{"id":178461,"date":"2018-11-20T19:22:00","date_gmt":"2018-11-21T00:22:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/2018\/11\/20\/how-can-the-most-reviled-companies-in-america-maintain-their-crown\/"},"modified":"2018-11-20T19:22:00","modified_gmt":"2018-11-21T00:22:00","slug":"how-can-the-most-reviled-companies-in-america-maintain-their-crown","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/2018\/11\/20\/how-can-the-most-reviled-companies-in-america-maintain-their-crown\/","title":{"rendered":"How Can the Most Reviled Companies in America Maintain their Crown?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Why, by claiming that <a href=\"https:\/\/arstechnica.com\/tech-policy\/2018\/11\/charter-cant-use-1st-amendment-to-refuse-black-owned-tv-channels-court-rules\/\">bigotry is covered by their first amendment corporate rights<\/a>, of course.<\/p>\n<p>Seriously, these are so toxic that Andrew Cuomo should be offering them multi-billion dollar subsidies.<\/p>\n<p>Yes, I am talking about the big cable companies: <\/p>\n<blockquote><p><span style=\"color: blue;\">A US appeals court ruling today said that cable companies do not have a First Amendment right to discriminate against minority-run TV channels. <\/p>\n<p>Charter, the second-largest US cable company after Comcast, was <a href=\"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/recap\/gov.uscourts.cacd.638792.1.0.pdf\">sued in January 2016<\/a> by Byron Allen&#8217;s Entertainment Studios Networks (ESN), which alleged that Charter violated the <a href=\"http:\/\/teachingamericanhistory.org\/library\/document\/the-civil-rights-act-of-1866\/\">Civil Rights Act of 1866<\/a> by refusing to carry TV channels run by the African-American-owned ESN. Allen, a comedian and producer, founded ESN in 1993 and is its CEO; the lawsuit seeks more than $10 billion in damages from Charter. <\/p>\n<p>Charter argued that the case should be dismissed, claiming that the First Amendment bars such claims because cable companies are allowed &#8220;editorial discretion.&#8221; But Charter&#8217;s motion to dismiss the case was denied by the US District Court for the Central District of California, and the District Court&#8217;s denial was <a href=\"https:\/\/www.publicknowledge.org\/assets\/uploads\/documents\/NAAAOM_v_Charter_9th_Circuit.pdf\">upheld unanimously today<\/a> by a three-judge panel at the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. <\/p>\n<p>UPDATE: The appeals court also <a href=\"https:\/\/cdn.arstechnica.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/11\/esn-vs-comcast.pdf\">ruled against Comcast<\/a> in a similar civil rights case in which ESN seeks more than $20 billion. Comcast had argued in a <a href=\"https:\/\/cdn.arstechnica.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/11\/comcast-vs-esn-brief.pdf\">brief<\/a> that &#8220;the First Amendment prohibits plaintiffs from suing to alter Comcast&#8217;s selection of a programming lineup.&#8221; But today&#8217;s ruling allows ESN&#8217;s lawsuit against Comcast to proceed as well.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: blue;\">\u2026\u2026\u2026<\/span><br \/><span style=\"color: blue;\"><br \/><\/span><span style=\"color: blue;\">Charter argued that ESN&#8217;s &#8220;claim is barred by the First Amendment  because laws of general applicability cannot be used &#8216;to force cable  companies to accept channels they do not wish to carry,'&#8221; the appeals  court panel noted.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: blue;\">But while cable companies do have some First Amendment speech  protections, they are not free to discriminate based on race, the panel  said. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/text\/42\/1981\">Section 1981<\/a> of US law, which guarantees equal rights in making and enforcing contracts, &#8220;does not seek to regulate the <em>content<\/em> of Charter&#8217;s conduct, but only the manner in which it reaches its  editorial decisions\u2014which is to say, free of discriminatory intent,&#8221; the  judges wrote.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: blue;\">&#8220;Section 1981 prohibits Charter from discriminating against networks  on the basis of race,&#8221; judges also wrote. &#8220;This prohibition has no  connection to the viewpoint or content of any channel that Charter  chooses or declines to carry.&#8221;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: blue;\">\u2026\u2026\u2026<\/span><br \/><span style=\"color: blue;\"><br \/><\/span><span style=\"color: blue;\">The appeals court ruling summarized some of the claims made against Charter:<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p><span style=\"color: blue;\">In addition to recounting Entertainment Studios&#8217; failed  negotiations with Charter, Plaintiffs&#8217; amended complaint also included  direct evidence of racial bias. In one instance, [Charter VP of  programming Allan] Singer allegedly approached an African-American  protest group outside Charter&#8217;s headquarters, told them &#8220;to get off of  welfare,&#8221; and accused them of looking for a &#8220;handout.&#8221; Plaintiffs  asserted that, after informing Charter of these allegations, it  announced that Singer was leaving the company. In another alleged  instance, Entertainment Studios&#8217; owner, Allen, attempted to talk with  Charter&#8217;s CEO, [Tom] Rutledge, at an industry event; Rutledge refused to  engage, referring to Allen as &#8220;Boy&#8221; and telling Allen that he needed to  change his behavior. Plaintiffs suggested that these incidents were  illustrative of Charter&#8217;s institutional racism, noting also that the  cable operator had historically refused to carry African-American-owned  channels and, prior to its merger with Time Warner Cable, had a board of  directors composed only of white men. The amended complaint further  alleged that Charter&#8217;s recently pronounced commitments to diversity were  merely illusory efforts to placate the Federal Communications  Commission (FCC).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>You do have to admire the cable companies&#8217; &#8220;Purity of Essence&#8221; here.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Why, by claiming that bigotry is covered by their first amendment corporate rights, of course. Seriously, these are so toxic that Andrew Cuomo should be offering them multi-billion dollar subsidies. Yes, I am talking about the big cable companies: A US appeals court ruling today said that cable companies do not have a First Amendment &hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[506,470,364,407,385],"class_list":["post-178461","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","tag-bigotry","tag-communications","tag-evil","tag-justice","tag-media"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/178461"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=178461"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/178461\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=178461"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=178461"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=178461"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}