New York Times

Can the president change libel laws? No. Libel law is a state-law tort, meaning that state courts and state legislatures have defined its contours. Since the Supreme Court’s 1964 decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court has placed constitutional limits on how states can define libel, notably by requiring public officials and, later, public figures to prove actual malice. That protection was needed, Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote, to vindicate a “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open.” Such debate, Justice Brennan wrote, “may well include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” Changing New York Times v. Sullivan would require either the Supreme Court to overrule it or a constitutional amendment. Neither is remotely likely, though President Trump could try to appoint Supreme Court justices who would vote to overturn the precedent.

A pair of White House officials played a role in providing House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) with the intelligence reports that showed that President Donald Trump and his associates were incidentally swept up in foreign surveillance by American spy agencies. The revelation that White House officials assisted in the disclosure of the intelligence reports — which Chairman Nunes then discussed with President Trump — is likely to fuel criticism that the intelligence chairman has been too eager to do the bidding of the Trump administration while his committee is supposed to be conducting an independent investigation of Russia’s meddling in the last presidential election.

Chairman Nunes has also been faulted by his congressional colleagues for sharing the information with President Trump before consulting with other members of the intelligence committee. The congressman has refused to identify his sources, saying he needed to protect them so others would feel safe coming to the committee with sensitive information. He disclosed the existence of the intelligence reports on March 22, and in his public comments he has described his sources as whistle-blowers trying to expose wrongdoing at great risk to themselves.

For the last year or so, the music industry has been buzzing with optimism that its fortunes have finally begun to turn around after more than a decade of digital disruption and plunging sales. Now it has proof. On March 30, the Recording Industry Association of America, the trade group that represents the major labels, reported that music sales in the United States generated $7.7 billion in retail revenue in 2016, up 11.4 percent from the year before. That is the industry’s highest sales figure since 2009 and its best percentage gain since 1998. The increase is largely the result of online streaming, which is rapidly eclipsing all other forms of consumption. Streaming contributed $3.9 billion in 2016, up 69 percent from the year before, and now makes up 51 percent of the business — the first time it has had a majority of sales in the United States.

Congress completed its overturning of the nation’s strongest internet privacy protections for individuals in a victory for telecommunications companies, which can track and sell a customer’s online information with greater ease. In a 215-to-205 vote largely along party lines, House Republicans moved to dismantle rules created by the Federal Communications Commission in October.

Those rules, which had been slated to go into effect later this year, had required broadband providers to receive permission before collecting data on a user’s online activities. The action, which follows a similar vote in the Senate, will next be brought to President Donald Trump, who is expected to sign the bill into law. A swift repeal may be a prelude to further deregulation of the telecommunications industry. Broadband companies immediately celebrated the House vote. They promised they would honor their voluntary privacy policies, noting that violations would be subject to lawsuits.

[Commentary] Republicans just made clear how little they care about protecting the privacy of Americans by letting companies like Verizon and Comcast sell advertisers the internet browsing histories and other personal data of their customers without getting permission. The move could bolster the profits of the telecommunications industry by billions of dollars.

Telecom companies know a lot about what people do online because they are the gatekeepers through which people connect to the internet. And as people link household devices like thermostats, light bulbs and security cameras to the internet, these companies will have even more intimate knowledge about their customers. By comparison, people can more easily evade tracking by businesses like Google and Facebook by not using those services or by deleting the cookies those websites leave on their computers and phones. In the absence of strong privacy rules, people will have to rely on encryption to prevent service providers from tracking them. But broadband companies would still know what websites people visit. And the companies would be able to see all of the communications between users and websites that do not use encryption. Sophisticated users might increasingly rely on virtual private networks, which are used by corporations to let their employees log into secure systems remotely, and other tools to mask their activities, but most Americans are unlikely to be conversant with such tricks of the trade.

President Trump promised voters during the campaign that he would protect the working class. But now he and his party are moving quickly to do the bidding of a very different interest group: Big Telecom.

[Commentary] While most people were focused on the latest news from the House Intelligence Committee, the House quietly voted to undo rules that keep internet service providers — the companies like Comcast, Verizon and Charter that you pay for online access — from selling your personal information.

