Slashdot Mirror
FCC Falsely Claims Community Broadband an 'Ominous Threat To First Amendment' (vice.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: The Trump FCC has declared towns and cities that vote to build their own broadband networks an "ominous threat to the First Amendment." The claims were made last week during a speech given at the telecom-funded Media Institute by FCC Commissioner Mike O'Rielly. In his speech, O'Rielly insinuated, without evidence, that community owned and operated broadband networks would naturally result in local governments aggressively limiting American free speech rights. "I would be remiss if my address omitted a discussion of a lesser-known, but particularly ominous, threat to the First Amendment in the age of the Internet: state-owned and operated broadband networks," claimed O'Rielly.
In his speech, O'Rielly highlighted efforts by the last FCC, led by former boss Tom Wheeler, to encourage such community-run broadband networks as a creative solution to private sector failure. O'Rielly subsequently tried to claim, without evidence, that encouraging such networks would somehow result in government attempts to censor public opinion. "Municipalities such as Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Wilson, North Carolina, have been notorious for their use of speech codes in the terms of service of state-owned networks, prohibiting users from transmitting content that falls into amorphous categories like 'hateful' or "threatening," O'Rielly claimed. The closest O'Rielly gets to supporting evidence appears to be a 2015 white paper written by Professor Enrique Armijo for the ISP-funded Free State Foundation. That paper similarly alleges that standard telecom sector language intended to police "threatening, abusive or hateful" language somehow implies community-run ISPs are more likely to curtail user speech. But municipal broadband experts say the argument has no basis in fact.
In his speech, O'Rielly highlighted efforts by the last FCC, led by former boss Tom Wheeler, to encourage such community-run broadband networks as a creative solution to private sector failure. O'Rielly subsequently tried to claim, without evidence, that encouraging such networks would somehow result in government attempts to censor public opinion. "Municipalities such as Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Wilson, North Carolina, have been notorious for their use of speech codes in the terms of service of state-owned networks, prohibiting users from transmitting content that falls into amorphous categories like 'hateful' or "threatening," O'Rielly claimed. The closest O'Rielly gets to supporting evidence appears to be a 2015 white paper written by Professor Enrique Armijo for the ISP-funded Free State Foundation. That paper similarly alleges that standard telecom sector language intended to police "threatening, abusive or hateful" language somehow implies community-run ISPs are more likely to curtail user speech. But municipal broadband experts say the argument has no basis in fact.
where doublespeak is the norm.
Thanks to all you ass hats that voted for Trump.
That's an interesting perspective, since it's the FCC that is in charge of actual censorship.
They're the ones who won't let you swear on broadcast television, not your local municipality.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
How can it get any worse?
It's stunning how dishonest this administration has been. I mean, all politicians lie, but none have ever done it with such relish and fervor as the Trump administration, and certainly none has ever come close to the sheer volume of falsehoods. It's a daily torrent of horseshit.
"Community broadband is a threat to the First Amendment" is like saying "Republicans are the ones who want to protect coverage for pre-existing conditions," even though they've voted like 60 times to end coverage for pre-existing conditions.
I guess what surprises me most is that there are so many willing participants, like the FCC, and the GOP caucus in congress and members of the cabinet. They lie and then they laugh at you for buying it.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The sweet smell of alternative facts..... another staple of the American diet.
The first amendment protects speech from government censorship. As can clearly be seen in the Gab case, private ISPs can and do kick people off their networks, and the first amendment does not protect against that because it doesn't regulate private enterprise. A customer of a community-owned ISP on the other hand would be protected by the first amendment.
"insinuated, without evidence" does not mean it is false. It may be false. It may also be true. We won't know until it plays out.
to codify the Corporate Access to Profits, since they obviously do not want any governmental body providing a service that the corporations could glean a profit from.
Of course, they just have to eliminate any potential competitor so that they can charge us whatever they want.
Isn't that what the Founding Fathers wanted? Just ask kavanaugh
and Comcast making executive deal with HOA's with no network neutrality is ok as well?
to the first amendment; the FCC.
