Former FCC Commissioner Idiotically Claims Net Neutrality Helps ISIS

from the a-new-low dept

Mon, Dec 7th 2015 9:18am — Karl Bode

There have been a lot of stupid net neutrality claims over the years. Net neutrality will somehow prevent ISPs from investing in networks is a common one. So are the claims that net neutrality will result in internet brown outs, trample ISPs' First Amendment rights, result in a return to the Fairness Doctrine, or that it's essentially "Obamacare for the internet." Underpinning most of these arguments is the grand daddy of them all: the intentionally-divisive claim that net neutrality is a partisan issue to begin with.

But former FCC Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth may have done the impossible: he's plattered what may just be the dumbest net neutrality argument ever made. In his editorial over at Capx titled "Why ISIS Celebrates the FCC’s Network Neutrality Rules," Furchtgott-Roth actually goes so far as to suggest meaningful net neutrality helps ISIS/Daesh. At the core of his stale argument is the idea that net neutrality rules somehow violate giant broadband ISPs' First Amendment rights:

"In autocratic countries like China and Iran, it is the government that decides which Internet content is permissible, and which must be censored. Individuals have no choice. Under the new network neutrality rules, which prohibit blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization, the FCC dictates to businesses offering broadband services which parts of the Internet they must offer—all of it.

At first blush, this might sound reasonable, and certainly preferable to the government censorship that pervades much of the world. But the First Amendment protects not only the right to speak without government interference but also the right to remain silent and the right not to be coerced into speech by the government. Nowhere is the right to be free from compelled speech more important than the Internet.

You know you're off to a solid, logical start when you try to compare regulations that protect free speech, with the type of online censorship that's common in both Iran and China. As for net neutrality rules violating ISPs' First Amendment rights, we've repeatedly noted that's bunk. Basically, ISP lawyers threw every claim they could at the wall in the hopes that something would stick. But net neutrality rules don't violate ISPs' free speech rights because throttling and dicking about with network traffic is not speech. In the case of net neutrality, most financially-objective people realize the threat is the ISP as censor.

It's worth noting that the bigger ISPs (AT&T, Comcast, Verizon) have been backing away from this claim in recent months in court filings, seemingly aware that it wasn't going to be an effective tactic. And indeed, during last week's oral arguments in the neutrality case the three Judges involved seemed to indicate it's an argument that won't be getting any serious traction. Still, Furchtgott-Roth (who since his stint with the FCC has bounced around telecom industry think tanks defending horrible business practices) uses that argument as the foundation for the dumbest net neutrality argument ever made:

"In an America with network neutrality rules, purveyors of indecent material and groups such as ISIS have a right to enter American homes through the Internet, and consumers lack the corollary right to have their broadband providers kick them out. As long as a site is “lawful,” broadband providers are powerless under network neutrality rules to respond to consumer preferences by blocking it or even parts of it, or favoring other websites—all under the banner of “neutrality."

Yes, that's called free speech, the very thing Furchtgott-Roth's pretending to give a damn about. And sure, if you want to stretch logic to its breaking point you can argue net neutrality helps ISIS, because it helps everybody that uses the Internet. That's kind of the whole point. Even if you can forgive Furchtgott-Roth's molestation of logic here, using ISIS to make a cheap political point in the wake of the Paris and San Bernardino shootings sinks to a new and notably-foul low for the broadband industry's anti-net neutrality brigades.

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, free speech, harold furchtgott-roth, isis, net neutrality

33 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

That One Guy (profile), 7 Dec 2015 @ 7:32am

Well, so long as you ignore those pesky 'facts'
"In an America with network neutrality rules, purveyors of indecent material and groups such as ISIS have a right to enter American homes through the Internet, and consumers lack the corollary right to have their broadband providers kick them out. As long as a site is “lawful,” broadband providers are powerless under network neutrality rules to respond to consumer preferences by blocking it or even parts of it, or favoring other websites—all under the banner of “neutrality."

Last I checked, the losers in ISIS may be somewhat tech savy, but they don't determine what is and is not on the internet. As such, the only way that something of theirs is going to end up in 'American homes' is if the owner of said home chooses to let it in, on purpose or on accident, and in both cases they don't need the ISP to do squat, they are quite capable of giving the boot to the rot themselves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2015 @ 9:31am

It helps everybody. ISIS is part of everybody so technically he's not wrong in saying it helps ISIS, much in the same way that not destroying the Earth and all its inhabitants helps ISIS.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2015 @ 9:38am

"In an America with network neutrality rules, purveyors of indecent material and groups such as ISIS have a right to enter American homes through the Internet, and consumers lack the corollary right to have their broadband providers kick them out.

Everybody has the right to choose what speech they want to listen to, and what they will not listen to. Further, it is relatively easy to set up your own filter using an old pc or laptop, and help is available at you local Linux, User Group (LUG).
What Harold is advocating is someone else deciding what speech you can listen to, or publish, that is censorship of the Internet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2015 @ 9:38am

"In an America with network neutrality rules, purveyors of indecent material and groups such as ISIS have a right to enter American homes through the Internet, and consumers lack the corollary right to have their broadband providers kick them out."

