Where do we draw the line to preserve equality and safety for everyone?

Renee Bach moved to Jinja, Uganda at just 18 years old to found her NGO, Serving His Children (SHC). The young missionary sought to help children battling malnutrition, and, on the surface, her commitment to improving their lives was undoubtedly admirable. Nevertheless, it soon came out that Bach “was actively practicing medicine on children that came to the center.” Bach, whose choice of medical training was none other than video-sharing website Youtube, jeopardized the lives of all the children she treated. Later, it was discovered that she would even abduct children from medical institutions and bring them back to her center to treat.

When activists tried to hold her accountable for her wrongdoings, Bach’s supporters dubbed them “the enemy” and defended her work by explaining it was just her “calling from God.” After much protest, SHC was eventually shut down in 2015, but even today, there still hasn’t been a full investigation into Bach’s actions. After all of the crimes she committed, she got off unscathed and left an innumerable amount of kids dead.

But it was all in the name of God, so it’s fine. Right?

Spoiler: no, it’s not.

Bach and her supporters used her God to rationalize her horrendous actions. The kids she treated were not necessarily of the same religion as her, yet they paid the price for her religious calling. Furthermore, even if they were, she put their lives in danger (and took some of them) by just asserting that her religion was the motive for her work. Bach took advantage of the fact that if someone got in the way of her work, it would look like they were violating her right to practice religion, ultimately averting attention from the atrocities she was committing.

Unfortunately, Bach is not alone in the act of using her religion to further her own agenda. Recently, I came across a blog post in which author Megan Redshaw taught anti-vaxxers how to get a religious exemption. In the post, she said when you are requesting an exemption, “[anytime] you find yourself talking about anything other than your religious beliefs, start over. No talking about the effects of toxins on the body. No talking about politics… your argument needs to be religion-based, so stick to the Bible.” Acknowledging the existence of other, but more likely to be rejected, reasons, she encourages readers to manipulate school administrators with something they can’t say no to: a religious appeal. If they did, who knows what kind of litigation they would get tied up in. You can’t prevent someone from practicing their religion. That’s simply unconstitutional.

Redshaw even gives readers a line they could essentially copy word for word in their requests: “[I am] objecting to vaccines because [I] believe in and follow God and the principles laid out in His Word and [I] have a deeply held belief that vaccines violate them.” Manipulation at its finest.

As mentioned before, freedom to practice religion exists in many countries such as the United States. However, when it puts the lives of every child in the school at risk, concerns should arise. The right to practice one’s religion ends when it starts to harm others. Additionally, the fact that an article was needed to be written to train people to write an exemption email is proof that in this case, religion is just a tool to further an agenda and isn’t the true concern in this scenario.

Like with Bach’s organization, religious exemptions don’t just affect the people who ask for them; they affect every single person that comes into contact with that person and their families (if the family members are also exempted). The ability of people to just say no to vaccines by utilizing tenuous religious logic puts so many people in danger and has caused countless outbreaks of easily preventable diseases such as the recent measles outbreak in New York. In that case, the emergency spurred Governor Andrew M. Cuomo to eliminate religious exemptions, but many other have yet to follow in suit.

These two examples demonstrate people’s usage of their own religion to, even if not intentionally, harm others. Unfortunately, the extent of religion’s role, even in secular societies, doesn’t end there. Religion has infiltrated the political sphere in numerous countries and has harmed the lives of countless individuals. A prominent example is the use of Christian (and other religious) scriptures to rationalize death penalties for, hate crimes towards, and traumatic therapies for the LGBTQ+ community.

LGBTQ+ people just want to love who they want to love and identify with their true gender, but God doesn’t seem to be having any of that. In the Bible, the lines “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act” (Leviticus 20:13) appear, urging Christians to only engage in sexual acts with those of the opposite sex.

Though the interpretation of this line is heavily disputed as the word “homosexuality” didn’t even show up in English Bibles until 1946, and some argue that male means “boy” (so the line would condemn pedophilia), the common interpretation of this line (along with others that are said to denounce homosexuality) has fueled outrage towards the mere act of identifying as a different gender than that assigned at birth or having so-called “unconventional” sexual/romantic orientations.

