Speech is by definition communication. If the FCC implements policy which allows for the restriction of free speech, then they are in violation of the Constitution.
Article: Here's what happened to the internet one year after net neutrality
- Thread starter comfortably_numb
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 29
- Views 3K
Speech is by definition communication. If the FCC implements policy which allows for the restriction of free speech, then they are in violation of the Constitution.
I think you may be taking at least one horribly distant from the truth leap here: That the Internet is the only reasonable way to get your point across.
It is like saying that because zoning doesn't allow a billboard to be placed where you want to express yourself, that land use regulations (possibly in general) are a violation of Free Speech.
Free Speech doesn't extend to how you express yourself, only that you must not be denied the right entirely.
I respectfully disagree.
Here is an over-simplified example using the news media. Say I am Comcast. I own MSNBC, which competes with CNN for viewers, advertising money, etc. I decide that, in the absence of NN, I am going to charge CNN/TimeWarner/AT&T more to stream their content to my Internet customers with the same priority as MSNBC streaming gets for free. If they do not agree, then their steamed content does not work as well as it would if I was forced by law to treat it the same as MSNBCs. That is a direct impediment to the distribution of the what is considered by the law to be protected speech. Now, AT&T would probably just pay up or sign an agreement that doesn't allow for any deprioritization of CNNs traffic to AT&T's customers in exchange, etc. BUT, what if is isn't another company that is also an ISP, like Fox or RT? Or what if it isn't a large media company at all? What if it is a startup that is looking to disrupt the news industry with a more efficient model? Without NN, fundamental freedoms are restricted to those with money, and innovation is hampered. We pay more to make an increasingly few richer, while being shovel-fed what they want us to see.
The Internet is THE medium for communication these days. Even the Supreme Court recognizes this: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1194_08l1.pdf
Restricting it to those who have more money is even worse than Citizens United.
Freedom of speech is not an all or nothing thing. Hampering it is just as bad as denying completely it in a world of short attention spans.
The various protections of the US Constitution expressly apply to US citizens. The courts have applied similar protections to corporations but those protections are more of a permissive nature as opposed to a guarantee of free and unencumbered access.
Umm no, within the borders of the United States, non-citizens have most of the same constitutional rights as citizens do, and longstanding Supreme Court precedent bans most state laws discriminating against noncitizens.
You're missing the point. The Bill of Rights expressly applies to individuals, not corporations. That corporations have tried to ascribe those same rights to themselves (often successfully) is relatively recent.
Not missing the point, I was clarifying the statement that the constitution expressly applies to citizens, it also applies to non-citizens within the borders of the United States. Unfortunately for your point the SC has also applied some of those rights to corporations, incorrectly IMO, but my opinion is worth about what "Little Johnny Shot At" AKA nothing.
Just posting to agree that the SC incorrectly applied the 14th Amendment to grant individual rights to corporations.
Last edited:
Ajit, is an idjit...
