SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Fnord666
President Trump's Supreme Court nominee argued last year that net neutrality rules violate the First Amendment rights of Internet service providers by preventing them from "exercising editorial control" over Internet content.
Trump's pick is Brett Kavanaugh, a judge on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The DC Circuit twice upheld the net neutrality rules passed by the Federal Communications Commission under former Chairman Tom Wheeler, despite Kavanaugh's dissent. (In another tech-related case, Kavanaugh ruled that the National Security Agency's bulk collection of telephone metadata is legal.)
While current FCC Chairman Ajit Pai eliminated the net neutrality rules, Kavanaugh could help restrict the FCC's authority to regulate Internet providers as a member of the Supreme Court. Broadband industry lobby groups have continued to seek Supreme Court review of the legality of Wheeler's net neutrality rules even after Pai's repeal.
[...] Consumers generally expect ISPs to deliver Internet content in un-altered form. But Kavanaugh argued that ISPs are like cable TV operators—since cable TV companies can choose not to carry certain channels, Internet providers should be able to choose not to allow access to a certain website, he wrote.
"Internet service providers may not necessarily generate much content of their own, but they may decide what content they will transmit, just as cable operators decide what content they will transmit," Kavanaugh wrote. "Deciding whether and how to transmit ESPN and deciding whether and how to transmit ESPN.com are not meaningfully different for First Amendment purposes."
Kavanaugh's argument did not address the business differences between cable TV and Internet service.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by vux984 on Sunday July 15 2018, @06:18AM (1 child)
Frankly, I'm just happy he picked an actual plausible candidate as opposed to someone who just plays one on TV. For all the huffing and puffing, he'll probably be fine. He's not who I'd want, but I'm not particularly worried about him either.
It's not really the supreme court's job to change the direction of the country. That's supposed to be congress and the senate,, reflecting the will of the people. Sure I was disappointed with citizen's united, and I am disappointed with the gerrymandering rulings -- precisely because they corrupt proper representation. But its not really supposed to be up to the supreme court to fix that stuff anyway.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @09:16PM
It's their job to interpret the laws and the Constitution correctly, which this guy obviously isn't going to do. To be fair, there are issues where the others don't do that either, but this guy is awful.
So, if the government is violating the Constitution, then it's absolutely the job of the Supreme Court to put a stop to that once the issue is brought before them, even if that changes the direction of the country.