Although there have been many advancements in LGBTQ+ rights such as the recent legalization of same-sex marriage in Taiwan, engaging in acts of homosexuality is still illegal in 35% of countries. And even in that 65% of countries that don’t ban homosexuality itself, many have retaliated against LGBTQ+ people in other ways such as even upholding LGBTQ+ discrimination when doing things as simple as buying a wedding cake.

That’s right. Last year, a Supreme Court case in the U.S., Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, addressed the question of whether a bakery owner, Jack Phillips, could deny a gay couple’s request to make their wedding cake on the basis of his own religious beliefs. Although the Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled that Phillips had engaged in discriminatory actions, Phillips appealed to the state (which agreed with the Commission) and then the Supreme Court which actually reversed the Commission’s ruling on a 7–2 decision. SCOTUS ruled in favor of the baker, a win for him but a huge setback for the LGBTQ+ community.

In this situation, it may seem trivial. Just a wedding cake, right? But, the anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric spreads even farther with the religious right pushing others (including politicians) to deny gay couples the rights to adopt a child, ban transgender people from going to the bathroom of the sex they most closely identify with, and even kick their own children out of their house.

While in the last example, the child likely adheres to the same religion as their parents, it still doesn’t excuse the fact that someone’s religious ideologies could triumph over their love of their child or the fact that that child is now in danger because of their parent’s religious beliefs. And in other situations where the recipient of the hate might not adhere to the same religion, why is it okay?

How come a certain person’s religious beliefs can dictate how another person lives their life? Especially since someone’s gender identity and sexual/romantic orientations does not affect the lives of those who don’t want to get involved. If two people are in a same-sex marriage, it has no effect on those around them. Those other people aren’t in the marriage, so who those two people love does not affect their lives. While relatives may be involved, it’s not their relationship, and either way, that question is something for the family to discuss, not something for the law to answer.

Overall, the relationship between religion and politics, daily lives, etc has been blurred over the course of many years. Though in countries such as the U.S., the church and state are purportedly separate, debates about topics such as LGBTQ+ rights, sex education, and more stem from the anger that religious adherents feel about a contradiction with their religious ideologies — not others’. And of course, let’s not forget those who go off to disrupt and even destroy others’ lives because of their so-called callings. Like Renee Bach and anti-vaxxers. Or that guy who followed his “calling” to a prohibited island to convert its inhabitants to Christianity (and lost his life as a result). Talk about going to extremes.

There are ways to overcome these issues, of course. While most of it likely should be done at the state or national levels, there is still much for individuals to do. For those who follow a religion, be proud of the beings and ideologies you believe in but don’t forget that not everyone believes in the same ideals as you. When you act upon your beliefs, recognize where its effect on you ends and its effect on others starts. It’s an amazing thing to believe in the existence of a more powerful being, but remember that it’s your responsibility to ensure that your beliefs don’t end up hurting others. So, let’s do away with using “in the name of God” as an excuse and choose “in the name of love” instead. Or “in the name of dogs.” Either works.

This trend reveals systemic negligence within our own government

Recently, Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk pledged to help the residents of Flint with their water crisis. Musk suggested “a weekend in Flint to add filters” to houses that lacked them. However, as pointed out by Flint Mayor Karen Weaver, the solution to their problems requires “reestablishing trust, and rebuilding trust,” something that Musk does not take into account. The act of showing citizens that their government will keep them safe is crucial to resolving the issues that have plagued Flint because, as indicated by the lack of aid provided by the government when findings of water contamination surfaced, the dangers that they face every day are not the government’s first priority.

How The Flint Water Crisis Played Out

Here’s a little bit of background. The problem first arose in 2014 when the water source for the city switched from Lake Huron and the Detroit River to the Flint River in order to save money. Soon after, there were findings of bacteria in the water. To solve the problem, city officials told residents that they would flush the pipes and add more chlorine to the water. Six days later, residents were told that the water was safe for them to drink. However, a month later, the bacteria, which indicated that E. coli or another disease-causing organism could be in the water, reappeared. Officials executed the same solution as before and, just four days later, told residents that they could safely drink from the tap again. Unfortunately, their solution lead to another problem.

In early 2015, citizens were warned that byproducts of the disinfectants that were used the previous year could actually increase their risk of cancer, but no efforts were taken to fix this situation. Although the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD) offered to switch the water source back to Lake Huron, city officials declined, saying that water rates could go up even with a reconnection fee waiver. That was a mistake.

