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.'"

2 of 341 comments (clear)

  1. Re:I don't get it... by Myopic · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    For the most part, that's right. However, without knowing the exact details of the federal VAWA, here is the wiki page

    https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Violence_Against_Women_Act

    and a short quote: "...the Office on Violence Against Women has the authority to ... develop federal policy around ... domestic violence..."

    Some might say that the Feds have no authority in this realm, but there is some amount, at least, of Federal involvement in domestic battery law.

    But, let me be clear, I'm not disagreeing with your point, which is almost totally right, and maybe should be totally right.

  2. Re:Simple answer by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Actually, StarCraft II could be killing graphics cards. I know that StarTrek Online has done so in the past.