Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Does Net Neutrality Violate the Fifth Amendment?

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the constitution-guarantees-short-sleeve-shirts dept.

SonicSpike writes "A forthcoming paper from Boston College Law Professor Daniel Lyons offers an even stronger basis for challenge: The Fifth Amendment. Under Prof. Lyons's theory, net neutrality would run afoul of eminent domain. It would constitute a regulatory taking, requiring just compensation. Under US Supreme Court precedent, any governmental regulation that results in 'permanent, physical occupation' of private property constitutes a per se taking. This is true even where the government itself is not doing the occupying. If the government grants access to other parties to freely traipse across private property, it's still a taking. In effect, the government has forced one party to give a permanent easement to another party, destroying the first's 'right to exclude.'"

3 of 341 comments (clear)

  1. Re:The title by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Funny

    The title violates one of the grammar amendments.

  2. Re:The title by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ralphie Wiggam: Me fail English? That's unpossible!

  3. Complex Answer by twoallbeefpatties · · Score: 2, Funny

    No, nix, nil, zilch, zip, nada, null, nuh uh, no way, incorrect, not kosher, wouldn't fly, not good enough for government work, good luck with that.

    --
    Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.