Slashdot Mirror
Verizon Reverses Itself On Pro-Choice News Texting Ban
fermion writes "Verizon has reacted to an NYT report filed earlier today on their decision to ban text message news clips from a pro-choice group, reversing the ban on that content. 'Text messaging is a growing political tool in the United States and a dominant one abroad, and such sign-up programs are used by many political candidates and advocacy groups to send updates to supporters. But legal experts said private companies like Verizon probably have the legal right to decide which messages to carry. The laws that forbid common carriers from interfering with voice transmissions on ordinary phone lines do not apply to text messages. In reversing course today, Verizon did not disclaim the power to block messages it deemed inappropriate.'"
One can imagine the process that led to the decision. Senior executive picks up New York Times, Senior Executive calls CEO, CEO gives order, New York Times receives correction. For any company to insert itself into such political situations is lose-lose proposition. The opposing side is only going to cheer a partisan ban that allows them to send messages while blocking the opposing side. The critics were right, the Verizon ban is a precursor of what a net without net neutrality would look like: occasional partisan decisions by corporations are rapidly reversed as the businesses attempt to eliminate themselves from the decision process.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
I don't think the notion of having one's text messages screened/monitored would sit well with most Americans any more than something similar would for voice messages. So it looks like the law will need to catch up again. Unfortunately, before that can happen I wouldn't be surprised to learn of other "controversial" text messages being quietly screened out by carriers. Obligatory dig: But of course all messages from Fox News get through! Just kidding, riiiiight?
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
You need to brush up on your dictionary.com skills. This is the very definition of censorship.
It just isn't illegal.
Of course it's censorship. Does the person have the right to refuse someone to proclaim speech on their property? Yes. But it's still censorship - denying that person their right to free speech is still censorship. It's just legal censorship. It's like saying that it's not censorship for private entities to slap ratings on movies, music, books, television, whatever. They protect themselves by calling it "optionally required" ratings. But you now can't buy an M rated game under the age of 18 because game retailers don't want bad publicity, and movie theaters won't let anyone under 18 into R rated movies. That's definitely censorship.
Take NC-17 movies - no theater will show them because they fear publicity. That's censorship as well. I know the libertarians in the crowd would love to say it's their right not to show the movie. That's very true. But that doesn't make it not censorship.
Nothing like cold blooded murder in the name of convenience...
Not only in America but also in Europe you see the rights that citizens fought hard and long for in the 19th and 20th century carelessly chucked away by people who who have no idea about the efforts and hardships it cost to achieve those rights, and the reasons why gouvernments back then changed the laws to the citizens benefits. I know Verizon is not a gouvernment but they should be utterly ashamed of themselves. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, regardless of media.
-- Cheers!
I don't usually text but isn't there some blacklist/whitelist you can set, if not there should be. Verizon doesn't/shouldn't have a right to decide who what when and why anyone gets information wanted or not, it isn't their job. Their sole job is to carry the information, not to act as information cops. it's disturbing that they thought this was an appropriate thing to do but with the wiretapping nonsense I'm not the least bit surprised.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
This confusion doubtless pops up from the countless First Amendment discussions on /.. The 1st Amendment protects us from government censorship, but not us censoring each other- so 1st Amendment rights don't help us against Verizon. Of course, just because it may be legal for me to censor you doesn't make it right.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
It's always good to be reminded that our text messages are read, our cell phone conversations are easily eavesdropped, and the government can listen to any of our communications at any time and many carriers will gladly help the government invade our privacy.
Scott McNealy said it best -- "Privacy is dead, get over it."
The issue was not that Verizon was censoring, but rather that Verizon -- at its customers' insistence -- is acting aggressively to stop text message spam.
Verizon customers pay to receive text messages. So it is not particularly surprising that many Verizon customers would object to receiving spam from NARAL even if they are pro-choice on the abortion issue. I, for one, do not want any text message spam no matter who it's from.
However, in this particular case, NARAL's spam is opt-in. Verizon's text message policy was drawn up before it had effective spam blocking; and the policy never considered opt-in. Verizon reversed itself with lightning fast speed to accomodate a changed world. How many other companies would react in a matter of a few hours?
It's not censorship for a private entity to decide not to carry a message.
It is censorship, it's just not illegal to censor someone when you're not the government in the US.
I hope a pro-life group starts a text msging service to compete with the pro-death one.
Hrt beats @ 22 days after conception.
Happy u werent aborted? Most ppl r. Yur pro-life.
