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This discussion has been archived.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 Bot on Sunday July 15 2018, @09:46AM (2 children)

    by Bot (3902) on Sunday July 15 2018, @09:46AM (#707568) Journal

    BUT, since you say "I have right to censor what passes from MY internet tubes", you automatically get fully responsible for what passes and you don't censor. Enjoy your nazipedoterrorism sacrosanct charges.

    "but this will destroy the internet"

    The internet is basically pwned already. The sooner people go to private encrypted content addressed networks the better.

    Great pick, eh, Donald.

    --
    Account abandoned.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, TouchĂ©) by Bot on Sunday July 15 2018, @09:48AM

    by Bot (3902) on Sunday July 15 2018, @09:48AM (#707569) Journal

    TLDR, what #707562, the post above mine, said.

    --
    Account abandoned.
  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday July 15 2018, @02:27PM

    by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Sunday July 15 2018, @02:27PM (#707612) Journal

    Yeah, wut.

    The ISP is engaging in speech when it censors instead of acting as a dumb pipe? Fuck it, just switch everything to dark web already.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]