dslreports logo
 story category
Cable Industry Gets Confused By First Amendment
Apparently, anti-competitive behavior is a constitutional right

The cable industry's chief lobbying organization, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA), believes that violating network neutrality is their First Amendment right. Or at least that's the gist from a recent speech by NCTA CEO Kyle McSlarrow, whose organization's fighting the FCC's decision to more strictly codify network neutrality protections for consumers. The neutrality debate has been nothing if not colorful, so McSlarrow's claims that neutral networks somehow mystically violate First Amendment rights joins a proud history of arguments on both sides that make no particular sense. Enter McSlarrow:

quote:
Almost every net neutrality proposal would seek to control how an ISP affects the delivery of Internet content or applications as it reaches its customers. This is particularly odd for two reasons: First, there is plenty of case law about instances of speech compelled by the government – "forced speech" -- that suggests such rules should be scrutinized closely. Second, and perhaps more importantly, it is an almost completely unnecessary risk. All ISPs have stated repeatedly that they will not block their customers from accessing any lawful content or application on the Internet. Competitive pressures alone ensure this result: we are in the business of maximizing our customers’ choices and experiences on the Internet.
Unfortunately for fans of logic, McSlarrow doesn't really explain how any of the FCC's currently rather wimpy proposals would threaten First Amendment rights, though he hopes you won't notice that beneath his oddly joined smattering of loosely-related concepts. McSlarrow also tries to argue that neutrality rules aren't needed because "competitive pressures" will ensure good behavior by carriers. Of course distorting the First Amendment for argumentative effect and pretending there's robust competition is about par for the course for the network neutrality "debate" the last few years, especially in lobbying circles.

Granted not everybody believes there's a need for network neutrality rules, an argument supported by the fact that few people can even seemingly define the concept. That said, the threat of network neutrality rules have proven to be rather handy -- Comcast's migration from packet forgery for all to intelligent throttling for some was a prime example of the power such a threat holds. The more men like McSlarrow wiggle, the more you know that threat remains intact -- and that's a good thing. When McSlarrow stops pulling bizarre arguments out of his digital nether regions, then you should start worrying.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Most recommended from 52 comments


walterj5
join:2007-07-18

3 recommendations

walterj5

Member

Corporations have no 1st amendment rights

The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution and is law. The original 10 amendments were included to protect individual citizens from the "tyranny of the majority" amongst other things. The only business interest included was the press and applied to "political speech" in particular. We see legitimate limitations on "free speech" from the founding of the nation - the classic instance being "no one has the right to yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre. We have law that covers slander and libel and apply to individuals and even the press. We have laws regulating advertising; i.e. cigarettes and alcohol.

Corporations are not citizens. Only a citizen can vote or join the armed forces, etc. Only citizens died for this country. And only citizens give up their children for the defence of corporations as well as the nation. That is a moral argument but it is what the founders intended and Americans fought for in the revolution.

In fact, only citizens have the right to petition the government (lobby). Therefore, corporate lobbying is unconstitutional but corporate money has overpowered our political/legal system on that front.

In short, democracy and capitalism are not related. Just as no business is a democracy (ask any manager or owner) this government is not a business. We use capitalism because it serves the needs of our society. Our government is a democracy of citizens who have the right to thwart the abuses of capitalism any time need arises. Corporations benefit from the armed forces, laws protecting patents and property, a court system to settle disputes, ... Citizens get jobs and means for an economy to function.

The last 8 years prove unfettered capitalism, corruption and greed can destroy this nation.

And quit hiding behind "the children" to push your fascist agenda. The ends do not justify the means. Without the Bill of Rights we fight for nothing, It is the only thing that separates our society from a terrorist society.

karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Moscow, ID

2 recommendations

karlmarx

Member

Americans have gotten too Greedy

The Bill of Rights is just a guideline, not the law. By now, every American should be thankful that the corporations still give them the right to drive on their corporate roads, and be double thankful the corporations ALLOW them to use their internets. When did Americans become so stuck on this concept of free speech? Sure, it was a great idea, until we became the target of all the terrorists. Network Neutrality will allow the terrorist to spread their propaganda, and that will harm the children. Won't anyone please think of the children? The only way to protect the children is to submit to the all powerful, infallible rights of capitalism. All our current problems can be traced to too much government interference in our lives. Take away the government oversight, and not only will the terrorists lose, our children will be safe.

Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium Member
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC

2 recommendations

Matt3

Premium Member

Sick of the idiocy

Why are the people with the most warped sense of the Constitution always the first to invoke it? At least this guy didn't get the Constitution and the Bill of Rights confused.

Regardless, wouldn't net neutrality, with respect to treating all traffic the same, be more in the spirit of the 1st Amendment? If you want to stifle one type of traffic but allow another to pass, that seems like the violation of the 1st Amendment to me; if he really wants to draw that absurd parallel between speech and various types of internet data transfer anyway.