Taxpayer Protection Pledge
ATR's Congressional Ratings
An American Agenda: Vote for Your Priorities
Invite Grover Norquist to Speak at Your School or Event
Welcome to Pacific Rim Policy Exchange 2010
INDEX

Does “Net Neutrality” Violate The First Amendment?

From Tim Andrews on Wednesday, November 11, 2009 5:16 PM
Add to Reddit Add to Stumbleupon Add to Delicious Add to Digg Add to Facebook Add to Twitter

 

Nick Dranias, Director of The Goldwater Institute's Centre For Constitutional Government, poses the question of whether so-called “net-neutrality” (AKA government internet takeover) regulations, as proposed by FCC Chairman Genachowski, violate the First Amendment.
 
Mr. Dranias notes that:
“In Comcast Cablevision v. Broward County, Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks struck down a county ordinance that forced a cable company to give its competitors equal access to its communication infrastructure. Much like advocates of net neutrality argue today, the county government argued that its “open access” ordinance did not offend the First Amendment because it ensured the transmission of more, rather than less, information by more companies. Judge Middlebrooks rejected that argument, ruling that the First Amendment prohibits government from forcing owners of communication infrastructure to transmit information against their will. He also held that government has no power to force the distribution—or “circulation”—of information because “[l]iberty of circulating is not confined to newspapers and periodicals, pamphlets and leaflets, but also to delivery of information by means of fiber optics, microprocessors and cable.”
He concludes by comparing net neutrality to “forcing a printer to publish books, newspapers, periodicals, pamphlets and leaflets on the government’s terms. And when it comes to government seizing command and control over freedom of the press, the First Amendment is anything but neutral.”
 
Yet another reason that net neutrality is a very, very bad idea.

Permalink | Email | Print

Comments

You'd think that with all of our discussions ATR would get the point that the net neutrality that all of the sane people involved are arguing for is nothing close to a government takeover of the internet. I'll give one last argument, then I'm done, because we don't seem to be making any progress. The internet is substantially different from typical publishing companies, because typical publishing companies don't have natural monopolies on their services. I don't hear anyone at ATR complaining that we shouldn't regulate utilities, or that the government has taken over utility companies. Internet providers are very much like utilities, and that is why they merit some small amount of regulation.
>> Matt Friday, November 13, 2009 12:01 PM Report Comment

Seriously ATR, you should advocate for the regulation of things that Matt wants regulated, but not for things that Matt doesn't want regulated. Forget any principles about property rights or free markets. Make sure you don't have any consistent positions on the proper role of government. If Matt wants it to be regulated, then it should be, and if he doesn't want it regulated, then it shouldn't be. It should work out well especially since Matt doesn't understand that there isn't a natural monopoly and that no one has been harmed by the current system. Matt, continue to wow us with your oracle-like wisdom and you will solve all of the world's problems.
>> TCH Friday, November 13, 2009 3:37 PM Report Comment

Well, I see no reason to ever come back to this site. Apparently it is full of immature people who don't seem to be capable of rational debate. You're probably happy, Todd, to see me go. It's too bad, I think. The world needs more rational voices in favor of conservative values, not fanatical name callers. They do nothing to support the cause, only aggravate and encourage the liberals. I'm quite disappointed. May you grow up, Todd, before you ever have a serious job in our economy.
>> Matt Friday, November 13, 2009 5:17 PM Report Comment

Network neutrality has been the defacto way that the internet has worked since it's inception. That's starting to break down when Mediacom selectively blocks p2p and ESPN360 brokers a deal directly with ISPs. Network neutrality LEGISLATION would inhibit the deconstruction of a neutral network. And it's really more like forcing fedex to ship whatever the payer wants too, despite it being papers for signing up with DHS. Or like forcing phone companies not to drop your calls if you ever say the word VoIP.
>> John Monday, August 2, 2010 11:49 AM Report Comment

I find irritating the hypocrisy of the right wing think tanks and publications that defend the interests of corporations despite the conflict of those interests with capitalistic principles. When government regulation protect or help to create these oligopolies, we don't hear a word, but any attempt at restrictive regulation meant to protect the interests of the public is opposed. In this case the regulations meant to create competition where there is none is struck down, because it is unconstitutional and not because it is unwise. And you gloat? Perhaps the first amendment comes from a time when starting a newspaper was easier than it is now, not to mention masive multimedia conglomerate.
>> Jake Saturday, August 14, 2010 10:30 PM Report Comment

Add a Comment



26153

Add me to the ATR Newsletter list (If you are already on the list, you will not be subscribed a second time.)
Notify me when others comment on this article.