Trump’s Supreme Court pick: ISPs have 1st Amendment right to block websites

But hey! He wasn't appointed by Obummer or Hitlery so he's A-Ok now! Internet freedom be damned!

President Trump's Supreme Court nominee argued last year that net neutrality rules violate the First Amendment rights of Internet service providers by preventing them from "exercising editorial control" over Internet content.

Trump's pick is Brett Kavanaugh, a judge on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The DC Circuit twice upheld the net neutrality rules passed by the Federal Communications Commission under former Chairman Tom Wheeler, despite Kavanaugh's dissent. (In another tech-related case, Kavanaugh ruled that the National Security Agency's bulk collection of telephone metadata is legal.)

While current FCC Chairman Ajit Pai eliminated the net neutrality rules, Kavanaugh could help restrict the FCC's authority to regulate Internet providers as a member of the Supreme Court. Broadband industry lobby groups have continued to seek Supreme Court review of the legality of Wheeler's net neutrality rules even after Pai's repeal.

Source

Ya know I fully expected Trump's nominee to be another fiercely conservative judge would only serve to tip the scales of the supreme court. Ya know, it's just expected in this fiercely partisan environment? I mean what if this was a Dem it'd be another lefty right? This is the game we play in DC no matter how many times you try and play 'fence sitter' in the face of the choices your guy makes in the Whitehouse. Heck ya know what? Even the fact he's pro-surveillance state (this guy has love for the NSA I tell ya) is something I could just deal with. I mean it seems to be the thing in this era.... Obama did it? It was ramped up under Bush with the Patriot Act... heck the general consensus on ATS is that Trump gets a pass on it so hey, that's the we're going. But all that aside, it's his stance on net neutrality that gets me and should get every other ATSer.

Get on with it already SG! What are you trying to say?? If this guy gets in you could essentially kiss any chance of fighting for internet freedoms in the courts. Forget about it. We might as well welcome the era where corporations get to dictate what information or news sources we get to view. Great right? We can't have a protected open forum on the internet, nope! The major corps dictate and this guy is going to ensure it stays that way. Wear your MAGA hat and shut up!

Kavanaugh argued that net neutrality violates the First Amendment, “because the rule impermissibly infringes on the Internet service providers’ editorial discretion.”

Source

More than 100 Million Americans Can Only Get Internet Service from Companies That Have Violated Net Neutrality

Let that sink in.

Once again, the system remains the same, the face changes and people hail the "Republic" and Hail "Representative Democracy"

We got our guy, we won,

now they have to go around making excuses for "their guy" doing the same thing as the others did...

Obama surveillance state? NWO, Communists takeover... Trump surveillance state? MAGA!

all of them

How is that any different from other private providers ie:Facebook,Instagram,Twitter or YouTube from taking down things that they don’t like?

a reply to: avgguy

Facebook,Instagram,Twitter or YouTube from taking down things that they don’t like?

The difference is, Facebook doesn't have the ability to block your access to ATS or InfoWars or wherever you prefer to get your information from. We're not talking about websites or webowners. We're talking about multi-national corporations having the power to control your ability to access news on the internet. We're talking about ISPs here.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

I'll give credit where it's do.
Your never ending mission of throwing crap at the wall has finally resulted in something sticking.

I agree, this does not bode well for the future of an open internet.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Are ISPs private companies? And if so why shouldn’t they be able to monitor your content?

a reply to: Southern Guardian

You must search endlessly trying to verify one of your liberal ideals,I notice you put articles,from where? ,all of a sudden things that happened normally are because of Trump,start focusing on the positive,your post are negative,resources as well

a reply to: avgguy

It's different because Facebook, Instragram, Twitter and YouTube are not internet providers, just sites on the internet.

Why shouldn't phone companies be able to tell you which numbers you can call? Because it imposes an unreasonable limitation on your free speech.

Here's a thought experiment for you: If you own a car, but all the roads are privately owned by RoadCorp LTD and they get to tell you where you can and can't drive, do you really own the car?

a reply to: Cutepants

I'm starting to believe these 'sites' are the next Plague being used to take down Mandkind one mind at a time.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Not only that, but these major ISPs like Comcast are also in bed with the government. What's to stop the government from government from going up to these corporations and asking them to censor certain sites in exchange for some kickbacks?

originally posted by: avgguy
How is that any different from other private providers ie:Facebook,Instagram,Twitter or YouTube from taking down things that they don’t like?

