughtful or effective. In fact, Sen. Ashford’s efforts could actually result in an increase in the use of incarceration for juveniles and adult lock-ups. This is an alarming reaction for those who use data to drive policy and practice. Research shows that youth confined in adult jails and lock-ups are more likely to re-offend upon release and while confined are at pronounced high risk of suffering assault and committing suicide.

Congress is expected to soon consider the reauthorization of the federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization Act (JJDPA), which among many provisions that ensure protection for youth in juvenile and criminal justice systems, would help to keep youth awaiting trial in criminal court out of adult lock-up and ensure “sight and sound separation” in the limited circumstances where they are held in adult facilities. This is sound public policy. Any rational civil society values the separations of young people and adults in confinement. If reauthorized, the JJDPA would also permit States to continue to house and rehabilitate youth convicted in adult court in juvenile facilities until they reach a certain age.

But sound legislation based on data and research is often threatened by political rhetoric and emotional reaction, as we have seen across the country in our work to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in local juvenile justice systems. In this particular case, Omaha’s police union president, Aaron Hanson, responded to the incident by saying the case and others like it have “to do with the fact that many of these youthful violent offenders are sent through the juvenile justice system, as opposed to the adult criminal justice system.”

This is a familiar line of thought that is woefully inaccurate. Such thinking was first popularized by in the late eighties by John Dilulio, a Princeton political scientist who coined the phrase “super-predators.” Soon thereafter, politicians and the media adopted this phrase and ushered in an avalanche of draconian laws based on anecdote and worse-case scenarios rather than actual data or research. Those laws remain today and are responsible for the notion of “throw-away” youth. We do not increase public safety by using detention early and often for young people in trouble with the law.

This particular case should be handled individually, applying the facts and the law, and not as a launching pad for legislative short-term gain. Today, a majority of youth in detention are incarcerated for minor and nonviolent offenses. Two-thirds of youth in detention are youth of color, though they are only one-third of the total U.S. youth population. In other words, African American youth are 5.5 times more likely to be detained than White youth, while Latino youth and Native American youth are both 2.5 times more likely to be detained than White youth.

The JJDPA reflects a better approach. When passed, it would limit the amount of time that juveniles are detained for “nondelinquent status offenses,” such as truancy, running away or violating curfew, alcohol and tobacco laws. Its other vital provisions include increasing financial incentives for States to improve diversion programs for youth with mental health and substance abuse needs; directing States to develop policies and procedures to eliminate the use of isolation and restraints, and to enhance alternatives to detention and transitional services.

Importantly, the JJDPA would also direct States and localities to actively work to reduce racial and ethnic disparities. Today, research demonstrates that youth of color are incarcerated more often than White youth even when charged with the same category of offense. Currently, the JJDPA requires States to “address” disparities within the juvenile justice system, but it does not require oversight of reduction efforts, accurate collection of relevant data, development of work plans with measurable objectives, or regular monitoring, evaluation, and reporting.

We hope that this bill will move through the Senate Judiciary Committee and to the floor of the Senate before the end of the year. And we trust that the Senate will do everything within its power to preserve the prevention focus of the JJDPA by guarding against any amendments that would link the JJDPA to provisions or other forms of federal legislation that introduce new federal categories of juvenile crime, new or enhanced federal penalties affecting juveniles, or incentives for States to advance new or enhanced penalties for juveniles.

How long are we as a nation going to allow justice policy to be determined by anecdote, storytelling and worst-case scenarios? When are we as a society going to pierce the veil of supposedly “tough on crime” legislation? If and when we do, we will find that we are a safer and more productive society by being “smart on crime.” That means allowing the court system to do its job for violent crimes, while not over-reacting with blanket legislation to any dramatic incident that grabs media attention. We must act now to ensure the best outcomes for our future generations.