Just days later, residents brought jugs of discolored water to a community forum, and reports emerged, saying that children were suffering from unknown illnesses and were starting to develop rashes. Fortunately, action was taken to resolve this issue: Governor Rick Snyder announced a 2 million dollar grant to fix the problems in the pipes and sewers. This solution didn’t seem to do the trick because about a month later, Flint resident Lee-Anne Walters reported that she had detected dangerous levels of lead in her home’s water. She contacted the EPA with her concerns, and tests indicated that her water had 104 parts per billion of lead (ppb) although the EPA’s limit is 15 ppb. The next month, she followed up with another test which revealed that the lead levels in her water had nearly quadrupled to 397 ppb.

Finally, a few days later, the Flint City Council members put the water source up to vote, and on a 7–1 vote, decided to stop using water from the Flint river. However, Jerry Ambrose, who had been appointed by the state to manage the emergency, overruled the vote, saying that it “water from Detroit is no safer than water from Flint.”

Nevertheless, Walters persisted. Three months after that, in June 2015, another test found that the lead level of the water in her home was as high as 13,200 ppb. To put this in perspective, water with 5,000 ppb of lead is classified by the EPA as hazardous waste, and the levels in her home were more than double that. These findings were put in a memo by an EPA manager that month which included three other homes with these extremely high lead levels. However, yet again, no action was taken as even after the EPA memo was leaked a month later, a spokesman for the MDEQ told Michigan Public Radio, “anyone who is concerned about lead in the drinking water in Flint can relax,” citing initial testing on 170 homes which indicated that the problem was not widespread.

However, two months later in September 2015 after Virginia Tech concluded that Flint’s water was 19 times more corrosive than Detroit’s water, the state was recommended to declare the water unsafe as the river water was corroding old pipes and the lead from them was ending up in the water. So, after putting out a statement, the state started taking some action. About a month later, it began testing the residents’ drinking water in schools and distributing free water filters.

However, these two years of unsafe drinking water had already resulted in 12 deaths, more than 87 sick people, and thousands of kids who would permanently be affected. The lead in the water could cause cognitive impairment, ADHD, aggressive behavior, memory loss, kidney dysfunction, and more in children. The effects of this poisoning are irreversible, and in some cases, fatal.

Fortunately, in January 2016, President Barack Obama was alerted of what was happening in Flint by Governor Snyder who requested that the president declare an expedited major disaster. Snyder estimated that it would cost $55 million to install lead-free pipes throughout the city. Unfortunately, the president declined to declare what was happening as a major disaster, but he did authorize 5 million dollars in aid and declare a state of emergency in the city which allowed the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to step in.

Eventually, after two years of using bottled water and filters, Governor Snyder announced that the water quality in Flint had been restored. His proclamation ended the free bottled water and filters in Flint although the city would continue to distribute them until the current supply ran out. However, the pipes will not be fully replaced until 2020, so activist groups are petitioning for the government to continue providing water to Flint’s citizens.

What is unfortunate is all of this could have been resolved within the first few months if government officials listened to Flint’s citizens. However, instead of recognizing that there was truly an issue, officials used short-term solutions that later caused more problems or just disregarded the findings. Ironically, in November 2017, despite city officials’ concerns over rising water costs if the water source was switched from the Flint river, the council ended up voting to enter into a 30-year contract with the Great Lakes Water Authority (GLWA) which would do exactly that. While the problem will eventually be fully resolved when the pipes are replaced, the solution could have come much sooner if the government just listened to its civilians.

Beyond Flint

However, Flint is not the only city where lack of government action in the face of a drinking water crisis proved to be detrimental to the health of citizens. In 2014, Carmen Garza, a current resident of East Chicago, Indiana who loved to grow tomatoes and chilis, was alerted by her neighbor that the dirt she was growing her vegetables in was contaminated. By what? Lead. To make matters worse, it wasn’t just the dirt that was infected. It was the drinking water too. It turns out that the contamination occurred because East Chicago is currently located on what used to be the USS Lead Superfund Site which ran until December of 1985. A 1985 inspection report reveals that the EPA was aware of the contamination since the facility’s closure, but the site wasn’t placed on the national Priorities List of the worst contaminated sites in the country until 2009. That is a whole 24 years later.

