Welcome To aBlackWeb

Register

Byron Allen: 400th Anniversary Of Slavery In America; Unfortunate Comcast & Trump’s DOJ Try To Dismantle Civil Rights Statute In Supreme Court

DOS_patos

DOS_patos

Unverified Legion of Trill member
I need yall to read this.....on some frfr shit.

While everyone was arguing about Jayz and how he is or aint a sellout.......something monumental has been happening.
Here is a man fighting for our rights on a level that may seem above us.

we need to keep our eyes on this.

I am sure some of our more news educated laments term translating brothers can help us understand this.


This man needs support.



Byron Allen is founder, chairman and CEO of Entertainment Studios, one of the world’s largest privately held media companies. Allen, who is African American, contributed this to Deadline as his discrimination suit against Comcast, citing violations of the Civil Rights Act, heads toward a showdown in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Comcast/NBCUniversal and the Trump Department of Justice are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to roll back civil rights. It started with a racial discrimination case I brought against Comcast. After losing twice in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Comcast went to the U.S. Supreme Court. And now they’ve brought the Trump Administration along to take their side in the highest court, putting at risk all Americans’ civil rights for their own financial gain.

Comcast/NBCUniversal, the largest cable operator and residential broadband provider in the U.S., enjoys the image of a progressive, diverse media company, holding itself out as an organization that stands up to discrimination and gives voice to progressive viewpoints and people of color. It’s the same company that brings Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, Joy Reid and Lester Holt into your living room every day and unsparingly covers Donald Trump’s racist Twitter rants. If all you did was watch Comcast’s MSNBC and NBC programming, you would never know that the company is quietly attacking civil rights in the U.S. Supreme Court right now, in an effort to deny us a fair shot at doing business with the company and, in the process, gutting the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and its prohibition against racial discrimination in contracting.

But that’s what they’re doing. Perverting a key provision of the law that protects minority businesses at a time when people of color are under heightened attack. All for what Comcast says is in its best financial interest. While it is not unusual for a big corporation to defend itself in court, what makes this case different is the stark contrast between how Comcast presents itself to its viewers and subscribers on the one hand, and how it presents itself to the U.S. Supreme Court on the other. The very same company whose anchors, commentators and correspondents report on and excoriate Donald Trump for his racist statements, is arguing to the U.S. Supreme Court that African Americans, Latinos, and every other racial minority should have a harder time winning relief under the Civil Rights Act. And now Comcast has teamed up with Donald Trump to keep African-Americans and other minorities from achieving economic inclusion and equality.



Comcast is the defendant in a lawsuit brought by my company, Entertainment Studios, which produces TV shows and owns TV networks for distribution on cable and satellite platforms including channels in the comedy, entertainment and news genres. Like all such companies, Entertainment Studios must sell its channels to the big pay-TV distributors, like Comcast, who decide which channels to carry and under what terms. We allege that after multiple meetings with Comcast programming executives, and after demonstrating our channels’ competitive ratings, critical acclaim and distribution by many of Comcast’s competitors (Verizon FiOS, DirecTV, AT&T/U-Verse, and Dish Network), Comcast declined to carry any Entertainment Studios channels and instead carried similarly themed, lower quality channels that were not owned by minorities. We also allege that a Comcast executive explained the decision by saying “we don’t need any more Bob Johnsons” — a reference to the African-American billionaire founder of the cable network BET, suggesting that Comcast did not want to do a deal with my company because of my race. Based on this and other evidence that race was a motivating factor in Comcast’s decision not to carry my TV channels, my company sued under the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, a federal statute that prohibits racial discrimination in contracting. The law was enacted to give the newly freed slaves a pathway to economic inclusion. On June 10, 2019, petitioned by Comcast after it lost twice in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on the question of what evidence a plaintiff must show to establish a claim under the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
 
Comcast, which makes billions of dollars annually from African-American subscribers, has taken the position that a plaintiff must show that racial discrimination was the only, 100 percent “but for” reason not to do business with African Americans. In other words, Comcast argues that an African American-owned business must show not only that the defendant considered race (which the statute forbids), but that the professed, hypothetical race-neutral reasons that could have motivated the defendant are false. In this case, that means Entertainment Studios would have to prove that race was the only reason Comcast refused to do business with it, not simply a major reason. The impact, of course, is to make it much, much harder for me and other Americans, today and in the future, to secure economic inclusion.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals completely rejected this argument. It ruled in my company’s favor, not once, but twice, stating that if a plaintiff shows that race was a “motivating factor” among many in a contracting decision, that is enough to state a claim under the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled wisely. There are many possible explanations for any business decision. It is very difficult to prove that race was the only factor in deciding against doing a deal. In other areas of discrimination law, courts have ruled that a plaintiff need only prove that race was a motivating factor, shifting the burden to the defendant to show that the same decision would have been made without regard to race. That is our position and it is consistent with the language and history of the Civil Rights Act.

