Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Sunday July 15 2018, @04:51AM   Printer-friendly
from the right-to-block=right-to-talk dept.

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.

Source: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/net-neutrality-rules-are-illegal-according-to-trumps-supreme-court-pick/


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday July 15 2018, @06:48AM (2 children)

    You troll so enthusiastically but so weakly. It makes me sad for you.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @07:36AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @07:36AM (#707540)

    Well at least it made you sad if not ashamed to be yourself. We'll keep trying but I don't see much hope for you.

    I get what is going on, you're riding the outrage wave and trying to spin your own politics inside justified anger. You are the worst but apparently there are enough dissatisfied people around here that will rally to anyone willing to "tell it like it is". You are the Trump if SoylentNews, be proud in your douchery.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @02:27PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @02:27PM (#707614)

    You're quite possibly the most ignorant person in the internet if you think that was trolling. Those of us that have the intelligence of actual adults know perfectly well that what you're pushing doesn't work, never has and never will. People are not rational actors and market forces depend upon customers having multiple options, the time to research those options and the ability to switch to a different option that varies from the other available options.

    In short, definitely not when it comes to the internet. I only have 1 option for wired broad band because the building I live in only has 1 option. Moving just to get another ISP is absolutely ridiculous.