Although soil testing and clean up efforts started that year (2014), a Chicago Tribune investigation from December 2016 confirmed that government officials had known about the dangers in East Chicago for decades. It also wasn’t until May 2016 when soil data reached city officials. At that time, officials finally started to realize the magnitude of the issue; they found that some backyards had lead levels higher than 45,000 parts per million which was much higher than the federal limit of 400 parts per million.

“It leaves you thinking they really don’t care about us.”

In 2017, all 1,100 residents of the West Calumet Housing Complex, where Carmen Garza lives, were being forced to move out so that the city could demolish the building and study the lead in the soil on which the complex sits. As of now, a solution still hasn’t been found, and residents are urging the EPA to help them. The lack of government action after officials were alerted of the high lead levels in 1985 and the little help citizens have received now has left them wondering “Why?” As David Dabertin, a Hammond attorney who led the state environmental agency’s northwest Indiana office during the early 1990s, put it “It leaves you thinking they really don’t care about us.”

Like Flint, the alarming lead levels in the drinking water were dismissed by the government even when the contamination started affecting civilians. What happened in East Chicago demonstrates how much a lack of government action can harm civilians. It’s not okay for the government to just disregard the lives of its own civilians and not address the harms that are present in their lives.

Unfortunately, these two instances aren’t the only examples of drinking water crises. A 2016 Reuters investigation also found that there were thousands of localities with worse lead levels than Flint, and USA Today found that in the past decade, 63 million Americans were exposed to potentially contaminated drinking water — that’s nearly one fifth of the U.S.’s entire population. Places such as St. Joseph, LA and Sebring, Ohio have suffered because the government failed to show up and do its job.

The government’s apathy will only take a toll on the public and destroy any faith that they might have in it. Here’s to hoping that they learn their lesson and start treating us with the respect we deserve.

Julia Biswas is a contributor at Rantt Media who primarily covers racial and gender discrimination. She is passionate about fighting inequality both in the United States and around the world.

This article was originally published on Rantt.com

© 2018 Rantt, Inc.

After Years Of The Flint Water Crisis, Thousands Still Don’t Have Clean Water was originally published in Rantt Media on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Catcalling is taking its toll on millions of women, yet many people (perhaps even you) don’t care

I remember it almost like it was yesterday.

He whistled and yelled out “Hey there, cutie. Where do ya think you’re going?”

I was only twelve years old, and I didn’t understand this encounter. Who was this man? I didn’t know him. But, I knew that I didn’t like him talking to me.

I was attending summer classes in a new city and had stayed late after class, so I had to walk the few hundred feet to my dorm by myself. The man was sitting on the set of steps I was headed towards, and a few minutes after I left the building where my classes were, he catcalled me. Realizing there was only one path to my dorm, I began to quicken my pace, wanting to get away as fast as possible. Halfway up the stairs, I heard his jacket rustle, and I broke into a full sprint, running as fast as I could to my dorm. In the background, I could hear his ugly laugh.

A few minutes later, I burst in through the door. People were sitting in the lounge room, but no one noticed as I, out of breath, turned to go up the stairs to the rooms.

When I reached my room, the lights were off, and I assumed that my roommates were downstairs. When they came back later that night, I didn’t tell either of them because I didn’t want to worry them. But, the next day, it came up when I was talking with one of my friends who I had met earlier that summer.

I told her about the guy, but she just shrugged her shoulders and asked “Was he cute?”

Though I was appalled, I didn’t say anything. She didn’t seem to think it was a big deal.

Later that day, I looked up “creepy male strangers calling women cute,” and the results were several articles and stories about instances of catcalling. That is how I came to learn about this danger that is ever-present in our society.

Street harassment has been around since the beginning of time, yet there are still many people who don’t see it as a problem.

“Come on, he’s complimenting you,” they would say.

But, that’s disgusting. A 2015 study found that, across women from 22 countries, 84% of women have experience street harassment by the age of 17, proving that my story is not just an exception. Think about that. We aren’t even adults, yet we have already been subjected to the sick pleasures of men (by the way, this doesn’t mean that it’s okay for grown-up women to be catcalled).

