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 bzipitidoo on Sunday July 15 2018, @03:43PM (1 child)
Maybe ISPs should have the right to censor. But they better be very careful about exercising it. For an example why, consider Prodigy. They censored content, ostensibly to keep everyone safe from the naughty bits of the Internet. Then when little Johnny saw something inappropriate, his mommy sued Prodigy, and won. Prodigy tried to argue that they were just a common carrier, not responsible for the content. Everyone was reminded that they had made themselves responsible, and they had no good answer.
However, you took the discussion off track. The Right to Free Speech does not include or imply the Right to Censor! That is a totally upsidedown interpretation. Whatever rights censorship is based on, it's _not_ Free Speech. And this Supreme Court nominee showed what a bad choice he is by using such nutty pretzel logic to claim otherwise. Not that we didn't already know that, but every additional bit of evidence could help sway a few more Congress critters against him.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 17 2018, @08:02PM
you misunderstood what the First Amendment means. The Government doesn't have the Right to Censor. The People can censor each other all they want, if they manage to. And since for some reason (*cough* money *cough*) companies are now People and are in a position where they can censor...