What about my right to view "indecent" content? What about setting such sites to the loopback address in my router myself if I don't want people in my house seeing that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 7 Dec 2015 @ 9:41am

At first blush, this might sound reasonable

At second blush it still sounds reasonable. I've tried concentrating on it REALLY hard - still reasonable.

I'm pretty sure the only way it will not sound reasonable is if the sound of a really big check being handed to me interferes with the audio.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 7 Dec 2015 @ 9:44am

and consumers lack the corollary right to have their broadband providers kick them out

So am I to understand that this guy is advocating that we have a right to have people saying stupid things that we disagree with barred from speaking? Because I'd like to start with having my ISP send out someone to shut him up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2015 @ 9:47am

This country has turned into nothing but a business. Back in the days most places banned freeway banners because they were considered a hazardous distraction to drivers and could cause accidents. Somehow businesses managed to get around that and now all over the freeways I see big banners everywhere, even very bright digital banners that can be considered almost blinding under certain conditions.

Heck, with these toll lanes even the freeways have turned into a business.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2015 @ 9:48am

"In an America with network neutrality rules, purveyors of indecent material and groups such as ISIS have a right to enter American homes through the Internet, and consumers lack the corollary right to have their broadband providers kick them out."

I seriously doubt anyone would scream that an ISP is violating net neutrality rules if it were asked by a customer to implement a filter for said customer. Provided, of course, that the filter in question only applies to that customer's account.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2015 @ 9:48am

yes, FREEDOM does help ISIS.
that is undeniably true.

it does help everybody else, too

we can say the same on
fresh clean air,
water,
human rights,
healthy food,
...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2015 @ 9:50am

yes, "the US bill of rights" does help ISIS.
that is undeniably true.

it does help everybody else, too
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2015 @ 9:59am

Conflictilization
In the first place, how does one know that they don't want ISIS if they don't read or listen to their rhetoric? Because the Government tells us so? When did they become so trustworthy. In my mind, it doesn't take much to know I don't want them, but I don't want what our government is proposing either.

In the second place, I think you've got it all wrong. It is just a spelling error. It's Icing, not ISIS, as in the icing on the cake that will kill net neutrality (at least in Furchtgott-Roth's feeble minded single issue mind).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2015 @ 10:02am

This day's getting depressing
Looking at today's stories so far... Obama hinting at pressuring tech companies about encryption, to Hilary's statements about undoing encryption, to France's wishlist of police state powers, to this former FCC commissioner's nonsense about net neutrality.

It's depressing. We might as well say it now, the terrorists have won.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lucidrenegade (profile), 7 Dec 2015 @ 10:05am

Never trust a man with a hyphenated name.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2015 @ 10:05am

But net neutrality rules don't violate ISPs' free speech rights because throttling and dicking about with network traffic is not speech.

Network traffic isn't ISP speech, period. Other people's speech sure, but the ISPs are just the courier.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2015 @ 10:07am

Re: This day's getting depressing
if by the trrrists you mean: Obama, Hillary, the FCC clown and the French government...
then YES they have won indeed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2015 @ 10:25am

Sounds like Furchtgott-Roth should get together with David Cameron on combating the notion that something being legal doesn't mean we should allow it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TasMot (profile), 7 Dec 2015 @ 10:34am

Re:
Your forgot to mention:
Roads
Telephones
Utility Power
Airlines
Trains
Cars
Clothes - the clothing manufacturers should be shot too - they sell ISIS clothes that helps them fit-in with a crowd
and scissors, I but they use scissors too - they might even live dangerously and run with them

Why is it that the Internet is so horrendously foul when they use all of these other things too...

Ban it all I say.....all of those things can be used by the terrorists.....especially clothes, let's get rid of clothes!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2015 @ 10:41am

Former FCC Commissioner? YIKES!
So this idiot want to allow ISPs to regulate what its costumers can see? NO THANKS!

"Rather than allow broadband providers the option of providing different degrees of filtering to reflect different consumer demands, the FCC requires that all content be treated the same."

I think it depends on who gets to make the decision. If the individual consumer can chose what gets filtered I don't see how that would run into Net Neutrality issues. Net Neutrality is about allowing the consumer equal access to content that they choose. If he is speaking of 'consumer demands" as some sort of community wide indecency standard, or just the ISP decides then NO!

Thankfully he is a FORMER FCC Commissioner!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2015 @ 10:47am

Someone needs to tell this moron that he will no longer be receiving a free lunch, and in fact will be buying one for those of us who can't afford one. Damned sons of perdition...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mason Wheeler (profile), 7 Dec 2015 @ 12:02pm

Wow. So much fail here; it's like the guy doesn't understand anything about the Internet at all.
the First Amendment protects not only the right to speak without government interference but also the right to remain silent and the right not to be coerced into speech by the government. Nowhere is the right to be free from compelled speech more important than the Internet.