Now you'd think it'd be Virgin banning pro-choice messages...
(Silver Ringtone Thing?)
-- Insert witty one-liner here. --
Take NC-17 movies - no theater will show them because they fear publicity. That's censorship as well.
... maybe complete ignorance of the movie's existence is the only reason), is that censorship? By your definition, it is, solely because I didn't allow it to exist. You are just watering down the word censorship, soon it becomes meaningless. What you describe above is simply a business decision. Don't like the decision? Find a business that will support your stance.
Then if I refuse to watch a movie in my own house (for whatever reason
It doesn't need to be said because it isn't true.
If you allow public speech on your property, or through your service, but pick and choose what is allowed then you are censoring people. It right there in the dictionary. It isn't a violation of your constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech, but it is censorship.
The radio outrage if it had been a "pro-life" group that Verizon had banned?
Verizon should already be ashamed of themselves for locking down their phones, crippling their features (like bluetooth, and like disallowing the use of any MP3 as a ringtone).
This is just more typical verison control-freak crap. I use t-mobile.
The laws that forbid common carriers from interfering with voice transmissions on ordinary phone lines do not apply to text messages.
Then that needs to change. Text messages are closer to speech than either campaign donations or flag burning. This isn't strictly a first amendment issue (since the first amendment only applies to the gummint), but for purposes of content voice transmission == text transmissions.
Plus, wireless carriers (in the U.S.) are a near-monopoly. If the three or four of them all adopt the same policy, then the group they're trying to squelch is completely locked out from that medium.
for text messages as well as voice, they just haven't realized it yet. If they were not a common carrier, I would be able to set up a business to do text messaging between my devices on their assigned and licensed frequencies. They need to allow all text traffic pass without filtering. They can, however, filter and restrict text messages to and from their internal network that supports their business in the same way they would filter email messages. Their perspective and the laws DO need to catch up with the technology.
No matter how you put it, it is censorship. You don't seem to understand what censorship is, like a lot of slashdot it seems.
Censorship is taking measures to restrict access to content. Be it through editing or disabling the supply chain at some point. To refuse to carry a book is not censorship, to force the book to never get published any where is censorship.
A private entity can censor something, it's just Americans seem to have this idea that if a company does it then it's legal. Well the BBC here puts beeps over words which aren't acceptable, that's censorship but the government doesn't beep it.
I swear I need to write a post out with what censorship is and karma whore it every time someone like you posts.
I like muppets.
And tell them to block all text message "news clips" and all unsolicited phone calls addressed to me. In fact, if I give someone my number, I probably add theirs to my phone book. I want my phone to automatically drop calls from unregistered numbers. I care about pro-choice issue too much for that, but spam about other political issues and candidates could very well cause me to vote against the sender who clearly lacks moral character.
They better find more effective forms of political speech to get their message out.
What do you do about the political causes that aren't powerful enough to have some Times reporter's direct line? Guess they're S.O.L.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Well, I'm probably not the first to comment on how braindead this decision is by Verizon, how troublesome it is for the future of democracy and free speach if this sort of shit is allowed to continue, and all that.
But one thing that also catched my eye was this comment by Christopher S. Yoo (a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania) from the original article: "Instead of having the government get in the game of regulating who can carry what, I would get in the game of promoting as many options as possible. You might find text-messaging companies competing on their openness policies."
What's there to compete for? Either you are open, or you are not. If you have the choice between a simple law amendment that mandates phone-companies to not discriminate upon content, regardless of media-type (and not just voice as it is today), or allowing carriers to compete in a vain hope that at least some of them will go for openness, I'd go for the simple law. This case has already proven that the free market doesn't work, if that's so: regulate!
Fucking christen extremists!
...and that is all I have to say about that.
http://jessta.id.au
Although I'm far away from the 'pro-choice' crowd, Verizon just let someone with a bit of power and no brains to make a decision. I'm glad they reversed it, one way or another.
I don't use text messaging, and generally ignore anything sent to me. I certainly hope that I'm not going to be suddenly hammered with text messages from political groups of ANY type. Have people actually started seeing this?
-- I really need to bleed off some of this
If you choose to not watch the movie that is a decision that affects only you. Movie theaters censoring affects their customers and the creators of the films. Just because its a business decision doesn't make it not censorship.
1984 was not supposed to be an instruction manual.
