Former FCC Commissioner Idiotically Claims Net Neutrality Helps ISIS
from the a-new-low dept
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.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.
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.
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Well, so long as you ignore those pesky 'facts'
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 chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
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 chronology ]
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 chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Heck, with these toll lanes even the freeways have turned into a business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re:
and oakley tac gloves
and texas made Toyotas
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
that is undeniably true.
it does help everybody else, too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Conflictilization
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 chronology ]
This day's getting depressing
It's depressing. We might as well say it now, the terrorists have won.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This day's getting depressing
then YES they have won indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hyphenated
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Network traffic isn't ISP speech, period. Other people's speech sure, but the ISPs are just the courier.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Former FCC Commissioner? YIKES!
"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 chronology ]
Re: Former FCC Commissioner? YIKES!
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 chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
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 chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Why ISIS Celebrates the FCC’s Network Neutrality Rules"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
is clear, muricans are tired of commies
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 chronology ]