Net Neutrality and Free Speech
By Randolph J. May -- Broadcasting & Cable, 9/17/2006 8:00:00 PM
The debate over Internet neutrality continues to rage. Proposed net-neutrality laws would commonly prohibit all broad - band service providers, such as Verizon and Comcast, from blocking or degrading access to any lawful content on the Internet or from “discriminating” against any unaffiliated entity by refusing to send or post any content.
There are sound policy reasons why net-neutrality mandates should not be adopted. But there is a more fundamental reason, which to date has received little public attention: Net-neutrality mandates almost certainly would violate the First Amendment rights of the broadband Internet service providers (ISPs).
Broadband providers possess free-speech rights just like other media. Last year, in its Brand X decision, the Supreme Court upheld the FCC’s determination that ISPs are not common carriers required to carry all content indifferently.
Under traditional First Amendment jurisprudence, it is as much a free-speech infringement to compel an entity to convey messages it does not wish to convey as it is to prevent it from conveying messages it wishes to convey.
Net-neutrality mandates would prevent an ISP from restricting access, say, to content that it thinks is indecent or homophobic. Similarly, a service provider would be compelled to allow subscribers to post any messages they choose. Such compelled-access mandates are akin to the right-of-reply statute the Supreme Court in 1974 held violated a newspaper’s First Amendment rights.
Granted, competition among ISPs will likely prevent them from adopting such non-neutral practices. But the government shouldn’t.
Sure, the First Amendment is not absolute. In 1994, the Supreme Court narrowly rejected the argument that the law requiring cable operators to carry local broadcasting stations violated the First Amendment. The Court relied heavily on Congress’ judgment that local broadcasters needed special protection. The Court also relied on what it characterized as cable’s “gatekeeper” role, controlling the video programming entering consumers’ homes. But net neutrality is not about protecting local broadcasters; in today’s competitive communications environment, it cannot credibly be argued that cable companies or any other ISPs can maintain a gatekeeper position.
When you think about it, laws imposing “neutrality” are eerily reminiscent of the defunct Fairness Doctrine that required broadcasters to present a balanced view of controversial issues. Although the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in the 1969 Red Lion decision, it did so on the basis that the spectrum used by broadcasters is a scarce public resource. Many doubt the Court would reach the same conclusion today, in light of the abundance of media outlets we enjoy.
It's not always just a matter of censorship or profit hungry ISPs. Sometimes bandwidth shaping is necessary to keep networks up and running. Some ISPs just use techniques that are less fair while others take a different approach with things like netequalizer and behavior based shaping rather than content based regulation.
JP101 - 8/11/2008 11:20:00 AM EDT
This is an absurd argument. The cable companies are wanting to make money from content they get for free. That's all there is to it.
Cable networks have very limited competition at best. To say that allowing these networks to censure content of a free and open public forum is a violation of THEIR free speech is the most absurd argument I have heard yet!
Let them try. They will soon find they have some REAL competition.
Buddy Logan - 8/9/2008 4:25:00 PM EDT
No related content found.
No Top Articles
Digital Rapids provides market-leading software and hardware solutions, technology and expertise for transforming live and on-demand video to reach wider audiences on the latest viewing platforms more efficiently, more effectively and more profitably. Empowering applications from..more