|
Computers, Privacy & the Constitution
|
|
First Amendment- For or Against Net Neutrality?-- By EdenEsemuede - 01 Mar 2024Introduction + DefinitionsIn theory, the First Amendment guarantees a right to free speech. That means that, subject to a few limitations in certain spaces, Americans should enjoy a right to express their thoughts and opinions. If the Supreme Court case Reno v. ACLU is to be believed, those rights also extend to the Internet. However, what is not clear is how easy it has to be to express ones freedom of speech online. Enter net neutrality. Net Neutrality is the idea that all information on the internet is equally accessible. In a Net Neutrality landscape, Internet Service Providers cannot charge one company or entity more to show their content at higher/improved quality. For example, a net-neutral world means that Comcast cannot charge Netflix more to make their videos buffer less. From the perspective of consumers, part of protecting a person’s right to speech would also involve protecting their right to broadcast that speech equally. From a consumer perspective, Net Neutrality supports free speech. But what about from the perspective of the Internet Service Providers? This essay will analyze some of the Internet Service Provider’s best first amendment arguments against Net Neutrality, ultimately arguing that none of them meet constitutional muster. It will begin with an analysis of Kavennaugh’s 2017 D.C. Circuit opinion. From there, it will discuss the 2018 Restoring Internet Freedom Order, and Trump’s reasons for repealing it. With any luck, this discussion will allow constitutional scholars and readers alike to recognize the merit of Net Neutrality and demand it for the sake of our right to self expression.BodyOpen Internet Order Dissent2018 Restoring Internet Freedom OrderConclusionSourcesThis didn't go anywhere yet, and I think that's reflective of a difficulty. Requiring parties engaged in providing routing services for packets (Internet service provision) not to engage in anti-competitive routing practices no more affects their first amendment rights than does requiring telephone companies to complete calls to numbers of parties who buy their telephone service from a different phone company. "Network neutrality," a phrase invented by a telco executive, is just deceptive. "Rules against anti-competitive routing" correctly describes the issue and explains why there aren't First Amendment arguments of any kind. Completing the draft will make that point clearer, I'm sure.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zq-2Yk5OgKc https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2021/04/net-neutrality-and-the-first-amendment You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:
|
|
