AT&T Denies Censorship, Won't Change Contract

Vox writes "As we discussed here a few days back, AT&T's Terms of Service has very broad language giving them the right to terminate the account of any AT&T Internet service customer who criticizes the company. Ars Technica notes that such broad language is not unusual in ISPs' terms of service, and that AT&T told them they won't be changing the contract. A company spokesman said it's not a big deal because they have no intent to censor criticism. AT&T claims to respect its subscribers' right to voice their opinions and says that the contract is aimed at stopping the exploitation of children, and other tangible wrongs. As the article notes, taking the company on faith after the spying scandal is asking maybe a little too much."

Comments

Clause not needed

[Kelson]

If all they want to do is assert their right to shut down exploitative sites & users, wouldn't clauses A (violation of Acceptable Use Policy) and B (violation of law/regulation/tariff/etc.) be enough, without clause C (make AT&T look bad)?

Re:Ok

[omeomi]

A company spokesman said it's not a big deal because they have no intent to censor criticism.

Oh, well okay then, why didn't they say so? Hell, we should give the government the right to censor too, as long as they _say_ they have no intent to do it...I mean, governments and big corporations never lie to the populace, right?

/sarcasm

then nixxing it won't be a problem

[SuperBanana]

A company spokesman said it's not a big deal because they have no intent to censor criticism. AT&T claims to respect its subscribers' right to voice their opinions

Then it won't be a problem removing it, now will it? Especially since existing tort law covers libel?

Any time someone says "oh, we don't intend to use that clause, ignore it", the correct answer is "I don't intend to take a verbal assurance you won't exercise a contractually granted right."

Any time someone insists on guaranteeing something off the record or verbally instead of in the contract you are negotiating there is a reason, especially when their statements contradict terms in the contract.

And AT&T calls checkmate

[QCompson]

Blanket censorship excuse: "We're uhh... stopping the exploitation of children!"

Blanket surveillance excuse: "We're uhh... stopping the exploitation of children!"

Blanket excuse for a telecommunication company/government entity to do anything and everything it wants: "We're uhh... stopping the exploitation of children!"

Why has this method been so effective for so long? When will the madness end?

Re:And AT&T calls checkmate

[ShaunC]

When will the madness end?

When everyone quits having children. I'm doing my part!

We claim a mile, but we'll only use an inch...

[dpbsmith]

I detest the transparent prevarications of companies (and governments and ...) that claim a mile, but say "don't worry, we won't use more than an inch." I can understand that given the fuzziness of legal boundaries a prudent corporation might want to give himself a little extra wiggle-room, but my limited experience is that whatever is claimed will, eventually, be used... all of it.

There's a wonderful scene in a novel by John D. MacDonald's book Condominium in which a an agent pushes a legal paper at a condominium buyer saying it is "just a formality." A week later, the buyer is in the office trying to get action on various construction problems and glitches. The air conditioner won't work, for example. The agent says "You can handle that yourself; contact the manufacturer." After several serious complaints have been brushed aside, the buyer starts mumbling about withholding payments and legal action, and the agent tells him that he's basically signed all his rights away.

"But you said that was just a formality," says the buyer.

"That's right," says the agent, "it is a formal, binding, legal agreement."

Re:Don't worry, we'll never use that option!

[pokerdad]

New management. I don't know what you're complaining about. You signed it without duress, and initialed the clause indicating you'd read and understood it.

Sounds like several rental agreements I've had over the years. When moving in I ask the landlord to make note of a dozen or more minor flaws with the apartment. The landlord either outright refuses (saying, we would never ding you for something that small), or says they'll do it but doesn't, then when I am trying to get my damage deposit back years later and am now dealing with a different person I lose most or all of the deposit because there is no documentation that says these little problems pre-date me.