Re: dangerous precedent in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r19153931 en Sat, 28 Nov 2009 10:38:55 EDT Sat, 28 Nov 2009 10:38:55 EDT Re: dangerous precedent http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19338715 Ulmo :
said by ross See Profile :

said by nklb See Profile :

said by matrix3D See Profile :

I agree. I don't give a crap what kind of BS clause Verizon puts in its contracts -- nothing should take precedence over the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (the First Amendment in this instance).
Verizon is not a government organization and therefore the first amendment is not applicable to them.
Horseshit! They are a common carrier and content is NONE OF THEIR G-D BUSINESS!
For those who care,

My layman's understanding of 1st Amendment vs. Common Carrier is that they must be different because I've never heard of them being derived from the same thing, but both have similar effects. If my layman's understanding is correct, then stating "nonsense!" to an accusation that 1st amendment has nothing to do with Common Carrier and then equating the two interchangeably in conversation simply shows the stupidity of the person doing it. Most people would realize the *potential* for the two items to be different regardless of whether or not they actually are, and would be cautious enough not to use them as equivilent as well. Mixing those two items up shows some sort of mental incapacity, disease, and/or instability.

It was bloody stupid of VW to deny the "pro-lifers" -- verify side -- oh it was the "pro-choicers" -- hm -- well, I personally have a much darker attitude toward them, but the principles are the same -- it was (not bloody but at least a little bit) stupid of VW to deny the "pro-choicers" their forum if they are behaving properly with respect to everything technical (although not necessarily with respect to prudent procreational activities) since VW likes the protections of being a common carrier.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19338715 Sun, 28 Oct 2007 13:09:24 EDT Re: dangerous precedent http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19160174 Doctor Olds :
said by NOCMan See Profile :

Not only that, if they filter and block content they lose common carrier status and can be held liable for what goes across their network.
Funny that you mention that.

AT&T doesn't seem concerned......

»AT&T to Target Pirated Content

»AT&T willing to spy for NSA, MPAA, and RIAA

»[Services] AT&T to block pirated content
--
What’s the point of owning a supercar if you can’t scare yourself stupid from time to time?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19160174 Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:22:44 EDT Re: dangerous precedent http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19155647 en102 : Its one of the highest profit margin items that a wireless company can provide.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_message_service

quote:
Commercially SMS is a massive industry in 2006 worth over 80 Billion dollars globally.[17] SMS has an average global price of 11 cents and maintains a near 90% profit margin.

--
Canada = Hollywood North]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19155647 Thu, 27 Sep 2007 17:35:59 EDT Re: dangerous precedent http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19154591 ross :
said by nklb See Profile :

said by matrix3D See Profile :

I agree. I don't give a crap what kind of BS clause Verizon puts in its contracts -- nothing should take precedence over the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (the First Amendment in this instance).
Verizon is not a government organization and therefore the first amendment is not applicable to them.
Horseshit! They are a common carrier and content is NONE OF THEIR G-D BUSINESS!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19154591 Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:48:51 EDT Re: dangerous precedent http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19154537 BarneyBadAss : Kripes... why don't they just get out of the business completely?
--
---Barney]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19154537 Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:40:04 EDT Re: dangerous precedent http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19153931 djrobx : The hell they're not getting a kickback. It's absolutely insane how much wireless companies charge for text messages. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19153931 Thu, 27 Sep 2007 13:10:13 EDT Re: dangerous precedent http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19153907 nklb :
said by matrix3D See Profile :

I agree. I don't give a crap what kind of BS clause Verizon puts in its contracts -- nothing should take precedence over the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (the First Amendment in this instance).
Verizon is not a government organization and therefore the first amendment is not applicable to them.
--
for all your Linux questions]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19153907 Thu, 27 Sep 2007 13:05:36 EDT Re: dangerous precedent http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19153556 matrix3D : I agree. I don't give a crap what kind of BS clause Verizon puts in its contracts -- nothing should take precedence over the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (the First Amendment in this instance).

EDIT: Looks like this story is now obsolete. Apparently Verizon has already reversed its position. »www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21011328/]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19153556 Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:07:57 EDT Re: dangerous precedent http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19152925 NOCMan : Not only that, if they filter and block content they lose common carrier status and can be held liable for what goes across their network.

Obviously one of the lawyers must not have gotten enough coffee that day.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19152925 Thu, 27 Sep 2007 10:14:09 EDT Re: dangerous precedent http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19152754 Nuts : They'r not getting any kind of kickback.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19152754 Thu, 27 Sep 2007 09:41:19 EDT dangerous precedent http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19152736 Corona : This is a dangerous precedent to set. From the blurb, it looks like only users who sign up for these SMS messages would get them. What's the problem Verizon?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19152736 Thu, 27 Sep 2007 09:38:41 EDT