WELCOME

The government argues that state and local laws that are

Jan. 14, 2019 by Paul Fletcher

The government argues that state and local laws that are "committed to achieving the public good," such as the passage of the Open Internet Order, "have been abused by the FCC, the FCC, and the Department of Justice for their stated interest in 'fast lanes' and 'fast lanes' for all broadband traffic over state and local lines"

(the government argues that the current laws are in "coercive" and "not enforceable," not to mention "harmful and unreasonable" to the "public good," and that the laws "have been abused by the Federal Government and the Department of Justice for their stated interest in 'fast lanes' and 'fast lanes' for all broadband traffic over state and local lines" )

(the government argues that the current laws are in "coercive" and "not enforceable," not to mention "harmful and unreasonable" to the "public good," and that the laws "have been abused by the Federal Government and the Department of Justice for their stated interest in 'fast lanes' and 'fast lanes' for all broadband traffic over state and local lines" )

The government argues that the state doesn't have the authority (or ability) to regulate the internet, as well as the FCC and the DOJ. The government argues that the FCC and DOJ are in violation of "the public good" and therefore unconstitutional.

The government argues that the California Supreme Court's ruling that the state's laws have been abused "has no merit, and therefore does not justify any action by the federal government."

In the case, the FCC and Justice Department filed a motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that the California law does not have the "public good" of protecting access to the internet "and therefore does not justify any action by the federal government."

The government's argument is that the internet is not a public good and therefore that the state's laws are not in either "coercive" or "not enforceable," and that the "public good" of the internet is a "right of the internet users" to access the internet, and therefore, the state cannot stop the implementation of the law.

In the case, the government argues that the state is "in violation" of the law and thus has no legal right to stop an implementation of the law or any of the "coercive" laws.

It may be that this case is not about the state and its ability to regulate the internet, but rather about "net neutrality" and "fast lanes