That might make sense if it wasn't utter nonsense. Content delivered by an ISP is not the ISP's speech; it's the speech of the people who created it. The ISP's business is package delivery, not speech.
In an America with network neutrality rules, purveyors of indecent material and groups such as ISIS have a right to enter American homes through the Internet, and consumers lack the corollary right to have their broadband providers kick them out.

Nope. In an America with network neutrality rules, purveyors of indecent material and groups such as ISIS have a right to make their objectionable content available through the Internet, but it only enters American homes if the Americans in their homes bring it in. If someone tries to push their content in uninvited, that's a crime, with or without Net Neutrality.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2015 @ 1:06pm

Re: Re:
and gopros, they love their gopros
and oakley tac gloves
and texas made Toyotas
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Luke A, 7 Dec 2015 @ 3:06pm

Re: Former FCC Commissioner? YIKES!
I'm not trying to be sarcastic here...

The individual already gets to choose what gets filtered, at the local level. It's called the "back" button, and the "options" tab. All the filtering you want to do can be done right there. Leave the ISP out of it, lest you create a slippery slope.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Luke A, 7 Dec 2015 @ 3:33pm

Re:
Don't even suggest that. ISP's need to teach people how to filter on a local level.

500 people live in "Nowhereville, Nebraska". They all vote. 95% of them vote for incumbent Mr. Smith for mayor. 5% vote for Mr. James.

The 95% that vote for Mr. Smith call up "Nebraska Internet and Cable Company" (NIaCC), and say "We all voted for Mr. Smith. We always vote for Mr. Smith. We don't want Mr. James' website to be available in our house, because we don't look at it, and find his ideas offensive, and we all vote for Mr. Smith anyway.

Now, NIaCC, could go and block James's website for those 95%. But what would stop them from deciding that "Hey, the majority of our customers don't want to look at Mr James' website. We can just block it for the whole town, because that's what the majority wants". So they do.

The next election comes around, and Mr. Tims runs against Smith. But NIACC decides that "Hey, 95% voted for James, so they probably will again. Lets just save everyone the nastiness of that opposing viewpoint, that they obviously don't want, and just block Mr. Tims website right away.
Heck, we don't even need to let him set one up, because nobody's going to vote for him anyway.

That's why you can't let ISP's filter access, even if everyone in one town finds a website repulsive, the people the next town over might think it's the best site ever created.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 7 Dec 2015 @ 4:52pm

"Why ISIS Celebrates the FCC’s Network Neutrality Rules"
That should be retitled, "Why ISIS Celebrates Furchtgott-Roth's Editorials."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 7 Dec 2015 @ 5:36pm

Re: Re:
This caveat invalidates your entire comment: "Provided, of course, that the filter in question only applies to that customer's account."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
chilling farts, 7 Dec 2015 @ 5:58pm

is clear, muricans are tired of commies
Months ago the mantra was "net neutrality=socialism", now they are adding bombs and arab trap to the hoax.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2015/06/15/net-neutrality-bad-policy-in-a-developed-econom y-even-worse-for-a-developing-one/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Luke A, 7 Dec 2015 @ 7:13pm

Re: Re:
The next election comes around, and Mr. Tims runs against Smith. But NIACC decides that "Hey, 95% voted for James (this was wrong, it should be Smith) , so they probably will again. Lets just save everyone the nastiness of that opposing viewpoint, that they obviously don't want, and just block Mr. Tims website right away.
Heck, we don't even need to let him set one up, because nobody's going to vote for him anyway
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2015 @ 7:29pm

Re:
I seriously doubt anyone would scream that an ISP is violating net neutrality rules if it were asked by a customer to implement a filter for said customer. Provided, of course, that the filter in question only applies to that customer's account.

How about teaching people to take some personal responsibility, learn how filters/blocks work on their web browsers/computers, and don't go asking your ISP to block stuff for you? Slipery slope.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 7 Dec 2015 @ 8:51pm

Re: Re:
Why is it that the Internet is so horrendously foul when they use all of these other things too...

The ability for anyone with an internet access to say their mind, the ability to fact check what's being said in real-time, the ability to communicate privately, the ability to communicate to many people without having to go through a middle-man like a newspaper or news agency...

There's all sorts of reasons that governments hate an open internet, but most of them can be boiled down to how it allows people to get around those in charge.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 7 Dec 2015 @ 9:04pm

Re:
As has been pointed out before, despite making the claim that network traffic is the ISP's speech, when you get down to it, they really wouldn't want it to be treated as such.

If what travels over their network is their speech, then that makes them liable for it, and I've no doubt there's more than enough illegal content going through the wires on a daily basis to put every single ISP exec in jail for life if they were treated as the owners of it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lisboeta, 8 Dec 2015 @ 6:52am

Re: Hyphenated
An interesting name, don't you think? FearGod-Roth
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wendy Cockcroft, 10 Dec 2015 @ 6:00am

Re:
Remember how certain people were saying that we should run countries like a business because government sucks by default?

Try getting those bright digital banners down. Howls of "Nanny state!" "Socialist!" and other dog whistle words to follow in 3...2...1...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wendy Cockcroft, 10 Dec 2015 @ 6:02am

Re:
Can we make this comment First Word, please?
[ link to this | view in thread ]