Setting the Record Straight on Net Neutrality
The 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.
- Internet service providers (ISPs), including cable and telecom companies acting as such, provide information and services. They deliver video feeds and web pages and other content of their own. That is fine and in that regard, they absolutely do have a First Amendment right to provide whatever content they want to provide, or not provide.
- But ISPs also play another role: they perform the public function of controlling the wires through and across which everyone’s speech flows. When they control the pipes, it is a free-speech imperative that they do that in a non-discriminatory way – just like the phone companies can't decide what calls can be made over the phone - to ensure that free speech belongs to all.
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.
Dec 12th, 2009 at 10:45am
Merry Christmas to everyone at the ACLU.
Dec 12th, 2009 at 6:04pm
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 9:35pm
Corporations are not people.
Dec 12th, 2009 at 10:41pm
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 11:28pm
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 3:18am
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 5:05am
Their free speech claim is absolutely absurd.
Dec 13th, 2009 at 5:29am
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 9:47pm
If you say you protect freedom of speech, how come you outlaw schools talking about Christmas? That's not right...
Dec 15th, 2009 at 11:13am
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.
Post new comment