|
|
Setting the Record Straight on Net NeutralityThe cable industry is saying that Network Neutrality would violate the First Amendment because it would prohibit them from “expressing themselves” by distorting the flow of information over the Internet wires they control. Marvin Ammori has posted an interesting response. Our view is that it boils down to this: The telecoms play two different roles: as speakers, and access providers.
It is essential that companies not be permitted to use role number two to advance their own particular interests and viewpoints per their free speech rights under role number one.
We intend the comments portion of this blog to be a forum where you can freely express your views on blog postings and on comments made by other people. Given that, please understand that you are responsible for the material you post on the comments portion of this blog. The only postings that we ask that you refrain from posting and that we cannot permit on our website are requests for legal assistance and postings that could cause ACLU to incur legal liability.
One important law in that regard is the prohibition on politically partisan activity. Given our nonprofit status, we may not endorse or oppose candidates for elective office. That means we cannot host comments on our site that show a preference for one candidate or party. Although we in no way wish to discourage you from that activity elsewhere, we ask that you not engage in that activity on our website (or include links to other websites that do so). Additionally, given that we are subject to very specific rules concerning the collection of personally identifying information through our website (names, email addresses, home address, financial information, etc.), we ask that you not use the comments portion of this blog to solicit this information from users of our website. We also ask that you not use the comments portion for advertising or requests for legal assistance, and do not add to your comment links to other websites, as we cannot be responsible for the content on other websites. We are not able to respond to unsolicited inquiries, complaints or requests for assistance sent to this blog. Please direct your complaint or request for assistance to the ACLU affiliate in your state. Requests for legal assistance left in the blog comments will not receive a response or be published. Finally, the ACLU cannot guarantee the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information in the comment section and expressly disclaims any liability for any information in this section. 10 Responses to "Setting the Record Straight on Net Neutrality" |
|
|
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 |
Dec 12th, 2009 at 9:45am
Merry Christmas to everyone at the ACLU.
Dec 12th, 2009 at 5:04pm
The constitution protects citizens, and and ISP is not a citizen. As far as I can see this is clear and obvious. And we now can watch the spin....
Dec 12th, 2009 at 8:35pm
Corporations are not people.
Dec 12th, 2009 at 9:41pm
The Internet is not public property. Telecommunications companies have spent billions of dollars on network infrastructure all over the world. They did so in the hope of selling communications services to customers willing to pay for them. The government has no right to effectively nationalize ISP’s by telling them how run their networks. Proponents of net neutrality love to invent hypothetical scenarios of ways companies could abuse customers. It is true that a free society gives people the freedom to be stupid, wrong, and even malicious. The great thing about capitalism is that it also gives people the freedom to decide whom they want to do business with. A socialized Internet takes away that freedom and turn it over to politicians and lobbyists. Why do “net neutrality” advocates ridicule politicians for comparing the Internet to a “series of tubes,” and then trust them to regulate it?
Dec 12th, 2009 at 10:28pm
Oh that's weird...won't distorting the flow of the internet for certain websites kind of violate the owners of those websites First Amendment?
Dec 13th, 2009 at 2:18am
I agree with this completely. Imagine if your electricity company cut you off because you were using their electricity in a way they deemed unacceptable?
Dec 13th, 2009 at 4:05am
Their free speech claim is absolutely absurd.
Dec 13th, 2009 at 4:29am
I'm really mystified by this whole discussion. Why cannot the ISPs be allowed to choose: Either they take full editorial responsibility for all the traffic in their nets, or they don't. If they want to relate to the contents of their network, they also take the full responsibility for any breach of laws or contracts which that content may be involved in. They will then no longer be an ISP in the current sense, so they will need to update all contracts with their customers as well, but that should be a small matter to fix.
Dec 13th, 2009 at 8:47pm
If you say you protect freedom of speech, how come you outlaw schools talking about Christmas? That's not right...
Dec 15th, 2009 at 10:13am
Interesting re: point number 2 that Google Voice *IS* in fact deciding what calls can be made over the phone by blocking calls to certain phone numbers.