[Chicago] Thanks for having me!

[Nick Timkovich]

It sounds like you're conflating this with a third, unrelated title. The
argument wasn't to change "Title II", which in the context of net
neutrality refers to "Title II of the Communications Act of 1934", but to
stop the FCC from reclassifying ISPs as only subject to Title I (of the
Communications Act) laws. The FCC cannot change law, and that law only had
seven titles.

Your initial email seems to be in reference to titles I and II of the
"Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005", which I'm not
sure how is connected.

Then, title 47 with respect to the FCC usually means "Title 47 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR)" which I'm only familiar with from the rules
it sets out regarding radio transmissions, both for ham radio and ISM
bands. It looks a great deal larger though; could you help us out and point
to the specific section you're referring to:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/

Nick

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Michael Tamillow <
mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com> wrote:

> You know, I don't know that much about it. I think it may be related to
> Title 47. Maybe Title 2 should stay the way it is.
>
> I don't want to live in a world where the internet belongs to those who
> can afford it either, when there is more than enough to go around for
> everybody's true interests.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Chris Foresman <foresmac at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I’ve read extensively about the various lawsuits, etc, involving
>> Backpage, I have I yet to see anywhere they claim Title II “protects” them.
>> I believe they have appealed more to First Amendment rights and DMCA safe
>> harbor provisions. What about Title II ISP net neutrality regulations can
>> “protect” them from abetting human trafficking? I’m not asking to watch a
>> movie on the subject, and I don’t think it’s unfair to explain the
>> reasoning behind such an incredible claim.
>>
>>
>> Chris Foresman
>> foresmac at gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Aug 11, 2017, at 11:41 AM, Michael Tamillow <
>> mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> It is explained in the movie, I Am Jane Doe, which is generally a legal
>> movie.
>>
>> Backpages has been sued many times, and continues to win every lawsuit on
>> the defense that Title 2 protects them.
>>
>> Title 2 is not causing the Human Trafficking. It is just not preventing
>> it adequately.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Chris Foresman <foresmac at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> You have failed to establish any causal link between the implications of
>>> Title II and human trafficking. Please explain.
>>>
>>>
>>> Chris Foresman
>>> foresmac at gmail.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 11, 2017, at 11:26 AM, Michael Tamillow <
>>> mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I would take everything John Oliver says with a grain of salt. Looks
>>> like your analysis is most likely correct but I don't see any code, and the
>>> level of fraud seems very amatuer - including the FCC's filtering of
>>> comments. Do we live in 1960?
>>>
>>> One of the strongest outcries against title 2 is human trafficking,
>>> which is being perpetrated on and by Backpages.com
>>> <http://backpages.com/>, but they repeatedly deny it because they hide
>>> behind vague terminology. Likewise, there are some sites that have sprung
>>> up as a chance to extort people based on lewd photos. You've got to crack a
>>> few eggs to make an omelette, right?
>>>
>>> http://www.iamjanedoefilm.com/
>>> http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/parents-found-missing-
>>> daughter-backpage-fight-justice-part-44753036
>>>
>>> Google's corporate policy used to be "Don't be evil
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil>" but it seems they have
>>> succumbed to the hypocrisy of the world. Can't everyone get behind what's
>>> right? It's not changing title 2 that matters. It is how is it changed.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Chris Sinchok <chris at sinchok.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hey All,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for having me last night to talk about my FCC project.
>>>>
>>>> If anyone is interested, you can view the slides here:
>>>> https://gitpitch.com/csinchok/chipy-fcc-presentation
>>>>
>>>> My original blog post is here: https://medium.com/@csin
>>>> chok/an-analysis-of-the-anti-title-ii-bots-463f184829bc
>>>>
>>>> For further reading on this issue:
>>>>
>>>> http://jeffreyfossett.com/2017/05/13/fcc-filings.html
>>>> https://medium.com/@nhf/whats-up-with-all-of-those-identical
>>>> -comments-on-the-fcc-net-neutrality-docket-105835f59c3e
>>>> http://gizmodo.com/can-john-oliver-s-pro-net-neutrality-comm
>>>> enters-compete-1795095982
>>>>
>>>> For anyone with questions, etc, feel free to reach out, this is a topic
>>>> I am pretty obsessed with.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Chris Sinchok
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Chicago mailing list
>>>> Chicago at python.org
>>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Chicago mailing list
>>> Chicago at python.org
>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Chicago mailing list
>>> Chicago at python.org
>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Chicago mailing list
>> Chicago at python.org
>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Chicago mailing list
>> Chicago at python.org
>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chicago mailing list
> Chicago at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/chicago/attachments/20170812/e2700e5a/attachment.html>