AT&T Argues Net Neutrality Violates Its First Amendment Rights
from the up-is-down,-black-is-white dept
Back when Verizon sued to overturn the FCC's 2010 net neutrality rules, the telco argued that the FCC was aggressively and capriciously violating the company's First and Fifth Amendment rights. According to Verizon's argument at the time, broadband networks "are the modern-day microphone by which their owners engage in First Amendment speech." Verizon also tried to claim that neutrality rules were a sort of "permanent easement on private broadband networks for the use of others without just compensation," and thereby violated the Fifth Amendment.Granted, any well-caffeinated lawyer in a nice pair of tap dancing shoes can effectively argue anything, though in this case you'd obviously have to operate in a vacuum and ignore the history, context and definition of net neutrality to fully do so. Regardless, Verizon did manage to have those original, flimsy rules thrown out, but it had nothing to do with the telco's Constitutional arguments. Verizon won because the FCC was trying to impose common carrier rules on ISPs without first declaring them as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act, something the FCC tried to remedy with the latest rule incarnation.
Fast forward to 2015. AT&T's busy suing the FCC both as part of USTelecom, but also with a standalone lawsuit of its own. In a statement of issues (pdf) outlining its legal assault on the FCC's net neutrality rules, AT&T makes it clear that it too will try to claim the FCC is violating the company's First and Fifth Amendment rights:
"In a statement of issues that AT&T intends to raise when the case moves further into the court process, the company said last week that it plans on challenging whether the FCC’s net neutrality order "violates the terms of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and the First and Fifth Amendments to the US Constitution." The First and Fifth Amendment will be used to attack the FCC's decision to reclassify both fixed and mobile broadband as common carrier services, as well as the FCC's assertion of authority over how ISPs interconnect with other networks."CenturyLink, wireless carriers (the CTIA) and major telcos (USTelecom) have stated they plan to argue the same point, though the precise legal approach obviously isn't being disclosed yet. Basically, AT&T and friends are throwing every legal claim they can possibly think of at the wall and hoping something sticks.
Leaning on the First Amendment when it's convenient has long been a telecom lawyer mainstay, logic be damned. Verizon tried to argue that its participation in the government's domestic surveillance efforts was protected by the First Amendment. Comcast has tried to argue that its right to bar competitors' TV channels from its lineup is similarly protected by the First Amendment. Charter Communications has hinted it believes its First Amendment rights mean it doesn't have to adhere to municipal franchise contracts. Of course, those of us here on planet Earth realize net neutrality is intended to protect the free speech rights of consumers and small business owners from the incumbent ISPs, and the only concept truly being explored here is irony.
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
Filed Under: fcc, first amendment, free speech, net neutrality
Companies: at&t
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
You helped break the fourth and now you are twisting the first to achieve your commercial interests. Typical hypocritical mindset that is set by the tone at the top of our "civilized?" society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
BTW: look out when they start enforcing the 2nd and we have an army of $$ seeking executives shaking down neighborhoods
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The borders between "right to" and "freedom from" are subjective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny thing about that argument...
Peoples right to freedom of speech end when they abridge other's rights, and traffic shaping, limiting, etc are all abridgement of the content providers and content consumers rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Funny thing about that argument...
If the data flowing across AT&T's network is AT&T's speech, then they are liable for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
first amendment
In this particular instance the government has an interest in regulating the microphones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: first amendment
...in order to prevent private organisations from leveraging their monopoly to allow free speech only to those who pay them a high enough fee, a model they have already proven will happen if no external force stops them (free market not being applicable since most people in the US have very little choice about providers).
FTFY, you missed one of the most important elements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Net Neutrality DOES violate AT&T's 1st amendment right
AT&T should have the freedom to worship their god (money) and practice their religion (greed, screwing consumers) without the government prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Net Neutrality would constitute government interference with both Greed and Screwing Consumers. Persons* such as AT&T* should not be deprived of the joy that their religion brings into their life, as evidenced by their evil laughter at the misery and expense of others.
It's right there in the 1st amendment.
* Corporations are people too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Net Neutrality DOES violate AT&T's 1st amendment right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AT&T could not possibly be concerned about 1st amendment freedom of speech issues. So it must be a concern about religious practice.
Free Speech is about saying something, not about preventing others from saying things, or regulating the flow of others' speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds about right
That sounds about right. And they wonder why everyone hates the telecoms...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because corporations like AT&T try to use things like the constitution to let them screw everyone else over. Not to mention Citizen's United, ruling that 1st amendment rights lets corporations spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections, something that was outlawed over 100 years ago because of the corruption it caused.
Stories like this make ideas like that start to seem quite rational.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The problem with that is you're left with personal liability for businesses, which makes it very unappealing to start a business. That's not a good incentive structure to set up since despite all the stupid political rhetoric, small businesses actually are quite important.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They are not a person
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They are not a person
Are you saying that the free press clause of the First Amendment does not apply to the New York Times? Because the New York Times is a corporation (and a pretty big one at that).
If you agree that the New York Times has freedom of the press, then you must also agree that the First Amendment applies to corporations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They are not a person
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They are not a person
I disagree.
Corporations are legal fictions -- inventions of the government -- and what "rights" they have are exactly what "rights" the government decides to give them. It is entirely possible and reasonable to give some limited right to free expression to them that doesn't go as far as the first amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hilarity Ensues
Dance faster and with more oomph!
People who have camera's and Internet connections*
*Would these videos be better on YouTube, Vimeo or some other?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sure something similar can be done with the cable connections as well.... and stop any and all subsidies until they agree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That usually fires people up. If their plan is to try everything use that. That should get them laughed out of court all the sooner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corporate power is the root issue here.
A completely new chapter in the corporate fantasy must be written. In it corporations have the power and influence they held right after the American revolution. That is, a charter granted by the people, through government, for a specific defined purpose only and a limited duration, and that done grudgingly with skepticism about abuses against the citizenry. Only this time it is done without violence. A completely heartening chapter that shows some character development in humanity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Net Neutrality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get On the Bus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]