I'll echo the thanks for both all of the hard work and sharing of the good news.
With apologies for stating what everyone here already knows, let me point out that the majority's concluding sentences could prove critically important if/when it does go to the Supreme Court.
"But nothing about affording indiscriminate access to internet content suggests that the broadband provider agrees with the content an end user happens to access. Because a broadband provider does not— and is not understood by users to—“speak” when providing neutral access to internet content as common carriage, the First Amendment poses no bar to the open internet rules."
I would submit, or more properly reiterate, that the opposite should be true as well - should broadband providers be able to restrict content, then it would most certainly raise First Amendment concerns, in at least two ways off the top of my head.
First, any governmental decision against net neutrality effectively promotes at least tacit viewpoint/content discrimination on the part of the providers. Whether the discrimination is predicated on content or commercial considerations, permitting providers to pick and choose - using bandwidth that the government is allocating. Put bluntly, I don't see why any government should be allowed to outsource speech restrictions that it cannot directly legally impose.
Second, and as a corollary, providers should be leery of becoming "speakers" by having the power to determine access. From a legal standpoint, I'd be extremely uneasy as a content provider who chooses to permit access to all types of content that could lead to a legitimate lawsuit against the provider and my company for exercising a decision - regardless of whether it's supposedly based on financial concerns alone - to permit access.
Finally, speaking from a US-based legal practitioner's perspective once again, perhaps it's time to fully express that the right to information is a necessary and critical component of the First Amendment's purpose, regardless of whether one believes in originalist, progressive, pragmatist, or any other school of constitutional jurisprudence. I'd be happy to help work on any such project, while acknowledging that many of you have been on the front lines and surely know much more than I about how this has been developing.
Aaron Eitan Meyer, Esq.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 14, 2016, at 12:18 PM, DeeDee Halleck <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> finally a bit of good news....
> sigh,
> DeeDee
>
>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Kathy Kleiman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Hi Ayden, I'll be watching the commentary closely to see about next steps - reading the "tea leaves," so to speak, so see what people are saying. Will keep you in the loop!
>>
>> Kathy
>>
>>> On 6/14/2016 12:01 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks for sharing this news, Kathy. With everything happening in politics at the moment, it is nice to read something positive for a change. It is hard for me to imagine this decision not being appealed to the Supreme Court, however - and the cynic in me worries that a conservative-leaning court may see this as some kind of unconstitutional restriction on business. Do you too envision a long battle ahead?
>>>
>>> Ayden
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 4:23 PM, Kathy Kleiman [log in to unmask] wrote:
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has just upheld Net Neutrality as the “law of the land” in the US! There was great rejoicing when Net Neutrality was passed the US Federal Communications Commission. There will be great rejoining today now that its major challenges have been set aside (although further challenges may follow).
>>>>
>>>> Congratulations to all members of NCSG who worked on these regulations! Decision here for all who want to read (110 pages with a 69 page dissent): D.C. Circuit’s decision in the Net Neutrality case.
>>>> Hooray!!!
>>>>
>>>> Kathy
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ayden Férdeline
>>> Statement of Interest
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org
|
