Verizon and MetroPCS argue that the ruling is unconstitutional and violates the First Amendment, claiming that broadband networks are the modern-day microphone by which their owners engage in First Amendment speech. The carriers state that the rules are arbitrary and capricious, and also violate the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Are they possibly using an argument that could backfire? They are trying to say that shareholders first amendment rights are being violated if they cannot control the use of their network. Is this like claiming that free speech is owning a megaphone and deciding who can use it? Are they trying to equate broadband with a radio or television station where the owners dictate the content that airs? In this case, the owners have the right to deny a software program on their network because that software program might "say" something through the "microphone" with which they disagree?
Don't publicly held corporations have to comply with various laws that prohibit discrimination? Does this too violate owners first amendment rights by denying them the ability to "protest" such compliance through their incorporation?