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.
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.
"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.
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?
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.
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..
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
Actually, consider an alternative:
Municipal broadband service might be well described as a 'lifeline'-like service, intended to be lowest cost, minimum necessary, to provide access to government services, universally required services such as job search, bill payment, enrollments, etc. It may not be intended to, nor even provide, access to a variety of services or sources. If this is disclosed, is it a problem?
Disclosure would be the first step.
So would LinkNYC be deficient if it did not provide access to pornography? Or games? Or would it be efficient? And if kiosks were relatively public, would pornography be a tolerable use, since it might, possibly, offend some casual observers? Should LinkNYC spend more money on privacy filters and such?
Of course, when we move on from pron and consider access to news, information, and opinion sources, we get into significantly less obvious use cases. But I, sadly, know people who are just as offended by seeing certain 'news' and opinion sources as they are seeing pron, even by accident, and they plainly tell me that these need to be kept off of municipal broadband systems.
Not simple, but worthy of discussion.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.