As young girls turn into adults, the so-called “compliments” turn into physical harm. A report from earlier this year concluded that 81% of women have experienced sexual harassment in their life. That’s outrageous: even after the interactions have turned physical, there are many who still don’t believe the stories of victims who are just trying to get help.

Following the rise of the #MeToo movement, more women have been coming forward with their experiences, trying to build solidarity to confront this issue. However, at the same time, many women are still silenced. Whether their abuser was a boss, supervisor, or even family member, it’s difficult for many women to speak out.

If we don’t teach men that they cannot treat women like objects, they will continue to harm women, using their power or relationship with the victim. They need to learn that even these smaller acts of harassment are not okay, and they cannot continue to violate the rights of women because we deserve to be able to live without fearing these interactions.

There are so many people who still don’t recognize how big of a deal street harassment is. For me, even three years later, I still feel the fear that I had in that moment. I can’t walk anywhere by myself without being scared that something like that will happen. Not only do I feel uncomfortable, but I also know that there is a chance that an incident like what happened a few years ago could easily escalate. And even in a professional setting, knowing that there are men like Harvey Weinstein still out there, it’s impossible to ever feel safe.

Take a look around you, and see what the men in your lives are doing. Are they respecting women? Or are they treating women like objects, thinking that it’s okay? Even if they are your loved ones, remind them that it’s not okay. Let’s make the change that is needed because without it, women will continuously face sexual assault each and every day. Together, we can build a society that understands that catcalling and other forms of assault are not okay and one that is free of these dangers.

I didn’t start coding until the summer before my freshman year in high school. Computer science didn’t seem like something I would like as I was more interested in humanities subjects. The lines and lines of code fazed me, and I wondered how I could possibly learn to write my own programs.

But, I decided to give it a try anyways. As a Silicon Valley native, I’ve grown up in a place where technology is the center of everything, so it kind of just made sense. I decided that it couldn’t hurt to try it out, so I enrolled in a six-week summer introduction to programming course. To my surprise, I loved it.

It was like learning a new language, but you could do so much more with it. You could program words to be printed out, pictures to be drawn, and calculations to be made. In more advanced levels, you could make an app, or even write algorithms for face detection. The possibilities were endless.

Coding also helped me develop important problem solving skills that I could use for other purposes. For example, I learned several methods for sorting a list of numbers, something that could be applied to everyday tasks such as alphabetizing a stack of papers. Although a pretty simple job, the expertise I gained in my computer science classes made doing that so much more efficient.

In addition, coding helped me become a more patient person as when I started, I would get frustrated when there were errors. However, I eventually learned to be patient with myself and my programs because I knew it would work out in the end. Oh, and when it did, the feeling I got was amazing.

But, if my experience has not convinced you yet, let me point one thing out. We’re living in a world that is extremely tech-focused, and our reliance on technology is only growing. Coding can be applied to almost any industry whether it’s medicine, politics, art, or something else. What we could do with the power of coding has no limit: new investigation algorithms for police, stronger election systems, and maybe even the cure for cancer.

Overall, coding can give you the power to do anything, and, to be honest, it has started to become a rudimentary skill that professionals should learn in order to be successful in their respective industries. The increase in coding interest can also be seen by the over 40,000 student jump in AP Computer Science takers from 2010 (20,120 students) to 2017 (60,159 students). Even if coding does not seem like something you would be interested in, you should still give it a try because there is no harm in just trying. And, if you’re lucky, you might just end up loving it.

Why I Code And Why You Should Too was originally published in Code Like A Girl on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Why we need the March For Our Lives movement

Houston, we have a problem. And it’s a serious one: guns in America.

In the first three months of the year, America saw 57 mass shootings; that’s more than one shooting every two days. Ones such as the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting prompted outrage across the country, and many gathered to protest the lack of gun control. The March for our Lives is a prominent example with over 800,000 people attending the one that occured in Washington, D.C.

Yet, the government has failed to implement the necessary changes to keep its citizens safe. I mean, really? Arming teachers and making students at MSD use clear backpacks? I don’t think so. They’re just a path to disaster and a privacy invasion. And if you think about it, in an age where police will shoot first and ask never, is it really safe for teachers, especially ones of minority backgrounds, to be holding a gun? It’s not.