The bill not only gives cable companies and wireless providers free rein to do what they like with your browsing history, shopping habits, your location and other information gleaned from your online activity, but it would also prevent the Federal Communications Commission from ever again establishing similar consumer privacy protections. The bill is an effort by the FCC’s new Republican majority and congressional Republicans to overturn a simple but vitally important concept — namely that the information that goes over a network belongs to you as the consumer, not to the network hired to carry it. It’s an old idea: For decades, in both Republican and Democratic administrations, federal rules have protected the privacy of the information in a telephone call. In 2016, the FCC, which I led as chairman under President Barack Obama, extended those same protections to the internet.

Here’s one perverse result of this action. When you make a voice call on your smartphone, the information is protected: Your phone company can’t sell the fact that you are calling car dealerships to others who want to sell you a car. But if the same device and the same network are used to contact car dealers through the internet, that information — the same information, in fact — can be captured and sold by the network.

[Tom Wheeler was the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission from 2013 to 2017]

[Commentary] The 2016 election was unimaginable, and the particulars of Russian meddling deserve further scrutiny. But we seem to have fallen into a trap: The unimaginable, happening out in the open day after day, not only continues to dull our defenses but also creates a need to see a conspiracy big enough, a secret terrible enough to explain how this can be happening to our country. Fraudulent news stories, which used to be largely a right-wing phenomenon, are becoming increasingly popular among those who oppose the president. Each story dangles the promise of a secret that can explain the unimaginable. Each story comes with the ready justification that desperate times call for outrageous claims. But each story deals yet another blow to our fact-based reality, destroying the very fabric of politics that President Donald Trump so clearly disdains.

[Masha Gessen is the author of "The Man Without a Face: The Unlikely Rise of Vladimir Putin"]

Roger Wilkins, who championed civil rights for black Americans for five decades as an official in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, a foundation executive, a journalist, an author and a university professor, died in Kensington (MD). He was 85.

A black lawyer in the corridors of power, Mr. Wilkins was an assistant United States attorney general, ran domestic programs for the Ford Foundation, wrote editorials for The Washington Post and The New York Times, taught history at George Mason University for nearly 20 years and was close to leading lights of literature, music, politics, journalism and civil rights. Roy Wilkins, who led the NAACP from 1955 to 1977, was his uncle. Roger Wilkins’s early mentor was Thurgood Marshall, the renowned civil rights lawyer who became the Supreme Court’s first black associate justice. And he organized Nelson Mandela’s triumphant eight-city visit to the United States in 1990 as millions turned out to see that living symbol of resistance to apartheid after his release from 27 years in prison in South Africa.

President Donald Trump named Makan Delrahim, a former government antitrust enforcer and corporate lobbyist, to lead the Justice Department’s review of mergers and acquisitions.

The appointment is being closely watched because companies across industries have been hoping that the new Republican administration will be more permissive with mergers. Delrahim, who serves as legal counsel to the president, will be quickly tested in his new position by AT&T’s $85 billion bid for Time Warner. The review of AT&T’s acquisition of Time Warner has drawn speculation because of promises President Trump made on the campaign trail to block the deal. Trump’s disdain for news coverage by CNN, which is owned by Time Warner, has raised questions over whether the president may try to influence the deal. Jeff Sessions, Trump’s attorney general, has promised to block any political influence on Justice Department decisions. Delrahim, whose nomination will go before the Senate for confirmation, is expected to take a more free-market approach to his job of antitrust enforcement, according to analysts. His style is expected to be in line with mainstream Republicans.

Now that Republicans are in charge, the federal government is poised to roll back regulations limiting access to consumers’ online data. States have other ideas. As on climate change, immigration and a host of other issues, some state legislatures may prove to be a counterweight to Washington by enacting new regulations to increase consumers’ privacy rights.

Illinois legislators are considering a “right to know” bill that would let consumers find out what information about them is collected by companies like Google and Facebook, and what kinds of businesses they share it with. Such a right, which European consumers already have, has been a longtime goal of privacy advocates.