Posted on 03/13/2015 6:09:33 AM PDT by xzins
Two weeks after passage, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) finally released its landmark “net neutrality” regulations Thursday morning.
Among its many determinations, the FCC stated that broadband providers do not enjoy First Amendment protections because they do not have a right to free speech.
“The rules we adopt today do not curtail broadband providers’ free speech rights,” the commission said on page 268 of its decision, noting that because they merely serve as a means for others to express themselves, broadband providers are not entitled to free speech rights themselves.
“When engaged in broadband Internet access services, broadband providers are not speakers, but rather serve as conduits for the speech of others," the FCC stated.
However, the point is a matter of contention because the decision also says that providers “shall not block lawful content, applications, [or] services.” (page 284).
The commissioners acknowledged that such a problem has not arisen to date, stating, “The record reflects that broadband providers exercise little control over the content which users access on the Internet.”
If broadband providers did exercise such control, the commission suggested, they may have some justification for seeking First Amendment protections.
“Claiming free speech protections under the First Amendment necessarily involves demonstrating status as a speaker,” the decision stated. “Absent speech, such rights do not attach.”
After finding that broadband providers themselves do not have a right to free speech, the FCC said that its new net neutrality rules protect the First Amendment rights of those who use the providers to access the Internet.
“Indeed, rather than burdening free speech, the rules we adopt today ensure that the Internet promotes speech by ensuring a level playing field for a wide variety of speakers who might otherwise be disadvantaged,” the decision continued.
Even if the ruling does constitute a potential violation of Internet providers’ First Amendment rights, a majority of the five commissioners said, there was a compelling governmental interest in doing so.
“Even if they were engaged in speech, the rules we adopt today are tailored to the important government interest in maintaining an open Internet as a platform for expression, among other things,” the decision concluded.
The regulations passed on a 3–2 vote on February 26, with the FCC’s three Democratic commissioners voting in favor of the new net neutrality rules and its two Republican commissioners voting against.
The rules must be approved by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) next, after which they will proceed to a period of congressional review before being published in the Federal Register.
After their publication, they are expected to face judicial scrutiny.
The commissioners acknowledged that such a problem has not arisen to date, stating, “The record reflects that broadband providers exercise little control over the content which users access on the Internet.”
This is saying that ATT or DISH or whoever carries your internet access doesn't have the right to declare 'child pornography' to be against their company ethics and refuse to give it access.
Or ISIS
Or The government
A critical issue, until a new administration takes over the presidency, will be what the FCC defines as a broadband provider.
Or FreeRepublic...
So unelected bureaucrats can now decide that government has a “compelling interest” allowing Constitutional rights to be overridden.
Be afraid. Be very afraid!
If you level the playing field for speakers, by definition, you infringe on the free speech of some. Of course, we knew this was BS regulation even before we saw it because we knew that, ultimately, it will be used to limit the speech of at least some, if not all. Life has been quite fine without it
Since when does the FCC get to interpret the Constitution? My understanding was that was the purview of the Supreme Court...
I have come to believe that the primary internet providers, the 3 or 4 cable companies, snuck under the wire more or less. Local governments that allowed the monopolies for cable will sever the false connection between TV and internet
the local governments will come to allow other providers to provide fire optic cable to the house connections that will replace the obsolete copper cable company connections
As long as the provider is an American company then yes, their companies are entitled to free speech protections.
I wish someone could just pull the plug on the internet. People would actually come up with their own opinions again, instead of mindlessly believing whatever drivel they read on the internet.
The internet is almost THE last place where conservatives have a voice. Why do you think its so important to zero to control the internet and its content? Yea. That’s right. Keep thinking. You’re almost there.....and you got it.
For those that can’t follow that thought to its logical conclusion is that: it’s almost time for the leftists to “crack down”, on us. Be sure that its coming. With the majority of the internet controlled by the Bama admin they will be able to literally do nearly anything, with the media covering for them, and no one will know.
This statement highlights a problem destroying this country. Government interest is not an acceptable reason for anything. Public interest is the only compelling reason for a government to act.
The FCC has no place deciding who or what the First Amendment applies to. (or any Constitutional Amendment for that matter) Such questions are for the courts and the people to decide.
These government agencies and bureaucrats need to learn their place.
So, where are these companies going to lay this fiber optic cable?
Are they going to lay it on the thousands of miles of other “obsolete” fiber optic line that ISPS already use to transmit data?
False connection between TV and internet? I wasn’t aware there was some false connection. I am aware however that TV and internet both are the exact same thing: the transmission of data.
Government "of the people by the people" has now perished from this earth.
Ha ha. Good luck to all those companies lining up to run fiber optics to each house and the supporting broadband access and network infrastructure. Ask verizon how much it costs and look at their debt. No what many companies want to offer are over the top services and feed on the host that provides the access investment to the homes.
What does a broadband provider provide that makes them a provider?
Where do they what they provide from?
So, private companies finance and construct the biggest network in the history of man.
And the FCC comes along and tells them what they can do with it. OK...I guess they will continue to invest. So we all get to have the same speed of internet for the foreseeable, depreciation of 15 year future.
Note for the future Republican Administration, defund most of the alphabet agencies. Agencies like the FCC can get just enough funding to continue manage wireless spectrum licenses, nothing more.
If you like your current internet service, you can keep your current internet service.
More pernicious is the underlying motive for the FCC to claim control of the 'net. Under the cover of the nice-sounding leftist call for bandwidth for everyone is the mailed fist of content control, inevitably to morph into political speech control.<
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.