Unfortunately, rather than accept the judgment of two rulings from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Comcast used its enormous wealth and power to challenge and put at risk a very important civil rights statute in the U.S. Supreme Court, endangering all Americans’ civil rights in the pursuit of Comcast’s own financial gain. We should not be surprised. Comcast knows how to control lawmakers, regulators, politicians and advocacy groups. They consistently rank among the top spenders on lobbying, along with defense contractors and other large industries. One civil rights leader told us that while he opposes Comcast’s manipulative legal actions, “Comcast has us by the balls.” There it is. Civil rights organizations are afraid to speak out against Comcast, because Comcast gives them money, stopping them from doing what they were created to do – fight for and maintain our civil rights.

Now, Comcast even has persuaded Donald Trump to join them in taking a stand against civil rights in the U.S. Supreme Court. Comcast’s top executives supported Hillary Clinton for president. NBC and MSNBC criticize Donald Trump constantly. Trump delights in calling out Comcast and the rest of the “mainstream media.” But when it comes to rolling back civil rights, Comcast and Trump bury the hatchet and team up against us to make sure we are economically excluded forever.

Comcast’s current posture before the U.S. Supreme Court is consistent with its behavior over the last several years. Billionaire Michael Bloomberg had to sue Comcast for violating an FCC order requiring Comcast to compete lawfully and place the Bloomberg business news channel in the same lineup as Comcast’s own business channel, CNBC. As a broadband provider, Comcast has deployed technology to slow competitors’ video over the Internet (just ask Netflix) and when caught by the FCC, rather than reform their behavior, Comcast sued the U.S. government.


Unfortunately, Comcast has chosen to use the U.S. Supreme Court to maximize its own profits. If Comcast thinks that we are wrong, it should go to trial and make its case. It should not challenge and put at risk all minorities’ ability to prove discrimination under the Civil Rights Act that has been in place for 153 years. Meanwhile, I hope that people of conscience will let the U.S. Supreme Court, Donald Trump’s DOJ, and Comcast know, enough is enough. Dr. Maya Angelou taught us if we give them one hair on our head, eventually we will wake up bald. Four hundred years after the start of slavery in America, every day, America kills African Americans in the classroom by making sure we don’t get a proper education; in the boardroom by making sure we don’t have true economic inclusion; and in the courtroom with Jim Crow laws and massive incarceration, long before you watch us bleed to death in the streets. I hope that America takes this historic opportunity to make sure that we have equal rights for all and don’t allow Comcast — headed by CEO Brian Roberts — to manipulate civil rights laws in partnership with the Donald Trump administration, which will hurt millions of Americans, for Comcast’s own financial gain.

Coretta Scott King, the widow of the great Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was a friend of mine and I’ll never forget what she told me. She said, “Byron, as African Americans in this country, we had four major challenges. Number one, end slavery. Number two, end Jim Crow. Number three, achieve civil rights. And number four, the real reason they killed my Martin, achieve economic inclusion.” I told Mrs. King, “You and Dr. King have done more than enough, and we will pursue the fourth and final chapter, and achieve economic inclusion.” She told me, “They will come after you, and there’s nothing they won’t do to stop you.” So, on November 13th, 2019, when I am standing in the U.S. Supreme Court defending our civil rights laws and protecting our pathway to economic inclusion, I will have in my heart Coretta Scott King, who told me that this moment would come. Although the U.S. government has told the U.S. Supreme Court to rule against us, we all know that it’s not fair. It’s not fair because we will be standing there with the truth — along with the wisdom, the guidance and resilience of our spiritual ancestors. And fortunately for us, Comcast will only be standing there with just Donald Trump.
 
Byron Allen Rips Comcast & Donald Trump’s DOJ For “Institutionalized Racism” As SCOTUS Showdown Looms


Heading towards a $20 billion showdown with Comcast at the U.S. Supreme Court this fall in his long running racial discrimination lawsuit against the media giant, Byron Allen today tore into the Brian Roberts-run behemoth and an 11th hour intervention by the Department of Justice

“This is historic,” the Entertainment Studios boss said of the August 15 brief filed by the feds seeking to tighten the definitions of a Reconstruction Era statute in Comcast’s favor. “Donald Trump’s DOJ and Comcast are working together to destroy a civil rights statute in the U.S. Supreme Court.”



“You have one of the biggest media companies in the world, which has been beating up Donald Trump for racism, and now they are saying, we will work together to maintain institutionalized racism in America, in this Amicus Brief they delivered last Thursday,” Allen asserted in the starkest of terms of the now William Barr-run DOJ and its move to tip the scales for Comcast as the parties await a November 13 hearing before the nine Justices.