You are just watering down the word censorship
You are just hijacking the word censorship. Anytime anyone makes a decision that blocks what content others can receive, that is censorship. TV networks and radio networks have censors that decides what does and does not air, what they do is censorship. If you refuse to watch a movie, you aren't making a decision that affects anyone else. If you refuse to let your kids see a movie, then you are the censor.
And then you were a zombie.
If you don't think the BBC falls into the classification of a government organization then you are delusional. The BBC enjoys the full powers of the state to tax and imprison its subjects to support its operations. Its quasi-private status is just a dodge designed to make it less accountable to the public.
On the other hand you won't watch a movie in your house because you dislike the content then yeah, it is self-censorship, in the same way that refraining from saying everything that comes to mind is self-censorship. I've heard that term used on many occasions, and it doesn't in anyway water down my opinion of censorship in general. What you describe above is simply a business decision. Don't like the decision? Find a business that will support your stance. These aren't mutually exclusive. A company can choose to censor it's content, and I can refuse to business with them because of it.
I have two problems with corporate censorship. One other is that they want it both ways - they want to be able to control what people say on their medium, but not have any responsibility for it either. The other is that as communication technology evolves, all these separate mediums (TV, newspaper, telephone, mail) are converging to where everything is done over one network - the internet. Censoring what your newspaper prints, or what your store sells isn't a big deal when there are hundreds more to choose from. Censoring the medium over which all news is delivered is a huge deal.
Both of these boil down to the difference between a content provider and a content carrier. A common carrier is not liability for the content he relays, provided that he does not discriminate according to content. Alternately a content provider can be as discriminating as it wants in choosing it's content, and in the end they can live with the consequences of what they print. Both are acceptable to me. Either take responsibility for the derivative works you create by censoring, or don't censor.
(I do disagree that the GP's assertion that ratings bodies are participating in censorship. In fact they are doing the exact opposite - using the right to free speech. It is the people that restrict access to the games/movies based on those ratings that are censoring.)
what is a (.)(.) ? some bizarre regular expression? a new video game? i'm so confused.
I am more of a consumer who believes in the power of capitalism. As long as the phone company in question outlines their company policies I can make my own decision on which company behaves the way I like.
I believe in capitalism as well, however it requires you to do the details and limitations and I bet most people didn't know that Verizon would block messages they signed up to receive. I bet here's nothing in any contract you sign when signing up with Verizon saying they will block pro choice text messages.
FalconShould there be a Law?
You have the right to do whatever you want in your house. Censoring yourself seems like a pointless concept, but I guess you consider it that if you'd like. In the cases where retailers are the only locations in a town providing a product (i.e. Walmart in the Midwest) and they decide not to sell it, then it definitely is forced censorship. In big cities, you can just go elsewhee. In small towns, you have no choice.
1) dislike somebody
2) post their number on slashdot, posing as a bored housewife
3) ???
4) profit!
or is it:
4) restraining order!
"One of the eventual reactions was the common carrier rule," Professor Wu said, which required telegraph and then phone companies to accept communications from all speakers on all topics.
Some scholars said such a rule was not needed for text messages because market competition was sufficient to ensure robust political debate.
However whereas there is market competition for text messaging there are also binding contracts with prohibitive penalties for pulling out early!
Sure that web-site has content.. But so does a garbage can!
This case has already proven that the free market doesn't work, if that's so: regulate!
This IS NOT the free market. A free market requires a voluntary exchange, and I bet no where in any Verizon contract does it say Verizon will block any pro choice messages. Without such a statement it's not voluntary if Verizon does block said messages.
FalconShould there be a Law?
No, the real problem isn't that your post was controversial, it's that it contains so much common sense that it makes even those who would enslave women under the chains of theocratical bullshit hang their heads in shame.
My god! Humans are sexual creatures? Perish the thought. Lower the rate of abortion by actually supporting young, unwed mothers and *gasp* teaching kids about how sex really works*? We can't do that! Oh no! Sex is bad! Nobody has sex! EVER!
Make it mandatory to register the numbers people want to receive text messages from. That, and the numbers you got on you address book.
In other words, a white list. Ta-da.
movie theaters won't let anyone under 18 into R rated movies. That's definitely censorship.
Unless things have changed this is wrong. Growing up, under the age of 17, I was able to watch an R rated if I was with a parent. It was X rated movies I couldn't see.
I know the libertarians in the crowd would love to say it's their right not to show the movie. That's very true. But that doesn't make it not censorship.
