how-to block ads
|
|
view: topics flat text |
|
Comments on news posted 2009-12-15 10:32:04: Last week you'll recall that the cable industry's chief lobbying and policy group, the NCTA, unveiled a new talking point suggesting that network neutrality protections would violate the cable industry's First Amendment rights. ..
|
  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| Maybe if they didn't read the data they convey... They couldn't claim they are opposed to it!
This is seriously, one of the stupidest arguments ever. Imagine if this little legal gem was accepted.
It would, for example, mean that companies could monitor your communications in real time. For example AT&T monitoring your Wireless phone. If you started to say something negative about AT&T or positive about say Verizon then by this line of thinking they'd be allowed to cut you off.
Give me a break!!
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|  DanTrailer Park SupervisorPremium
join:2002-12-17
Eh?
 ·Rogers Hi-Speed
| Fuck em... whoops... wait my freespe... Freedom of speech is very different from freedom of will.
You are free to think that certain legislation isn't fair,
You are not free to oppose said legislation by ignoring it and gutting your customers.
But folks, if a conglomerates grassroots lobby groups say that it's ok to take the stand of ANYTHING is free speech, then I will too.
I've not violated any DMCA pirating this copy of Aladdin, I'm just using my 1st Amendment rights! if that statements laughably than so is the NCTA.
--
Kick At the Darkness | |
| | |  Losers
How can controlling speech they didn't generate be their first amendment rights?
What they are actually saying is that it's their right to control the flow of EVERYONE else's free speech.
Please make me laugh, puke, and hemorrhage all at the same time! | |
| | | The Supreme Court said so. "When the Government defends a regulation on speech as a means to redress past harms or prevent anticipated harms, it must do more than simply 'posit the existence of the disease sought to be cured.' It must demonstrate that the recited harms are real, not merely conjectural, and that the regulation will, in fact, alleviate these harms in a direct and material way." -- US Supreme Court, Turner Broadcasting vs. FCC.
There have been no actual harms -- in fact, there is no problem to be solved by "network neutrality" regulation at all. Except the problem, perceived by Google, that ISPs might get in the way of its takeover of the Internet. | |
| | | Speech = Liability So now the cable industry says that anything passing through an ISP's network is the ISP's own speech.
But if that's true, then the ISP is legally liable for everything passing through its network. For example:
* If a customer reads a libelous blog entry, the ISP can be sued for libel (because the libelous statement is the ISP's own speech!).
* If a customer receives spam touting some phony work-at-home scheme, the ISP can be sued for fraud (because the fraudulent claim is the ISP's own speech!).
* If a customer downloads a copyrighted song, the ISP can be sued for copyright infringement (because the ISP spoke the copyrighted work without a license!).
This is definitely in the "be careful what you wish for" department. | |
| iq100
join:2002-02-06
Cold Spring Harbor, NY | highway builder does NOT chose which cars can use the road. Subject says it all.
By way of analogy, when automobiles were first invented, profit driven groups built PRIVATE roads. The builder of the road determined who could use the road and at what price.
Regardless of one's politics, road builder she not also be the one's that control what brand of automobile or truck can use the roadway that was built.
Roads need to be as public as our air supply.
The electronic highway strung across, under, and on top of public land needs to be strung by contractors that build the plant according to printed specification. The plant builders should do NOTHING more than build the plant (aka the cable/fiber/wireless infrastructure). Who uses these electronic highways and for what price should NOT be in control of the electronic road builders. | |
|
| |
|
