[Bloody Sam Roberts]

The internet represents free speech and is thus hands off for all of government.

Your comment makes me think that the entire idea of net neutrality is patently unconstitutional.

If government takes over the internet then that is clearly an abridgement of free speech...of the press...as well as the right of the people peaceably to assemble.
Who is to say that 'peaceably assemble' means to physically assemble? What could be more peaceable or non-violent than a discussion of an issue or issues in an online forum? No chance of physical violence there.

Additionally, it would infringe our Constitutionally protected right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If the internet is NOT the premier means of petitioning the government for a redress of grievances, then why does the government maintain such a huge inventory of websites on this same internet?

I'm thinking that this angle could very well be used by a team of shrewd Constitutional lawyers to defeat net neutrality. It could take years but it might actually be possible.

[RayChuang88]

If government wants Internet neutrality, they MUST put down in writing that First Amendment rights of free speech must be respected and enforced online. Otherwise, we could end up with government controlled censorship, a direct violation of this Amendment.