It is censorship, however as long as it's the theatre's decision they can do so. The First amendment bars the government from censorship. If there's two theatres next to each other and one decides to not show a movie but the other one does I have no problem with it.
FalconShould there be a Law?
It is censorship. You're confusing censorship with illegal censorship. Censorship does not imply illegality, and legality does not imply that selectively deleting messages is not censorship. As with many things, this instance of censorship is both legal and morally problematic.
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
The fact that you have to bring a parent along to the movies proves my point - you can't see it unless your parent/guardian/friend approves, and the only way they know you have their approval is that they are with you. You can't be under 17 and see it alone.
I do think you're right though - it's 17, not 18.
The number of companies that support Planned Parenthood, I was quite surprised to read that it was pro-choice messages that were being blocked.
IIRC, (and that's a big if) - just recently, a network covering the superbowl refused to carry a pro-life ad because of its "controversial" nature.
Think about that for a moment. They'll advertise contraceptives and STD medications on tv on a regular basis, (Toddler voice: Daddy, what's an S-T-D?), yet refuse to accept money for pro-life advertising. You would think that any business with any advertising standards whatsoever wouldn't allow ads for something as personal as human sexuality, yet, they go on with wanton abandon. But as soon as someone wants to talk about the consequences of sex (i.e. unwanted children), they suddenly become moralists?!
The so-called standards to which Corporate America(TM) holds itself are completely arbitrary and capricious. Anyone who thinks that having any corporate control over media needs to re-examine the history of Corporate America in light of its effects on influencing the freedoms of the little guy through lobbying and oppressive legislation (Taft-Hartley, anyone?). Sure, you may be pro-choice or pro-life, but no matter what you are, it needs to be recognized that corporate control of communication networks effectively subverts the Constitutional freedoms our ancestors worked so hard to attain.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Its only spec at this point but google has said they intend to bid on this auction. Many changes could possibly happen for the good. An interesting read at http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070727_002573.html. I know he gets way out there sometimes but we can always hope
I think the policy was probably driven by worry about teenagers subscribing to information that their parents disapprove of, which could lead to parents not buying cellphones for their kids, which would of course be _bad_ from VZ's perspective. IMHO this means there's somewhat of a bias against politically/socially liberal issues, because parents are more likely to get upset about their kids getting text messages from gay groups than from abstinance groups, but most of the hate groups are right-wing, and parents would also get upset about their kids getting messages from the skinhead types.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I would say they appear to have fucked themselves. By taking steps to decide which text messages are "appropriate" for their network, are they not assuming responsibility for the content of all text messages carried on their network? The terms "safe harbour" and "common carrier" spring to mind.
Of course, IANAL, and may be full of it. But this doesn't look like a very smart move.
I don't care why you're posting AC
Amazon.com? Direct from the distributer? We live in the twenty first century ... and I grew up in the Midwest. (rural Wisconsin, Iowa and South Dakota for the first 18 years of my life)
If they're doing any filtering, it's likely to be spam filtering on email-to-text servers, if those still exist. On the other hand, the comment that text messages can be read is definitely still true.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
The laws that forbid common carriers from interfering with voice transmissions on ordinary phone lines do not apply to text messages.
Then that needs to change
As I understand it (IANAL).
The status of common carrier does not require explicit legislation. It helps. But it comes into US law via English Common Law as well as by explicit legislation. As such, they have a choice:
- They can pick and chose what messages to carry and/or what customers to serve - and be liable for the messages they carry and the actions of those customers (as an "accessory" and possibly a "co-conspirator") whenever messages carried over their network are involved. Or:
- They can claim "common carrier" status for carrying messages - at which point they must serve all customers on the same terms and carry all messages without regard to content, except as explicitly prohibited by law.
Explicit legislation setting the requirements and limits on a particular form of common carrier status simply clarifies the rules for that form. In its absence the common law rules. Common law is based on court precedent, so the rules are a bit less clear to non-judges (at least in situations that hadn't come up before). But it's no less binding.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
That's just fluff look at:
fuseaction = user.viewprofile & friendID = 108370887
text messages are sent via the data network, aren't there similar common carrier requirements for data as there are for voice?
Verizon has a lovely record of thinking what's best for its customers and occasionally punishing them as they see fit.
..to dialup from dsl as they dont want us using dsl because it costs too much for them to maintain, they also dont want us on fios because we're that extra mile they dont want to cater to.
my friend just got his connection HALVED because he was "using too much bandwidth" yet, all they do is check email and occasionally play flash games and look at myspace, and I know myspace is a whore with bwidth, but not so much that it cripples their infrastructure, like say.... I dunno bittorrent supposedly does?
