Does Net Neutrality Violate the Fifth Amendment?

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.'"

Comments

U.S. Supreme court governs the world?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whats with all these stories about U.S. figures determining the fate of net neutrality. There is some aura as if the United States owns the internet. This is similar to a while back when there was that story regarding the belief that the President should have an "Internet kill switch". Wake up Washington, the internet is global, its not based in any one location, and it doesn't belong to anyone specifically. Theres a reason when streaming TV sharing websites get shut down in the states they all of a sudden pop up with a .cc domain, that would be the Cocos Islands.

Re:Not all private

[Anonymous Coward]

The entire history of American Constitutional jurisprudence relies on the notion that government does not grant rights; it is constituted to safeguard them.

[sarcasm]
Why do you cling to the "politics of the past"? The Progressives have a new vision for America! They've already given us a new right to healthcare. The Constitution is just the ramblings of old white religious-zealot slave owners. This is about Social & Economic Justice! Why do you hate black people and freedom?
[/sarcasm]