The greatest threat to the FCC is if lobbyists can't continue to control legislation with their generous "campaign contributions"
More evidence of malfeasance by the FCC would include the suppression of public comments on net neutrality.
community broadband gives you constitutional protection of freedom of speech from your ISP, private commercial broadband gives you no such protections (see GoDaddy vs Gab).. also messing with your traffic against Net Neutrality could be seen as potentially a 1A issue when its provided by a municipality instead of a commercial entity.
so basically its exactly the opposite of what the FCC says, sigh.. wish I were surprised.
Ajit, is that you?
I have one choice of wired broadband provider in my central FL neighborhood - Spectrum. It's overpriced, slow, has frequent outages, and they constantly send me junk mail for their overpriced pay TV services (which I have no interest in ever subscribing). I'd gladly switch to government-run broadband if it was a better value for my hard earned, rapidly inflating dollar.
The big telcos don't want their monopoly threatened, so they're spreading FUD. Hell, where I live it's all Republican-controlled anyway - they're certainly not going to ban anyone from ranting endlessly online about how much they love their guns and Trump.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
So........ municipal broadband threatens free speech? We have a thing to prevent that kind of thing.......
THE FIRST ADMENDMENT!!!!!!!!!!
What kind of fucking morons do these ass clowns think we are? Is that the intelligence level they expect to deal with?
You'd be able to smell him through your screen if so.
Yeah, I can certainly see that local police monitoring could get unconstitutional real fast, just a buddy-buddy arrangement, no need for warrants.
But as far as First Amendment rights, I'd think we'd be better off with municipal-run broadband, if it were considered a government agency. Then if a city starts blocking "hate groups" or whatever, we'd have constitutional protections we wouldn't have with a private monopoly.
Personally, I just want people to have a choice of ISPs - that solves almost everything. Make the "last mile" a utility (and just a dumb pipe). Let many ISPs, local and giant, compete for the no-monopoly business from there.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Hardly, Ajit is just a shill for corporations who want to control you to get your money. That's bad enough but government is even worse, government wants to control your actions and behavior, even manipulate you. The people behind that motivation are some combination of power grabbers, corporate puppets, and fanatics who want to impose their own political agenda on others.
The only ones who can be trusted to decide what you do and share online are the people themselves. Even access to the infrastructure should be limited to repair personnel and require public notice and transparency.
The FCC is an Obvious and Ominous Threat To The First Amendment.
But Citizens United guarantees that it is not going away.
Too bad, you lose!
or Iran Contra? This is nothing new. The difference here is that the media isn't calling him on it. To be blunt, they never do when the checks are cashing in the form of multi billion dollar tax cuts and military budgets. But that same media has been trying to get a sound bite out of Bernie and Occassio Cortez where they say they'll raise middle class taxes to pay for healthcare for months now.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
It's kinda sad that it's gotten to the point where whenever I read some statement from the FCC, I automatically assume they're completely wrong.
The main fact-checking sites (FCS) give T the worst scores ever of any major politician. If these sites are significantly flawed, then take say 15 evaluations from each and carefully explain how they are clearly wrong. (Two is not a sufficient sample size.) I welcome your results...
While I've disagreed with some of their scoring logic, for the most part FCS appear to be reasonably accurate, based on spot-checking scrutiny I've done.
T, on the other hand, has failed my spot-checking test bigly. T-or-FCS: one or the other is really out of whack. Enlighten me with your careful attention to details in the "fifteen" test. (Actually, both can be out-of-whack, but that still means T is a significant liar. Two wrongs don't make a right.)
Table-ized A.I.
Begging the question in the headline is the real threat to the First Amendment because it corrupts and subverts the public discourse.
Personally, I'd prefer to see the entire thing handed over to a non-profit with a board filled with privacy advocates. And we really need some stronger and more modern personal protections on communications and media in the Constitution. There should not be a risk of compromise because of some perceived national security nonsense or every time a new technology becomes available. We need to explicitly take the power to water down warrants and apply censorship out of the hands of all three branches of national government as well as state and local government. We could do a better job on the commerce clause as well and probably.
I lived next to Wilson, NC (one of those evil municipal broadband localities) for a couple of years. Wilson begged and pleaded with Time Warner to build out infrastructure there. Time Warner repeatedly declined.
Wilson's response was great: they built a municipal broadband network that was ~10x the speed of Time Warner's biggest offering in Raleigh (closest large city), at about 1/5 the price.
