Slashdot Mirror


Verizon Claims Net Neutrality Violates Their Free Speech Rights

New submitter WickedLilMonkies writes "In a stretch of the meaning of 'free speech' that defies the most liberal interpretation, Verizon defends throttling your data speed." In its continuing case to strike down the FCC net neutrality regulations, Verizon is arguing that Congress has not authorized the FCC to implement such regulations, and therefore the FCC is overstepping its regulatory bounds, but (from the article): "Verizon believes that even if Congress had authorized network neutrality regulations, those regulations would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment. 'Broadband networks are the modern-day microphone by which their owners [e.g. Verizon] engage in First Amendment speech,' Verizon writes." They are also arguing that "... the rules violate the Fifth Amendment's protections for private property rights. Verizon argues that the rules amount to 'government compulsion to turn over [network owners'] private property for use by others without compensation.'"

10 of 430 comments (clear)

  1. It's not your speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's mine. You're just part of the network. If you make it your speech, you're responsible for it. I don't think you want that.

  2. The word were looking for... by Jawnn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...is "disingenuous", for nothing fits the term better than Verizon's twisted argument that a free and open Internet can somehow be an impediment to free speech. If it didn't come from corporate lawyers, it would be unbelievable.

  3. Re:You're a company by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You're a company. The fact that any constitutional rights apply to you is because of dirty lawmaking. Kindly screw off. I *hope* you can only piss off the people so much before they realize "Hey, that's pretty dumb."

    'Cause, you know, corporations are endowed by their creators with inalienable rights.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  4. Exactly the opposite by reg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, the internet is a modern day microphone. But the network is not the microphone, it is the wire. The microphone is the content. Their argument supports exactly the opposite conclusion: Net netrality is required to protect the free speech rights of the people using the network.

    -Jeremy

  5. Re:You're a company by CheshireDragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah, but when a corporation is charged with a crime, why are they not tried and why does no one go to jail?

    When people are charged with a crime, tried, and convicted, do they not go to jail?

    --
    "That's right...I said it."
  6. Re:You're a company by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ""Corporations are people, my friend." - Thomas Jefferson"

    Really? Can they vote? Get married? Become elected officials?

    Corporations are NOT people. They were granted, by government, the privilege of acting as people in the matter of basic finance, for the sole purpose that projects too large for individuals to fund could be financed.

    There was NEVER any intent that corporations would be ACTUAL people. Further, any of these privileges that are bestowed by Government cannot be basic human rights, like free speech, because rights come naturally; they are not given to us by government. Nor does government have legal authority to take them away.

  7. First Amendment vs Common Carrier by srealm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Every person has the right to free speech. But they can then be held accountable for that speech. Thus libel, slander, etc.

    So congress introduced Common Carrier status, in which telecommunications companies could then be NOT held responsible for data that simply passes through their network.

    Now let me get this straight, Verizon is trying to claim anything passing through their network is their free speech? This raises two problems for them.

    First, if it is all their speech, then they can thus be held accountable for everything going through their network, as common carrier only applies to OTHERS speech going through them as a conduit. Meaning they can be held responsible for every libelous, slanderous, copyright-violating, child porn-downloading piece of data going through their network.

    Second, this becomes straight out copyright violation. If I post something online, it is still copyright by me. Now Verizon is trying to claim it is THEIR free speech, not MINE. Essentially violating my original copyright by asserting their ownership of it because it happened to go through their network. It would be the equivalent of Barnes and Noble asserting copyright of any book on their shelves because it went through their store (by saying it is THEIR creation, not the original author's).

    Both these arguments pretty much break down Verizon's free speech argument, without even delving into the 'corporations are people' argument. They would NEVER want either of these to be true, as it would open them up to massive amounts of civil and criminal charges. But if they are claiming that everything on their network is THEIR free speech, then one or both must be true, and they must then lose common carrier status.

    And incidentally, they can't claim the whole private property rights either, because THEY are the ones letting people use the network, and THEY are connecting to peers specifically to allow the provider's content (youtube, microsoft.com, whatever) to get to the people who are paying them to use their network. You can't complain about people walking across your private property if you are charging them specifically TO walk across your private property. If they want to claim private property, they should then simply be not allowing people to access their network, or peering with other ISPs to allow traffic to flow through their network. Of course, that then means they have no customers and no business, but it would protect their 'private property.'

  8. Re:You're a company by toriver · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can corporations serve jail time for crimes, and if so do all employees get locked up?

    Corporations are not people just because all they earn eventually goes to people.

  9. Re:You're a company by QuantumRiff · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Your answer did not really answer the question..

    If I am negligent, and somebody dies, I go to jail.. If a company is negligent (say, not training workers on safety, or purchasing the appropriate safety equipment) and someone dies, they usually pay a fine, maybe, maybe someone loses their job.. usually, the company pays a fine and admits no wrong doing.

    You were right about BP.. they paid a fine. And with Enron, the executives went to jail because they commited fraud. They did not go to jail because the "company" committed fraud. You and I don't get that option. We get to see just how "tough on crime" the local Attorney General wants to be in an election year.

    --

    What are we going to do tonight Brain?
  10. Re:You're a company by Reapman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The fact you got moded up at all is pretty scary.

    "People with common sense are minority. They should rule. People without common sense, dumb people, idiots, hillbillies, their name is Legion, should not have ANY say. That's all there is to it."

    Do you realize how many crimes in the past have been done for words such as these?

    "They are unable to take care of ourselves, it is in their best interest if we provide them civilization and a roof over their heads" - Paraphrase of what most slave owners would say back in the day.

    You are how oppresion begins.