The newly declared emphasis by the DOJ now puts a more than 150-year law in a distinctly different light from how Allen’s lawyers have been reading it, as the Department’s filing openly says.

“Although the statute does not expressly describe the necessary causal link between a plaintiff ’s race and a defendant’s refusal to contract, the text is most naturally read to require but-for causation, and background common-law principles confirm that a but-for rule applies,” the incensory submission last week from Solicitor General Noel Francisco and Assistant AG Joseph Hunt argues (read it here).

“The court of appeals erred in concluding otherwise,” the DOJ brass state of lower court ruling in February in the huge money suit that Allen first filed in early 2015, along with a $10 billion suit against Charter Communications several months later. Comcast and Charter sought to have the matter dismissed. When they failed in that effort to end a case that they framed as a form of corporate expression, the MSNBC-owner took the battle to Chief Justice John Roberts and the Associate Justices.

The government detailed its POV by saying last week that “because ‘making’ a contract means entering a contract, a person does not enjoy ‘the same right’ guaranteed by Section 1981 if race prevents her from entering a contract that a similarly situated white person would have entered. And the inverse is also true.”
 
The feds’ brief leaning into the law to require that Entertainment Studios has to prove that race was not merely a motivating factor, as 9th Circuit interpreted the statute earlier this summer. Now, under the DOJ’s take of the stature, Allen’s lawyers could be required to prove that race was absolutely only reason that Comcast didn’t place the company’s channels on its distribution services and platforms.

For Allen, the result is a near impossible standard for Entertainment Studios or any other person or entity availing themselves of the statute as it presently stands.

“They said, we need to go to the Supreme Court and change the definition of the statute so African Americans cannot use it and we can compromise everyone’s civil rights,” Allen told Deadline of the sudden paperwork by the DOJ, offering the Comcast and their well-funded lobbyists in D.C. an advantage at the Supreme Court.

“Comcast, in the name of profits, is compromising everyone’s civil rights,” the CEO and Joe Biden-donor proclaimed. “If you think you have a good case, take me to court. Deal with me. Don’t jeopardize everybody’s civil rights.”

Contacted by Deadline, Comcast had no comment on the DOJ brief or Allen’s remarks about the filing. Entertainment Studios themselves have until next month to respond to the feds’ filing and Comcast’s own docket entry citing the Appeal Court reading of the post-Civil War statute as too broad.

Following a surprising reversal of fortune this winter where the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal essentially brought the case back to life, SCOTUS agreed in June that they would review the matter after a request by Philadelphia-based and very well politically connected Comcast.

With the initial filing of his cases in 2015 and 2016, Allen’s contention has been that both Comcast and Charter violated the Civil Rights Act after he attempted for years to get the cable giants to carry his networks, which were available to millions of television viewers through rival distributors including Verizon, the now AT&T-owned DirecTV and DISH. The African-American executive said he has been repeatedly rebuffed and jerked around and states clearly that he believes race played a factor because Entertainment Studios is a fully minority owned entity.

Both Comcast and Charter in their respective suits have said race was not a factor in the carriage deals or lack there of.

Allen and Entertainment Studios are represented in the case by a team from Miller Bardondess LLP and University of California Berkley School of Law’s Erwin Chemerinsky. Attorneys from Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP are working for Comcast in the matter.
 
The latest on this...

www.reuters.com

U.S. Supreme Court weighs Comcast appeal in Byron Allen racial bias lawsuit

U.S. Supreme Court justices on Wednesday expressed sympathy toward allowing comedian and producer Byron Allen to pursue his racial bias lawsuit accusing cable television operator Comcast Corp of discriminating against black-owned channels.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court justices on Wednesday expressed sympathy toward allowing comedian and producer Byron Allen to pursue his racial bias lawsuit accusing cable television operator Comcast Corp of discriminating against black-owned channels.

Over the course of an hour of oral arguments, however, the justices struggled over whether a lower court that cleared the way for the $20 billion lawsuit against Comcast to proceed had reviewed the case under the proper legal standard.

Their ruling, due by the end of June, could impact the ability of plaintiffs to enforce claims under the Civil Rights Act of 1866, a post-Civil War law that forbids racial discrimination in business contracts.

At issue in the litigation is the refusal by Comcast to carry channels operated by Entertainment Studios Networks, owned by Byron Allen, who is black.

The case centers on whether a lawsuit like Allen’s can proceed to trial without showing that racial discrimination was the predominant cause of the denial.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year said lawsuits may go ahead if plaintiffs can show that discriminatory intent was one factor among others in the denial of a contract.

During Wednesday’s arguments, several justices raised doubts that the standard to sustain a lawsuit should be as stringent as Comcast suggests.

Chief Justice John Roberts wondered why, if “clear racial animus” occurred at one step of a failed contract negotiation, it would not be reasonable to allege in a lawsuit that the discrimination carried through to the end.

