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
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...
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, 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.
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.<
Three unelected people in the FCC DO NOT have the legal authority under the U.S. Constitution to by pass the legislative and Executive branch to make new Regulations.
The FCC also does not have the jurisdiction. They are 100% out of bounds.
Anyone enforcing this unconstitutional move is violating U.S. laws and the U.S. Constitution.
Their 1A rights aren’t being violated because they don’t have any. Ok, now we’re getting somewhere. Who else doesn’t have 1A rights? Newspapers with letters to the editor? Radio hosts who take calls? Sites like FR?
Where in the BoR is this “status” you need in order to exercise rights?
The whole point was to make ISPs not render judgement on content, preventing them from hindering transmission (usually thru charging more) based on the nature of that content.
Knowing that Netflix makes a good buck off their content, ISPs were starting to squeeze Netflix for higher costs - allegedly on distribution issues, but really because Level3 et al wanted a greater piece of that action. (Level3 refused to install a single cable, which Netflix paid for, between two computers on the same shelf which would have massively increased bandwidth; instead, Level3 demanded huge sums to fix the problem - which would have taken maybe $5 of time & effort.)
FreeRepublic et al may become quite unpopular among those operating some ISPs. The ruling prohibits those ISPs from hindering FR access for no legal reason.
Child pornography is flat-out illegal. The FCC ruling explicitly states ISPs may not hinder _legal_ content, but that leaves unquestionably illegal content open for ISP blocking.
The difficult part is content of arguably legal vs illegal standing. Arguing against gay marriage? ISIS snuff-films propaganda? Civil disobedience? ISPs could argue these are illegal and ban them, but that opens liability for whether they’re wrong in that stance and violate the clear prohibition on blocking legal content.
The point of this part of the ruling is to ensure legal content is not blocked/hindered, while allowing ISPs to block unquestionably illegal activity (especially if it’s impacting available bandwidth, such as torrenting pirated BluRay media uncompressed). Seems the ISP is liable if they block legal content, so best if they let all but the most egregious/disruptive illegal content thru.
As for the right to screen out particular content you find offensive: the ISP business is there to blindly move content (like package carriers & phone companies), and customers don’t want you inspecting & passing judgement on theirs. Before objecting with “it’s your right”, remember you don’t want “common carriers” inspecting and blocking _your_ content either. This isn’t about making a cake for someone in particular, it’s about major carriers who have no business knowing the who & why, only moving it from A to B.
If the Feds do not follow the U.S. Law and U.S. Constitution, then it is the Duty of the State governments to arrest the suspects members and seize all assets since they are acting outside of law.
If the States refuse to do anything, then it will be left up to we the people.
The FCC Star Chamber has spoken and will let you know what your Constitutional rights are.
Australia a few years ago proposed government control of Internet content to end access to child porn and other “offensive” sites. The plan failed when the list of sites to be banned was leaked. Included on the banned list were sites with political content and bizarrely a website of a Melbourne dentist. Had the plan succeeded Aussie Internet users would have faced higher costs to finance the censorship and slower access speeds because of the content filtering.
I guess they will put Lois Lerner in charge to determine who gets to speak freely now. MMMMM, FOX or MSNBC? I wonder which she will pick?
“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. “
LOL! Well this crashed and burned real quick. One judge, and into the garbage bin this goes.
The FCC will have to go to court now. They stuck their foot in it. At home I have Verizon FIOS. So far I am doing fine.