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
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!
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."
Now you'd think it'd be Virgin banning pro-choice messages...
(Silver Ringtone Thing?)
-- Insert witty one-liner here. --
The radio outrage if it had been a "pro-life" group that Verizon had banned?
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.
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."
Parent is modded "Troll" yet the gp isn't even modded? seriously?
It's either one of two things. 1) my favorite troll mods that will mod me down (even days later) just because it was me that posted or 2) it's a pro-life troll mod that hates the fact that someone might want to leave it up to someone to make their own mind about an issue rather than agreeing to Groupthink (TM).
It's really unfortunate that I haven't had mod points in years but douchebags that routinely moderate me down w/o good reason continue to have them. You listening Taco?
I see this arguement constantly, "we can't legislate against it because it will force people into "back alley abortions".
WAKE UP PEOPLE in what alternate reality do you base laws on what people "are going to do anyway"? I mean by that logic we should get rid of all of the laws against normal murder, because hey, since we can't just walk people into a "deathspital" and have them killed, we have to go and do it in an alley. That's a slippery slope if I've ever seen one.
Or, lets see, people are going to steal stuff, but since it's against the law they actually have to break in and steal it, and sometimes they, or the people they are stealing from get hurt. Lets just make stealing legal, that way people can just go someplace and say "I'm stealing this" and be given it, and no one gets hurt.
That argument just doesn't make sense.
It's one of several arguments. There are often such "pragmatic" laws. The key is often "harm to another" angle. For instance fair use is somewhat relates. It is the issues of economic harm to the producer of some content vs the rights of a end user to modify or use the content. So it is a consideration. The conflict of the control of ones body vs the right to life of a unborn child is one thats pretty cut and dry. One side is death the other 9 mo of inconvenience and a dramatic change in a person life. I wouldn't hang my entire opinion on the subject on it. As I do believe the kids right to life ought trump the mothers right not to have to deal with it. However it contribute to my opinion as it's a consequence of banning abortion.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
"I'd be more incline to be pro-life if they'd show an inclination to support the people who seek abortions but many of the pro-life camp aren't concerned so much about the actual abortion but the fact that someone had sex in a fashion they don't approve." This is simply wrong. The pro-life movement is intimately connected with crisis pregnancy centers and charities. In fact, I don't think I've ever heard someone at an abortion mill talking about "sex in a fashion they don't approve." You're much more likely to hear offers of help and alternatives. Which is good, since many women who get abortions don't really want them; but feel trapped by financial situations, "boyfriends," worry about family's reaction, etc. Have you ever seen what goes on in the pro-life movement or do you just assume we "aren't concerned so much about the actual abortion but the fact that someone had sex in a fashion they don't approve?" Because I don't think you could be much more wrong.
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.
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
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!