ADVERTISEMENT

Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted that such discrimination lawsuits are rarely thrown out at an early stage of litigation.

Both liberal and conservative justices, however, raised questions indicating that the appeals court decision siding with Allen may have to be set aside and reconsidered in light of their eventual ruling.

Entertainment Studios Networks sued in Los Angeles federal court, accusing certain cable companies including Comcast and Charter Communications Inc of violating the civil rights law.

Comcast and Charter said their business decisions were based on capacity constraints, not race, and that Allen’s channels, including JusticeCentral.TV, Cars.TV, and Comedy.TV, did not show sufficient promise or customer demand to merit distribution.

Other distributors, including Verizon Communications Inc , AT&T Inc and DirecTV, carry some of Allen’s programming, court papers said.
 
MIUSA said:
no it’s not. Why the fuck do I want the government to be able to chose what content Comcast chooses to show?
Click to expand...
That's not what this case is about.

The reason this case is at the Supreme Court is because Comcast lost at the court of Appeals.

Comcast is basically saying "Byron Allen proved we were being racist, but he couldn't prove racism is the only reason we rejected him."

Allen is saying "I shouldn't have to prove racism is the only reason. It was a motivating factor."
 
Soul_Rattler said:
That's not what this case is about.

The reason this case is at the Supreme Court is because Comcast lost at the court of Appeals.

Comcast is basically saying "Byron Allen proved we were being racist, but he couldn't prove racism is the only reason we rejected him."

Allen is saying "I shouldn't have to prove racism is the only reason. It was a motivating factor."
Click to expand...
For one, Comcast carries channels distributed by p diddy and magic johnson.

“The judges reversed, concluding that Allen “needed only to plausibly allege that discriminatory intent was a factor in Comcast’s refusal to contract, and not necessarily the but-for cause of that decision.”
Lol can’t wait for the Supreme Court to deny this nigga. Comcast does not have to carry his channels.
 
MIUSA said:
For one, Comcast carries channels distributed by p diddy and magic johnson.

“The judges reversed, concluding that Allen “needed only to plausibly allege that discriminatory intent was a factor in Comcast’s refusal to contract, and not necessarily the but-for cause of that decision.”
Lol can’t wait for the Supreme Court to deny this nigga. Comcast does not have to carry his channels.
Click to expand...
Fam...


You cannot discriminate against someone on the basis of race. It is unconstitutional.
 
Soul_Rattler said:
Fam...


You cannot discriminate against someone on the basis of race. It is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
Fam what I’m telling you is that he just alleged they were racist. Tell me how Comcast could have let him down softly without sounding racist? Umm maybe your channels Like pets.tv don’t meet our standards. “So cause I’m black I don’t meet your standards what about all these others shows i subjectively think don’t meet you standards”. Oh shit ummm “i don’t think you channels will generate any profit since we already carry channels similar to your justice.tv. “ cause I’m black you don’t think people will watch?” I’m pretty sure Comcast told him they don’t have enough bandwidth since they already carrying things similar to what he offering and to not say he shit trash. But no hilariously enough if Comcast feels as if he doesn’t fit their business plan they have to pick him up anyway cause he’s black. I don’t know how his strong arming companies by either carry my channels, settle with me, or reputation is tarnish cause I say you’re racist have lasted so long.
 
MIUSA said:
Fam what I’m telling you is that he just alleged they were racist. Tell me how Comcast could have let him down softly without sounding racist? Umm maybe your channels Like pets.tv don’t meet our standards. “So cause I’m black I don’t meet your standards what about all these others shows i subjectively think don’t meet you standards”. Oh shit ummm “i don’t think you channels will generate any profit since we already carry channels similar to your justice.tv. “ cause I’m black you don’t think people will watch?” I’m pretty sure Comcast told him they don’t have enough bandwidth since they already carrying things similar to what he offering and to not say he shit trash. But no hilariously enough if Comcast feels as if he doesn’t fit their business plan they have to pick him up anyway cause he’s black. I don’t know how his strong arming companies by either carry my channels, settle with me, or reputation is tarnish cause I say you’re racist have lasted so long.
Click to expand...
He didn't just allege it, he proved it in a court of law that they were being racist!

Lol maybe you got something against the guy
 
Soul_Rattler said:
He didn't just allege it, he proved it in a court of law that they were being racist!

Lol maybe you got something against the guy
Click to expand...
His proof was that that Comcast said they didn’t have the bandwidth for his channels. They then carried 80 own white owned channels.
This.....is.....his......proof......of.....racism

even though they carry channels distributed by p. Diddy and magic Johnson. They should have just told him straight up his shit is trash and be done wit it. Can wait for the Supreme Court to over turn this fuckery. Good for Comcast for standing up instead of settling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top