I’m a high schooler, and when I see news about school shootings, I think to myself. What if it was me? What if it was my sister? What if it was my friends? How can I be sure that we will all be safe when we go to school every day?

I’m disgusted by the lack of governmental action taken on gun control. There is no reason for people to own guns. If no one had guns, then there would be no problem in the first place. The answer to gun violence is not to pull out a bigger one, but to take away the other person’s.

We need to think logically and put the rights of the people above the rights of guns. And only then, we will be able to move towards a safer future.

If you support the #NeverAgain movement, please share this article to spread more awareness of the problems we face as a society.

Explaining the disastrous consequences of the repeal of net neutrality

Net neutrality is the idea that internet service providers should not block specific content based on user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication. Enforced by Obama, it has ensured that Americans are given access to all information and data, regardless of the source.

However, last week, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) repealed net neutrality, reversing the rules that increased oversight over broadband providers in 2015. Despite the wishes of the 83 percent of Americans who opposed the action, the decision was made on a 3–2 vote; Trump-appointed FCC chief Ajit Pai and commissioners Brendan Carr and Michael O’Rielly voted for it, and commissioners Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel voted against it.

Netflix US on Twitter

We're disappointed in the decision to gut #NetNeutrality protections that ushered in an unprecedented era of innovation, creativity & civic engagement. This is the beginning of a longer legal battle. Netflix stands w/ innovators, large & small, to oppose this misguided FCC order.

The decision has received a great deal of backlash, and companies like Netflix, Amazon, and Facebook condemn it. As Netflix tweeted, “This is the beginning of a longer legal battle. Netflix stands w/ innovators, large & small, to oppose this misguided FCC order.” It is also seen as a harm towards Americans as, according to Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, “An open internet is critical for new ideas and economic opportunity — and internet providers shouldn’t be able to decide what people can see online or charge more for certain websites.”

To the relief of many, a few actions will be taken to try and overturn the FCC’s action. The first is a bill that Sen. Ed Markey (D-M.A.), on Thursday after the FCC vote, announced that he, along with 19 other senators, would introduce. Furthermore, he explained that Rep. Mike Doyle (D-P.A.) would introduce a companion version to the House.

Additionally, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) announced on Friday that he intends to force a vote on it in order to overturn the FCC decision. It will be done using the Congressional Review Act (CRA) which gives Congress the ability to repeal agency rules. Schumer, in a press conference at WeWork’s headquarters in New York, stated that,

“One, this CRA doesn’t need the support of the majority leader. We can bring it to the floor and force a vote. So, there will be a vote to repeal the rule that the FCC passed.”

Although the Republican majority in both chambers would lower the odds of passing the bill, there have been a few GOP members, one being Sen. Susan Collins (R-M.A.), that oppose the FCC’s move. Net neutrality supporters intend on pressuring lawmakers to help pass the bill, but it is unclear how many Republican lawmakers will vote for it. As summarized by Markey, the bill will present an important choice to lawmakers who will either “be on the right side of history and stand with the American people who support net neutrality, or hold hands with big corporations who only want to increase their profits at the expense of consumers and our economy.”

In addition, eighteen state attorneys, including Washington and New York have proposed an investigation over the almost 11 million fake comments that supported the FCC decision using stolen American identities which were revealed on Wednesday. New York’s Eric Schneiderman has also announced that he would lead a multi-state lawsuit against the FCC. Other attorney generals have announced their opposition to net neutrality such as Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson who explained that,

“Allowing internet service providers to discriminate based on content undermines a free and open internet.”

The future of net neutrality is uncertain, and in the event that the FCC decision is not overturned, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) would be allowed to control the content that their consumers can view, charge various content providers differing amounts, and even block certain ones as well. It would increase the costs for consumers since content providers would transfer the costs to their customers. This repeal could also reduce the services available if content providers cannot pay the fees that the ISPs charge.

As a high school student who needs the internet for school and learning, I am outraged at the blatant disregard for our internet rights. Although that sounds like a trivial problem as I know many people do not have internet access, the fact that our government is okay with letting big companies control our use of the internet proves that they value big corporations over the rights of their own people. And this is wrong.

Only time will tell what happens to net neutrality, but for the sake of our country, let’s hope that it is restored.