Also, verizon actually tries to convince everyone in my neighborhood to "make the switch"
I'm not in a rural area either. I'm in a city, just on the border of it and 2 other cities who ironically have CO's closer than the one serving my city, but because of that they cant have us use those CO's.
But the fact they already fuck with your connection, and play games with customers doesnt shock me that they'd go as far as censoring people. Lawsuits? not to worry, their involvement with the feds ensures that the bush administration will slap down any lawsuits based on "national secrets"
Yes, you'e learned a lot about psychology from the plots of video games. I'm very impressed, and I bow before your great wisdom. *bow*
Can you please now put down that rocket launcher? Pretty please?
You definetly have a point. This argument was also brought forward when a small Swedish ISP (coincidentally, mine ISP) decided to block allofmp3.ru all of a sudden - they would indirectly "give permission" to everything they were letting through (i.e everything but allofmp3).
That's not quite right; it is often illegal to censor somebody when you're not the federal government. It's just not forbidden by the Constitution; rather, it would have to be forbidden by federal or local law.
Are you adequate?
One thing that seems to have shot over the heads of most of the previous posters was that this was essentially about an opt-in "short code", not "blocking". People have latched onto the words block, ban, and censor when they don't seem to apply. Although Verizon may have said it reserved the right to filter/block/whatever messages, that wasn't what actually happened here.
It's difficult to filter through the NYT's FUD but apparently this group tried to get a short code where you can text 'join' to 55555 or some such. A short code is not required to send text messages. Without a short code you could still compile a mailing list via alternate means and use an automated system to send your messages. I'm not sure about difficulty or cost but it's possible. At no point in either article was there a complaint that Verizon had actually blocked text messages. In fact, the group in question said that they had already been sending text messages. It does not indicate which networks were getting the text messages but it's a safe bet that this included Verizon since Naral would have been sure to mention actual messages being dropped.
For those talking about SPAM, you're off the mark as well. As I mentioned above, short codes are for opt-in services. Verizon wouldn't have been refusing short codes in an effort to protect customers from SPAM.
Verizon's policy of blocking messages doesn't sit well with me. If they ever used it to block messages between two consenting parties I'd be the first in line to string them up. In this case it looks like they were just sticking to a (really stupid) policy. I guess I could see where such a policy might partially apply to message SPAM but in that case it shouldn't really matter what the content of the message is. SPAM should be blocked as soon as it's confirmed to be unsolicited mass mailing.
So, if anyone can point me to where Verizon actually blocked any messages, that would be great. I'd love for Verizon to take as much rope as possible so it can hang itself properly.
This sig is exactly seventy characters long and a real waste of space!
The fact that you have to bring a parent along to the movies proves my point - you can't see it unless your parent/guardian/friend approves, and the only way they know you have their approval is that they are with you.
Ah but I can still see an R rated movie.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Why should they when it's so lucrative if the broadcaster doesn't act as a government proxy? At the rate of a couple of million bucks per offensive word or action per outlet, the Fucking Censorship Commission can rake in enough to pay for the goddamned war.
If these shits had the power, after each "inappropriate" transmission, they'd immediately shut down the entire country until the pervasive, mandatory, in-home surveillance systems could establish exactly how many people were "offended" so they could levy per capita fines on performers.
> The conflict of the control of ones body vs the right to life of a unborn child is one thats pretty cut and dry.
If only! Then nobody would be arguing. Am I missing some irony here?
In most of the developed world, we have given up trying to agree on the subject,
and leave it as a personal matter. But good luck to you guys in the States,
if you think arguing will still help!
...keep modding 'im down, boys! This FP troll isn't going to last for long!
Good feminists abort male fetuses
Don't know about US law but in Ireland some years back this came up at an ISPs convention (think it was IOL).
The ISP was berated for censorship for dropping alt.sex.binaries section.
The presenter pointed out it would be impossible for them to censor anything that passes through their server. Common Carrier laws forbid it. The second they start censoring anything then they become liable for all content that passes through the system. So for example at that time someone posting to a newsgroup in Ireland abortion information would of been illegal for the user would not make the company liable unless they had censored the newsgroups.
After that he pointed out that majority of bottleneck traffic was from those groups and gave the guy a URL to download them from if he still wanted them.
It was sign-up only. And no. I only get SMS from people I signed up for.