Spurred by competition, Time Warner used the power of the free market to innovate and provide cheaper solutions to the good citizens of North Carolina...just kidding. They bought off the Republican-controlled legislature and got a law prohibiting municipal broadband.
Municipal broadband is the cost-effective answer to the "rural internet divide." This is a solved problem in other countries, but of course Republicans cry about socialism. If the same attitude existed in the 50's, we wouldn't have the Interstate highway system or the original telephone infrastructure.
Liberate your mind in two clicks or less.
You do realize that LinkNYC is a shining example of municipal broadband, complete with censorship software. NYC is hardly a Pai friendly sort of city, and their censorship started with blocking websites and proceeded to disabling the browser at the kiosks so that people couldn't watch porn. I'm sure that the NYC city council is right-wing Baptists, not progressives, right?
I just can't wait for Trump to get BTFO of the Whitehouse for good, then maybe we can get these lying corporate fuckboi 'appointees' the fuck out the FCC and everywhere else, and inject some sanity back into things. How can even Republicans stand all this utter and complete bullshit? Republicans/Conservatives, you need to explain yourselves: how is it you can put up with the utter and complete falsehoods like this that are coming out of YOUR Administration?
#UnbelievableBullshit
Really interesting take on what's the real threat to the First Amendment when it's the Government that is bound by it. Corporations are in no way accountable to free speech protections, and this is how we loose them.
When the corporations own all the conduits of speech, there will be no free speech.
--- Keep the choice with the user..
Taxpayer-funded roads then must also be an "ominous threat" to free movement of people and goods.
Amerimutts can be living in a literal wooden shack, and still believe that they're going to be millionaires. How is this even possible?
No you stupid mutt, you're going to die with roughly what you own today. Your chance of social mobility is statistically much lower than multiple lottery wins. It literally only happens as part of the Amerimutt dream propaganda machine.
Guys: mutts, why are they so dumb?
Says a lot about just how fucked the country is. Didn't take long did it.
If the government provides it, the government can take it away.
Or filter it as it deems necessary.
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
Have gnu, will travel.
There's a nugget of truth there. Municipal ISPs can't put in the same kinds of restrictions on behavior that private ISPs can. Government is covered by the first amendment, but private industry is not.
If we didn't already know about the very special access the big telecoms offer to police, that might wash. If community broadband precluded private companies from offering their own, even moreso.
The fact is, the police already have their taps and they get less public scrutiny than a municipal broadband provider would.
These days, Iran Contra would be a two-day story and forgotten about in the absolute deluge of other bullshit. We get the equivalent of those lies 10 times every day before 8am Pacific Time, seasoned with a strong dash of white supremacy and violent rhetoric.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Personally, I just want people to have a choice of ISPs - that solves almost everything. Make the "last mile" a utility (and just a dumb pipe). Let many ISPs, local and giant, compete for the no-monopoly business from there.
That's exactly how my municipal fiber works, the city only owns the network and ISPs (or phone or television providers) can provide service over it. I have never heard of an instance where the city tried to exert any control over the content of the network, they just provide the pipe. The Republicans in the state legislature keep passing laws to try to shut the network down (in the service of their masters, the local cable and telco companies) but so far they haven't been successful. I've been on the network for years and it's always been lightning fast and way less expensive than cable internet. It's easier to be cheaper than cable if you just need to pay off your network instead of having to have the network pay for itself plus make profits every quarter in perpetuity.
Enigma
NoogaNet seems to fit description nicely. 2. There is no guarantee of privacy associated with any User's use of the Service. 3. Your wireless-enabled device used to access the Internet will be logged and associated with your browsing. 7. The City reserves the right to impose time, place or manner restrictions on the viewing of certain materials accessed through the Service. 8. The City may suspend or terminate your use of the Service if it reasonably believes that you are in violation of any provision of this Policy. 9. Persons who use the Service for abusive, malicious or illegal activity are subject to prosecution.
The First and Fourteenth Amendments to the constitution prohibit censorship buy the government, but do not prohibit censorship by private entities. Thus, a community owned ISP would legally be restricted from censoring content, while private ISPs would be freer to do so, unless other regulations prohibit that. Although you still can't yell fire in a crowded theater, unless there is a fire
I am a firm supporter of the 21st Amendment, and also a firm supporter of government regulations as laid out in the 2nd Amendment. This prevents people from exercising their 21st Amendment Right, which repealed prohibition, to get drunk, while at the same time they are exercising their right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment, which starts: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,.." In other words, the 2nd Amendment established that government regulation is legal, that regulation in at least one instance is necessary to achieve a goal, that of a free state. I see nothing in the Second Åmendment which restricts government regulation to only the second Amendment, and conclude the Second Amendment is a pro-regulation.
