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.'"
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.
...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.
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
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
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."
""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.
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.'
Why not? I know that you aren't saying that corporations don't have free speech, because they do as ruled by the supreme court.
You are arguing that corporations SHOULDN'T have free speech. Most of the time, when people make that argument, it is mainly because they don't like what the corporation is saying. This is a stupid argument.
Other times, somewhat more sanely, people think corporations shouldn't have speech because they are large and can speak disproportionately loudly. That's slightly better, but we don't limit speech merely because of a better chance of being heard. That's not how free speech works.
Another argument is that corporations are not people, thus shouldn't have free speech. This shows a lack of understanding of corporations. If people want to get together and make a movie criticizing some politician, they should be allowed to. This is not even controversial. A corporation is nothing but a convenient way to get together and be organized. If we abolished corporations, people would achieve the same goals (probably using contract law), except we would pay more as a society to accountants and lawyers for keeping track of all the paperwork. What a waste.
So what good argument is there for limiting free speech of corporations? (Note: this case is not one, because Verizon is speaking the same way a microphone speaks.....that is, they aren't speaking, it has nothing to do with speech).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
"Corporations are people, my friend." - Thomas Jefferson
"That's a big pile of horse shit." -- Abraham Lincoln
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
In a different context though. What he meant is that corporations are made out of people and so corporate taxes are also paid by people.
WaPo transcript of the exchange:
"Romney explained that one way to fulfill promises on entitlement programs is to 'raise taxes on people,' but before he could articulate his position on not raising taxes, someone interrupted.
'Corporations!' a protester shouted, apparently urging Romney to raise taxes on corporations, 'Corporations!'
'Corporations are people, my friend,' Romney said.
Some people in the front of the audience shouted, 'No, theyâ(TM)re not!'
'Of course they are,' Romney said. 'Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people. Where do you think it goes?'
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
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.
Sort of like Union Carbide and Dow Chemical, you mean?
There are some Indians who would like to see that corporate veil pierced
""Corporations are people, my friend." - Thomas Jefferson"
Really? Can they vote? Get married?
Yes, but in most states they can only marry corporations of the opposite sex.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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?
Corporations are not "made out of people". They are aggregates of capital, nothing more. You could easily have a corporation with shareholders that are all other corporations. Mitt Romney's statement that "Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people." is demonstrably false.
Yours is a common mistake, so you shouldn't feel too bad.
And, to the extent that there are any people involved in a corporation, or working for a corporation, or on the board of directors for a corporation, they each already have individual rights.
The Citizens United case was nothing more than a law put in place by partisans with the intent of influencing current and future elections. It is enormously unpopular with American citizens (more than 50% more unpopular than so-called "Obamacare") and will be seen by historians as a matter of shame for the current Supreme Court.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
Incorrect. Congress doesn't have the authority to regulate taco stands. Or any other business that never crosses a border.
You are wrong. If you think otherwise, open a taco stand and put up a big sign saying "We only serve white people".
But that's cannibalism/murder.
The whole tax consequences point of a standard "C" corporation is they are not a pass through - that is, not all they gain has to pass through to people. An S-corp, a partnership, a sole proprietership - these are pass through entities. Eventually is a very slippery word in the way it's being used by Romney and the rest, as in "After the Collectivist aliens from Alpha Centauri take over the planet in 3987 a.d., humanity will languish for a thousand years before the Randroid is invented to throw off the mutant overlords of Quarb and finally balance those pesky books." . By any normal definitions, not only are corporations not people, period, but there is no guarentee what they earn or control will ever pass back into the hands of people. If it ever does, those people will pay half or less the tax rate other people with the same income range from non-capital gains sources pay, and probably bitch about how they ought to get extra votes for their lesser contribution. A corp can go bankrupt, for just one example, without prior years income ever becoming subject to individual taxation.
Who is John Cabal?
Another argument is that corporations are not people, thus shouldn't have free speech. This shows a lack of understanding of corporations.
Oh, enlighten us, do.
A corporation is nothing but a convenient way to get together and be organized.
I would agree, if you would delete "nothing but". It in actuality a corporation considerably more than a voluntary association, otherwise there would be no need for corporations to exist as a legal institution. For example, corporations allow individuals to escape liability for debts incurred by businesses they own. This allows businesses to attract far more owner-investors than a straightforward partnership. For this reason corporations need governing structures that allow them to conduct businesses without having to submit every decision to potentially tens of thousands of individual partners.
And this, by the way, is why the idea of political free speech for corporations is a bad idea; it tends to reflect the interests of the management team rather than the stockholders, especially since much of the ownership can be indirect (i.e. through other corporations). This makes it impossible to keep track of the political activities of companies you own stock in and impractical to do anything about it if you don't like the position the management team is taking.
The idea that corporations have *political* rights is an ontological fallacy. Corporations have to be legally persons for purposes of entering into contracts and holding or incurring debt on behalf of their owners, but they are not legally persons for every purpose; for example they can't run for elected office. Arguing that they have free speech rights because they are "legally persons" is special pleading; nobody claims that corporations have the same fundamental rights as natural people *except* in the context of allowing their management teams to buy political influence with the stockholders' assets.
Arguing that corporations have the same rights as people because they're just associations of people is wrong, because the premise is wrong. The corporation is a distinct and artificial legal institution created for the *specific purpose* allowing a business to have a different relationship to its stockholders than an ordinary association would have to its membership.
For a legal entity other than a natural person to claim to act on behalf of some set of natural persons (be they owners or members), at the very least the management must be directly responsible to *all* those natural persons. If not, there is no reasonable basis for making that claim.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
But see, that's not true. When you tax a corporation, you are not ultimately taxing people.
As I said, it is possible, even common, for corporations to be entirely owned by other corporations.
Let me give you a personal example. I pay income taxes. I am the founder/CEO/owner of a small corporation. The corporation pays me a salary. That's my money. The money that's in the corporation is NOT my money. When the corporation pays taxes, it is not my money paying those taxes, it is the corporations. In fact, corporate charters do not ALLOW for intermingling of personal and corporate funds. If the corporation's tax bill came out of my pocket, I would be breaking the law. The corporation is an entirely separate entity. The corporation could be sued and it has nothing to do with me. The corporation could go bankrupt and my personal finances could be untouchable.
In no way, shape or form are corporations people. What we call "corporate personhood" is simply a legal fiction that allows corporations to enter into contracts.
I don't know how old you are, but my guess is you (and I) will live to see a time when people look back at this small window in history with disbelief that corporations were allowed to actually participate in elections, with absolutely no responsibility. They are not bound by libel laws, because it's political speech. They are not bound by disclosure laws, because the Republican House voted the DISCLOSE Act down.
It really is rather stunning. Thomas Jefferson would never believe the Citizens United decision.
You are welcome on my lawn.