(Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc), the court held that a Canadian trial court acted properly in ordering Google to hide certain content from users anywhere in the world. Unless this principle is promptly restrained, it is liable to do a great deal of mischief.
Free State Foundation held its ninth annual Telecom Policy Conference, a must-attend event that consistently generates excellent discussion by leading policymakers (and the occasional academic) before capacity crowds. One hot topic this year was the BROWSER Act of 2017, a data privacy bill introduced by Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) who chairs the House subcommittee covering telecom issues. While conference participants discussed the nuances of the bill, they were too polite, or too politically savvy, to ask the most puzzling question about the bill: Why would a conservative Republican with a deregulatory worldview propose such an onerous, European-style regulatory regime on the internet, particularly after faulting the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for taking similar action only a month ago?
democracy) took a hit in 2015 when policy-driven fervor led the reluctant FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler to change course from his proposed net neutrality rules and instead impose the most draconian of price regulatory regimes on the innovative internet — Title II regulation. The general lack of analytic rigor in the underlying analysis of that 2015 order was well documented at the time (here and here, for example) and the “economic analyses” and predictions on which the order relied have already been proven false.