Government runs the network, government sets the rules. Censorship obtains. Pretty obvious. Or do you enjoy bureaucrats telling you what you can or cannot access?
And yet, here you are shilling to allow huge corporations who want to control you be subverting public systems.
The funny thing is that you think that this is convincing anybody
where doublespeak is the norm.
Thanks to all you ass hats that voted for Trump.
The usual people still think their shit doesn't stink and they are the ones to save the world. Lots of other people fall for it.
It's really a twist of logic to see how the governments that created and nurtured the monopolies would do any better than the actual monopolies.
Would you want the people in your home owners association deciding how your internet works ?
You're all insane. It's just going to get worse. Get yourselves help soon.
Seriously. TDS is real and you've all got it.
It's hyperbole, but it's not completely ungrounded. The internet, as we all know, has a *lot* of porn on it. There are also a lot of people who would like to see porn banned. It gets a lot easier for them to get their way when the government is involved in operating an internet service, for much the same reason that the FCC is able to regulate indecency transmitted on government-allocated radio frequencies. The argument that "we don't want our tax money to pay for other people to watch smut" is going to be a pretty powerful one, and anti-porn activists generally do not consider themselves as violating the first amendment because they do not recognize pornography as a form of speech. Similar concerns can be raised about government being pressured to block copyright infringement.
But bizarrely, the federal government is currently dominated by a faction which supports banning the porn! There's a weird double standard going on here that shows the writer of this speech does not care at all about everything outlined in the above paragraph. The strongest argument that could be made in relation to the point raised is the possibility of anti-pornography efforts, but the FCC can't even acknowledge that possibility because they are allied to the people who are pushing it. Instead he is using the current bogeyman of liberal censorship of 'threatening' behavior - which every conservative is supposed to fear right now, though any attempt by a municipal provider to do that would likely be smacked down in the courts. It's quite the fear on the right though - you need only skim a few suitably skewed news sites to find them full of stories about how prominent right-wing activists have been 'censored' on social media and punished for their political views. Strangely though, very few of these stories actually repeat the contents of the banned posts, and the victims invariably turn out to be raging homophobes or conspiracy theorists. Usually both.
I can't even interpret this at near-midnight. It's too deep in political dog-whistles and codephrases. None of it makes any sense, and I don't think it's supposed to. It works because most of the country loves the first amendment in the abstract sense, but is also very eager to disregard it when they have an agenda to advance - usually while accusing everyone else of doing the same.
If the FCC really cared about preserving freedom of speech on the internet, they'd be doing everything they can to promote the use of universal encryption at every level. But they aren't doing to do that. It would get in the way of things like keeping television free of dirty words and making sure the government can issue warrants worth the effort.
This posts is bleh and rambling... I shouldn't write these while barely awake. Screw it, too tired to care. Night.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
We, the people, need the Federal Government to step in and save us from ourselves! If the feds don't kneecap our local elected bodies and prevent them from doing what we ask, then we are in danger of having our rights curtailed...right?
So many of you have gripped about net neutrality, which was a fucking joke. The best thing to do was to allow net neutrality to go. After all, the argument went that it was freedom for these companies. Ok.
Now, I have been arguing that the Sats esp. Starlink, along with utility style broadband, should be allowed and would make a HUGE difference. In fact, with net neutrality gone, these will grow fast.
However, I was wondering if Trump's ppl would pull their BS. The first one is to go after 'rural broadband' and is trying to come up with solution whereby the same monopolies that pushed to rid net neutrality, now want to have another monopoly in the rural areas, again without net neutrality, but in control of all access.
Now, they are pushing against utility broadband.
This is where the REAL fight is at. Net Neutrality was simply a waste of effort.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
If our federal government were cut back to the 18 enumerated powers in the constitution the FCC would not have the authority to tell states and municipalities how to build broadband networks.
