Culver City Gets Around Pesky First Amendment With Terms Of Service
from the read-closely dept
Last week, we learned that Culver City, California was installing filters on its muni-WiFi network, in an attempt to block content it (or the MPAA) didn't like. Ignoring the facts that filters don't really work and they weren't aware of any real problem until a vendor pointed it out to them with a sales pitch, a local government deciding to put roadblocks up to undesirable, though not illegal, activities (surfing porn or using P2P, in this instance) is more than a little sketchy. But it gets a little more interesting: when logging on to the service, the city's terms of service says users must agree to "waive any First Amendment claims" stemming from the service. That seems like a slightly less nasty way to tell people their First Amendment rights simply don't apply -- but since users are "voluntarily" waiving them, it's somehow okay. Plenty of companies use things like end user license agreements to make it okay for them to do things like install spyware on your computer, and some have argued that EULAs can trump certain laws. But a city using a similar terms of service -- which most users aren't likely to read -- to make an end run around the Constitution seems like a silly measure that's destined to end up in court.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not a chance in hell
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not a chance in hell
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not a chance in hell
for instance: you cannot waive your right to life against another. no matter what contract you sign, someone who ends your life is commiting murder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not a chance in hell
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not a chance in hell
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
It's not a right of a citizen to pay income tax, it's a right of Congress to create and collect income tax. Unless Congress waives its right, we're out of luck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Act now and take a responsible role in government, before a civil war is necessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And this is north of the Orange Wall
I think to cost of the network is too high - and the LA area has other commercial systems available w/o these blocks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Natzi Germany?
But you are right, the liberals are erroding away our foundation that was set up for us here in America, and a large amount of it happens right there in Southern California through the media and film industry. Thank goodness that some liberals like their porn though, huh?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Depends on who's paying....
No?
Then it's not an "errosion of rights and civil liberties."
It is a pretty foolish choice that will cost them a lot of money to defend, but you may as well say that our rights and civil liberties are erroded by having to have a permit to protest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Depends on who's paying....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Depends on who's paying....
you may as well say that our rights and civil liberties are erroded by having to have a permit to protest.
many do. in the uk, we call them 'liberals'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Depends on who's paying....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's review..
First let's define "inalienable"...
Inalienable: not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated.
First, if you beileve they are God-given, you're a startlingly ignorant individual to believe that you could simply "waive" a right given to you by God Himself.
However, from a more "politically correct" and non-theistic approach, the very definition of "inalienable" immediately rules out the possibility of waiving or "giving up" any inalienable rights. :-) Simple logic, so often overlooked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's review..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's review..
That was the Declaration of Independence and at the time the statement didn't include slaves in that whole inalienable rights thing. So there was a flaw in the logic of that right off the bat.
And you absolutely can give up your rights. Go ahead and commit a felony and see what rights they allow you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let's review..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's review..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Waiving Rights
Since all military service is voluntary, it is essentially the same thing as Culver City. With the notable exception that the swearing in makes you quite aware of the event.
That is not to say that I agree with the city doing it. I can't think of anyone off the top of my head that actually reads the EULA for anything. And there have EULA that have been struck down for overstepping their authority.
I don't see this holding up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who's paying, again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Culver Chity, . . .
I certainly will not stop by there on any of my visits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who's paying, again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Predictable
1 Government gives "free" internet service. Paid for by your taxes, whether you use it or not.
2 Private providers are forced out of business.
3 Government now has total control over the internet, and begins to censor and block sites at will. The internet, the one source of information the government and mainstream media can't control, ceases to exist.
4 Government's hold on power and control over us becomes much stronger
The only mistake Culver city has made here is in revealing their hand too quickly.
See, in a free market, everyone can choose something different. I like baseball, you like football, etc. No one pays for what they don't want, and there are tons of choices.
In government provided "services", there can be only one option, chosen by majority rule. Therefore all minority choices are denied.
Making the choice itself becomes a bloody battle, and government spurs both sides on to fight each other. This distracts us from the all powerful government hand, and gives the people the illusion of control. "Tommy, do you want to clean your room, or clean the garage tonight?" See, there's no real choice.
Once the majority chooses, this choice is written into law and will not change again for decades, long after technology changes have made it irrelevant. In that case, technology must be hamstrung instead.
The truly bad people figure out ways around the law anyway, so the government makes the law more and more complicated. In this case we could have a battle over every single site the government wants to restrict. Again, this distracts us and wastes energy.
Once the choice is made, everyone is forced to go along. You have to pay whether you use it or not. Sometimes you're even forced to use the service against your wishes.
Creeping Socialism (of which Fascism is one variety) at its worst. But it's for the children, or stops racism, or promotes social justice, or whatever propaganda phrases the socialists use these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow...over reacting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Predictable
does this mean i don't have to pay my taxes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Give up rights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Give up rights?
And to play Devil's Adovate, just because you don't read the ULA doesn't mean it doesn't apply to you.
"I didn't read it" wouldn't hold up if you signed a contract then changed your mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Give up rights?
The key word is "compelled". They can't *force* you to incriminate yourself, and that right is not given up or violated if you do it voluntarily.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is their Internet...
I agree with their intent to make sure their Internet is used more effectively for knowledge and communication. But I definitely have to disagree with the actions of their efforts in doing so. The stability of our government has everything to do with the first amendment. So, to use those terms and make it look disposable is just irresponsible. I'm hoping they just meant that you don't have access to everything you want. Which sounds okay to me.
If they meant giving up your rights literally, they could filter and edit everything you type on their connection, to a friend or on a blog. That gives them a little too much power, which would then motivate an anti-trust suite. Crazy lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
give up rights for any govt program
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I give up what?
Of course I don't see what everyone is crying about. We have already been forced to surrender our second and fourth amendment rights. Of course, the first is everyone's favorite and that is why they are upset.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I give up what?
This is only an issue if it becomes one of those unwritten "rights" people think they have, to have free (or discounted) city-provided internet access.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's inevitable
The ACs that characterized me as "A conspiracy theorist who just wants to point a finger." can feel free to recant now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fuckculvercityandsony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]