Reverend Al Sharpton is having a rough week. The controversial civil rights activist, along with Comcast and Time Warner Cable, has just been hit with a huge $20 billion racial discrimination lawsuit. This news came among amidst rumors he’s next on the MSNBC show canceling chopping block.

The lawsuit was filed last week in a U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. The plaintiffs are the National Association for African-American Owned Media (NAAAOM) and Entertainment Studios Network, which was founded by comedian Byron Allen. They argue that Comcast and Time Warner paid activists like Sharpton large amounts of money to “whitewash” their practices by making it appear like the companies were promoting diversity when in actuality they weren’t. According to the plaintiffs, Sharpton and his fellow defendants helped facilitate Comcast and Time Warner’s “racist practices” by refusing to contract with 100 percent African-American owned businesses. The two media giants are currently being reviewed by U.S. regulators for a $45 billion merger.

The lawsuit states:

Comcast and Time Warner Cable collectively spend approximately $25 billion annually for the licensing of pay-television channels and advertising of their products and services ($20 billion licensing and $5 billion advertising), yet 100% African American–owned media receives less than $3 million per year.

The plaintiff goes on to argue that the only fully black-owned channel picked up by Comcast is the Africa Channel, which is owned by Paula Madison, the former Executive Vice President and Chief Diversity Officer of Comcast/NBC-Universal. The lawsuit alleges Madison is part of the supposed scam stating:

[Madison] was directly involved in putting together the sham MOUs and obtaining government approval for the Comcast acquisition of NBC Universal, thus creating a serious conflict of interest. In other words, aside from a channel that is owned and operated by the former Comcast/NBC-Universal executive who authored the MOUs, Comcast has not launched a single 100% African American–owned channel—by way of the MOUs or otherwise.

NAAAOM also claims Comcast used other black channels with black celebrities as “fronts” to “window dress” the truth that those channels are majority owned and controlled by white-owned businesses. Sharpton wasn’t the only one accused of receiving “whitewash” money. The lawsuit also alleges that the NAACP, National Urban League, and National Action Network had a hand in the supposed scam, signing phony diversity agreements with Comcast in exchange for donations.

In an interview with Variety, Comcast rebutted NAAAOM’s claims calling them “frivolous” while Sharpton called the lawsuit a “bogus statement from a person [Allen] who has no credibility”.

This lawsuit couldn’t have come at a worse time for Sharpton, whose MSNBC show appears on the verge of cancellation. According to the Daily Beast, low ratings have forced MSNBC to give up on trying to be the Dr. Jekyll to FOX News’ Mr. Hyde, veering away from ultra liberal commentary in favor of a more traditional type of news. As a result they’re planning to nix left-wing programming and liberal commentators, possibly including the famed Reverend’s lackluster show “PoliticsNation with Al Sharpton.” Neither MSNBC nor Sharpton have confirmed these rumors but the Daily Beast credits “knowledgeable sources at the Comcast-owned cable network” with the information leak. These same sources according to the Daily Beast speculate:

[Sharpton] could eventually be moved from his weeknight 6 p.m. slot to a weekend time period, as MNSBC President Phil Griffin attempts to reverse significant viewership slides by accentuating straight news over left-leaning opinion.

As a whole, it’s not looking too good for Sharpton, even though the outspoken reverend has weathered several controversies in the past. It will be interesting to see what evidence NAAAOM has to support their claims. If found guilty of racial discrimination, Sharpton’s career as a civil rights activist may be unable to survive the irony.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Civil Rights Activist Al Sharpton Sued For Racial Discrimination appeared first on Law Street.

Net neutrality is back on the scene in a big way this week. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently announced new rule proposals that take a middle-of-the-road approach. Rather than unequivocally endorsing a neutral internet, the FCC proposal allows content providers to give preferential treatment to certain traffic, as long as the preferred access is on “commercially reasonable” terms.

Net neutrality refers to the idea that the internet should remain open and free. Currently, internet service providers (think Verizon or Time Warner Cable, for exampled) cannot charger higher rates to certain content providers. Thus, for example, video-on-demand services offered by Verizon or Time Warner have to run at the same speed as sites like Netflix; the service providers cannot slow the internet speed when users use Netflix or charge Netflix a higher rate for equal internet speed.

While only a proposal, the FCC approach has scared proponents of net neutrality. Allowing regulation of the internet on “commercially reasonable” terms has an inherent vagueness that will likely cause service providers to progressively push the boundaries of what they can or cannot do. The current proposal gives more power to internet service providers and chips away at the framework of a neutral internet.

Alternatively, the FCC views the proposal as a more realistic compromise likely to settle the intense issue for a time. Net neutrality represents only one of many possible business models of internet monetization. Service providers argue that competition will work as a necessary check on abusive behavior, and that allowing regulation of internet speed will enhance the quality of user experience by providing higher internet speed for sites that are more demanding. Finally, service providers note that someone gets the windfall from whatever policy the FCC implements — net neutrality allows content providers to freely use the internet at the cost of service providers. Why should service providers eat the cost rather than content providers?

The FCC Proposal has raised heated debate about the merits of net neutrality — in a single day nearly 70 organizations with skin in the game lobbied FCC officials on the matter. It will certainly be interesting to see and experience the new internet as a result.

—

Imran Ahmed is a law student and writer living in New York City whose blog explores the legal implications of social media and the internet. Contact him via email here.

Featured image courtesy of [Barrett Buss via Flickr]

Imran Ahmed

Imran Ahmed is a writer living in New York. Contact Imran at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RIP Net Neutrality? appeared first on Law Street.