Many on this site advocate for a continually expanding federal government and then complain about government agencies sticking their nose where it doesn't belong.
The federal government should only have the authority to regulate EM spectrum and the states could grant that authority to the federal government with a constitutional amendment.
As a libertarian, I am always guarded against the government getting more involved in my life. I truly understand the statement of "the scariest phrase you will ever hear is 'We are from the government, we are here to help.' I can definitely see how something like this could lead to abuses, not just first amendment but also fifth amendment.
At the same time I think that a municipality (not just wireless but also last-mile connectiions to the customer) needs to be an independent, unbiased, 3rd party. Every potential service provider needs to have equal access to the customers. It is important to create a counter to the monopolies created by the 1 cable company and 1 incumbent in your area. This is more of a problem for residential than businesses. As a ISP myself, it's a lot easier to provide service to a business because the cost of entry is not as egregious to a business whereas it is much more so to a residential customer.
Maybe the solution is to require the municipalities to create the infrastructure of Layer2 but let independent isp's provide the layer3 on top of it, via tunneling, so that they lack the ability to do any sort of censoring, snooping, or data collection.
The FCC, of all the organizations possible, call something a threat to free speech. For real. The FCC. The same organization who made it its business to make broadcasters bleep and bloop every word that could remotely be called a "bad" word.
The hypocrisy is so far off the chart that I can't even find a suitable parallel anymore to make a snide comment along the lines of "that's like X saying Y".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
We're doing fine without Ashit Pile.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I would be more interested in what the United State's FCC is doing.
Oh... wait... I get it. This is just another attempt to spread discontent and hate towards Trump even though there is no actual link between him and the statements made in the article.
Congratulations once again, Slashdot moderators, for continuing to put articles on your front page that promote hate and divide America. The Russians couldn't do it any better than you do.
Or bring your Vaseline if you prefer the National Republican Grand Ole Up Your Stupid Arse like an alt-right Brownshirt buttboy.
They are just saying what they would do if they were in charge of the network. In fact numerous public local network all over the country would likely have opposite effect in most places and help prevent censorship because net neutrality is something most people actually want and thus the local government would mandate it on the public network. Most tourists would still likely have cell service if the happened into a small town run by fascist or zealots. Though Iâ(TM)d argue most small towns run by such groups probably wouldnâ(TM)t invest in public network anyway.
We already know police, etc, get a room where they can install wiretap in private companies. We've seen on Slashdot eyewitness accounts of such rooms.
Police get no better access in municipal nets, arguably it may even be less access. Harder to threaten a government with new regulations.
Further, you can replace a government, you can't replace a corporation. There's no competition and the CEO doesn't answer to the populace.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The biggest hypocrisy in the USA is, bureaucrats like this claiming to save citizens from the federal government, by working for federal government.
It can't be fake news: He didn't rage against 'eevil gubbermint' AND socialism.
They need to de-platform any communication channel not controlled by the party (Democrats) or its minions.
It's that simple.
Lefties blaming the other side for what they are doing. Left is rapidly deplatforming anyone who disagrees with them.
It's to build a wonderful communist/socialist future, where free speech is hate speech if it doesn't support the left.
I've seen it before in Europe before the wall fell. Evil doesn't change, and it is back.
... full blown dictatorship and repression of citizens through corporate monopoly is there.
Calling citizen initiatives against the constitution usually is the start.
Glad I'm not an USA citizen.
Bach says it all.
I agree that having a choice of ISPs is the best solution: switching ISPs is easier than suing a government agency.
For this reason, there is - I think - a bit of plausibility to Trump's position here (at least enough to make the summary seem unpleasantly partisan). Municipal-run broadband can use tax revenue to support itself, bringing the price of connectivity low enough that commercial competitors are effectively barred from the market. That leads us into the "only one ISP" situation that is the true hazard here.
Of course, commercial ISPs also tend to stifle competition, through regulatory capture of the municipal authority. But that problem is, I think, still a bit more tractable than the previous one I described.
All this time I thought the Trump administration never heard of the Constitution. Oh they've heard of it, they have no idea what it's for, but they heard of it.
ZIP
Comment removed based on user account deletion
In other words, you have no logical refutation of what I said, just some words to put in my mouth drawn from your own bias.
" I have never heard of an instance where the city tried to exert any control over the content of the network, they just provide the pipe."
