FCC: Sorry, No -- Net Neutrality Does Not Violate ISPs' First Amendment Rights
from the legal-shenanigans dept
Back when Verizon sued to overturn the FCC's original, flimsier 2010 net neutrality rules, the telco argued that the FCC was aggressively and capriciously violating the company's First and Fifth Amendment rights. "Broadband networks are the modern-day microphone by which their owners engage in First Amendment speech," Verizon claimed at the time. It's an amusing claim given that the entire purpose of net neutrality is to protect the free and open distribution of content and data without incumbent ISP gatekeeper interference. Verizon ultimately won its case against the FCC -- but not because of its First Amendment claim, but because the FCC tried to impose common carrier rules on ISPs before declaring they were common carriers.That's of course why the FCC finally decided to define ISPs as common carriers under Title II. But in their torrent of lawsuits against the FCC's new rules, ISPs continue to try and hide their anti-competitive intentions behind the First Amendment. AT&T's court filing from earlier this year, for example, made it clear AT&T intends to argue the FCC is violating its 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."In its own filing in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (pdf) this week, the FCC argues that this reasoning is, to use a less technical term, crap:
"Nobody understands broadband providers to be sending a message or endorsing speech when transmitting the Internet content that a user has requested. When a user directs her browser to the New York Times or Wall Street Journal editorial page, she has no reason to think that the views expressed there are those of her broadband provider. Nor is there anything in the record to suggest that companies providing mass-market retail broadband service as defined in the Order are seeking to convey any particularized message to their users. Instead, when providing Broadband Internet Access Service, broadband providers function (and are understood by their users to function) simply “as conduits for the speech of others, not as speakers themselves."You'd think that would be common sense, but ISPs have a long, occasionally-successful history of hiding their dubious and/or anti-competitive shenanigans behind the First Amendment. Verizon has argued it has a First Amendment right to hand your call data over to the government. Comcast has argued its First Amendment rights are violated when it's told to stop blocking competitor channel access to its cable lineup. Charter has tried to argue that requiring it adhere to local video franchise agreements similarly violates its free speech rights.
In the net neutrality case, ISP lawyers are basically throwing everything they can at the wall and hoping something sticks. But the First Amendement claim here is painfully thin, given it's the ISPs interfering in content they didn't create and have no real authority over. It's also risky for ISPs currently protected by common carrier safe harbor protections to start arguing they're responsible for every thought that's transmitted over the Internet. It seems so much wiser for ISPs to stick to the kind of things they're truly good at: like violating your Fourth Amendment rights at every conceivable opportunity.
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, net neutrality
Companies: at&t, verizon
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Nobody understands broadband providers to be sending a message or endorsing speech when transmitting the Internet content that a user has requested."
You can practically taste the derision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, companies very much do have First Amendment rights. That's not the issue here. Also, you WANT companies to have First Amendment rights. Companies should also not be barred from speaking by the government.
The issue here is not that, but rather the idea that ISPs efforts to modify its networks are not a form of speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Speak for yourself. I want people--including employees or spokespeople for companies--to have First Amendment rights, but human rights are for humans. Period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I might want it, if I were a FASCIST, but I'm not. What are you, Mr. Masnick, Fascist or American?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Public Face of the Issue...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCyBLMFI2aY
French scuba instructor ad. That one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(Actually, they're saying "I'll carry your notes more slowly than others and charge you more for them", but the principle is "I won't carry them".)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Yes, companies very much do have First Amendment rights. That's not the issue here. Also, you WANT companies to have First Amendment rights. Companies should also not be barred from speaking by the government."
And Mike, while I agree with you in that they should have free speech (freedom of religion... companies don't have that, do they? it's their owners and employees), the problem is that they are asking for constitutional level rights, as if they were human. You know, some even claim that companies should have Human Rights.
When that shouldn't be the case because, well, they aren't human but entities. They should be entitled to rights, but no Human Rights nor Constitutional grade rights.
If there is a conflict between their rights and Human/Constitutional Rights, the latter should have priority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Apparently some of them do now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burwell_v._Hobby_Lobby_Stores,_Inc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I hope that these guys will never close their business. They would be murdering it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Again, humans are humans. Companies are entities. Considering both equal under the law doesn't make sense. Giving companies constitutional rights is almost similar to considering them citizens.
An example: there are cases of whistleblowers that get sued because they broke their NDA, even if it was to inform the citizens about what a company is doing that poses a risk to their lives (let's say, they contain a chemical). Technically they are protected, but there have been approaches on the opposite:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141016/07534628847/tpp-leak-confirms-measures-to-crimin alize-corporate-whistleblowing.shtml
They cite their commercial rights, or industrial rights or whatever. All those rights should be ignored if any human right (life, speech...) is involved. That's what I mean.
Also, think about this: you can jail a citizen. You can't jail a company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It gets worse
I believe the technical term for this idea is "crazy talk." They are lacking the single most important prerequisite for any sane third party to agree with the idea that they have a right to exercise editorial control over our content: no one hired them as an editor! They were hired as a delivery service, and therefore their claim makes exactly as much sense as FedEx would if they were to hypothetically assert a First Amendment right to not ship a book that's critical of FedEx that you or I bought on Amazon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It gets worse
Basically they're trying to have it both ways, arguing that the content is theirs when it comes to control of it, and absolutely not theirs when it comes to being responsible for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Speech Limited To One Message
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Third Amendment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]