It doesn't matter if they are doing it, the question is whether they can. Also, you wouldn't likely know. How often did you see the NSA interference before Snowden leaked it?
"Police get no better access in municipal nets, arguably it may even be less access. Harder to threaten a government with new regulations."
Get no better access? They literally just walk up and do what they want without supervision. Who exactly is it you think stands between police and access at the local level other than self-enforcement?
The police come up with some rationale to explain why they are allowed, choose to believe themselves, and it only gets questioned if they get caught. Even then it could go either way in court and the worst that happens is the court says no.
Since when has the FCC EVER been concerned about the first amendment?
It is patently absurd that they decry small community broadband projects as a risk to Free Speech while
ignoring the inherent risk to free speech that National Broadband Providers pose --- providers who WON'T agree to become
a common carrier -- providers they can't even impose a regular requirement on to maintain a Neutral (non-free-speech killing) network.
Providers that are massive and encompass most broadband access nationwide with very little competition, practically zero competition in MANY areas.
Meanwhile we have yet to ever see a SINGLE one small community broadband implementing even the most superficial sort of censorship without subscriber permission.... Give me an example of a community broadband provider that blocks HTTPS or Youtube or Facebook or a major website or protocol, then maybe i'll change my mind ----- I've seen plenty of LARGE providers blocking random ports or protocols or websites over the years; one of the most recent widespread examples was major ISPs blocking ThePirateBay at the behest of some large media companies.
If community broadband providers ever had committed censorship, then they could likely be circumvented very easily by people to get their message out --- such as by heading one town over ---- Also, in local communities the people are empowered to change the policies of their community ISP in a meaningful way - this is NOT the case for a large provider such as Verizon or ATT --- should they choose to block Netflix, for example, a very large percent of their users will have no recourse (Due to no local competition), and not even a local town council to complain to --- on the other hand a LOCAL small community provider or small business providing service can be influenced by concerned people in the local community much moreso than some national faceless corporation:
since COMMUNITY broadband networks are separate and not joined into one national collective with standardized policies, large byzantine customer service systems that keep customers from complaining or reaching actual management, and far-reaching power over users nationwide.
Furthermore, community broadband is another option on top of others - if there were a free speech issue at home due to community broadband, then you could pull out your cellphone that uses ATT or Verizon.
Uhhh... the first amendment protects you from the government limiting free speech. It does not protect you from corporations limiting free speech. If anything a Govt. run ISP would legally have *MORE* 1A protections than a privately run ISP.
Why would my city care what I post to the Internet? Just what, exactly, are you alleging they are doing or might do? Most of my traffic is encrypted anyway so even if they did want to censor me they couldn't selectively do it. Of course they COULD, but it would be illegal for them to do it. I worry much more about a private corporation censoring my speech since it's not illegal for them to do it. Like I said, I've been on a municipal network for years and I love it, if something changes that I will hold my elected officials responsible. It's way easier to get access to my mayor than it is to get access to the CEO of Comcast.
Enigma
"Of course they COULD, but it would be illegal for them to do it."
Actually it is illegal for the federal government to do it, it is not necessarily illegal for local government to do it especially if using public infrastructure. The government needs no warrant to search your trash or check your water lines. They can act as a man in the middle by connecting not to devices in your home where they need a warrant but to the public owned infrastructure one hop up.
"Why would my city care what I post to the Internet?"
Because you pissed off the local politician or cop, because you are stuck in an ultra-religious community forcing "values" laws down your throat like blue laws, decency laws etc, because you keep staging protests in the public square and they are trying to monitor your involvement with the next "occupy wall street." Maybe they just decide it would be more productive for everyone to shut down access between 10am and 2pm for the sake of the community. Local communities aren't exactly known for respecting freedoms and they pass statutes which run counter to protections in the Constitution all the time, many of which courts have upheld.
"I worry much more about a private corporation censoring my speech since it's not illegal for them to do it."
This is a false dichotomy. You don't have to support either being in a position to legally censor your speech.
When the government controls your ability to communicate, that is, by definition, a threat to free speech. The internet should not be government controlled. They should have no right or capability to stop a town from sending messages to other towns.
All those folks blathering about Trump - Even when he's right, you're too partisan to realize it. Wipe the foam off your chins.