You really don't see the difference?

But hey. He's a trump guy. More guns. No abortions.
MAGA

a reply to: Southern Guardian

The thing is, you started your post with

But hey! He wasn't appointed by Obummer or Hitlery so he's A-Ok now! Internet freedom be damned!

Then you make your point, after you just turned off everyone who is tired of the rhetoric. That's a perfect example of how to get people to ignore you.

Had you simply posted the information without all the hate, you might have gotten a few more people behind you... but noooooo... gotta get them jabs in! So, unfortunately, I am now looking at this issue through a very tight filter. Congratulations on weakening your own message. Well done.

Now, back on topic...

Your source gives three examples of what I would consider potentially poor decisions: the decision that a sitting President cannot be legally attacked and must be impeached first; the decision that metadata gathering is legal without a court order; and the decision that net neutrality violates the first amendment. Now, I firmly believe that any political agenda that interferes with reasonable interpretation of the Constitution is a bad thing in a judge. There is no use arguing conservative versus liberal with me on this, because a judge is not there to make policy... a judge is there to determine applicability of the various parts of the Constitution and constitutional Federal law to a specific circumstance. If someone wants a Republican Justice, or a Democratic Justice, or a Libertarian Justice, they are just as clueless about what they are talking about. The only type of Justice that should be acceptable is a Constitutionalist Justice, because the whole concept of being a judge is to apply the Constitution.

Taking the issues one at a time in that light:

Legal action against a sitting President:

This is not as cut and dried as most seem to think. I can easily see Kavanaugh's position as in line with the Constitution. A sitting President has a lot on his plate in order to provide for national security, and lawsuits/indictments take an inordinate amount of time to resolve. Since the Constitution clearly outlines a remedy for a President to be removed from office (impeachment), and since the Constitution states clearly in Article II Section 4 that


The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

This indicates that due to the high position of his office, the President, along with other civil officers, is immune from legal persecution until and unless impeached.

NSA monitoring of metadata:

Metadata is not what most people seem to think it is. It is more statistical in nature, and by its very nature contains no Personally Identifiable Information (PII). It may contain such information as the numbers called, the numbers called from, the time spent in conversation, location the call originated from, etc. As long as that is all it contains, the result of collecting and analyzing metadata is not different than the police watching a specific house to see who enters and leaves. It would be very hard to declare that as a privacy violation, because the fact that the house is visible prohibits any expectation of visual privacy toward anything that can be seen from the public right of way. Likewise, the metadata is transmitted openly with no expectation of privacy, although the information contained in the call would be protected. That would include the content of text messages, which are not included in metadata. Therefore, I have no real issue with his decision here.

Net neutrality

Here I have an issue. Reading his statements that the first amendment protects an ISP from net neutrality because it denies them the ability to editorialize their content is an obvious example of someone who does not understand the concept of an ISP or how the Internet works. It seems obvious to me that in the previous case, Kavanaugh was confused about these points and misapplied the Constitution.

So it appears we will have a Supreme Court Justice who, should a net neutrality case wind its way to the Supreme Court, will need to be handheld through how the business of the Internet operates differently from cable TV. That's not a good thing, but considering the present political environment, it will be a reality. The simple truth is that people are screaming about Kavanaugh for some of the most outlandish reasons... Roe v. Wade, which is in no danger of being repealed... and are so transparent in their pure obstructionism.... one protest group actually put out their public statement so fast that they left the name in one place as "XX," clearly indicating that they were going to say the same thing no matter who was nominated... that not many people are going to listen to this.

I warned about this a year and a half ago, but would anyone listen? Noooooo... gotta get Trump! Well, now these people who could have waited and raised a real issue get to sit back and cry at the moon because no one is taking them seriously any more.

A shame, really. We could have done something about this.

TheRedneck

a reply to: MrSensible

Why shouldn't phone companies be able to tell you which numbers you can call? Because it imposes an unreasonable limitation on your free speech.

THAT is the argument that should be used if a net neutrality case comes up. All of the provisions of net neutrality are there to protect the first amendment rights of those who set up a website, and interfering with access to those sites is violating their freedom of speech.

I don't know if that argument was used when Kavanaugh last heard a net neutrality case, but it should have been.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Southern Guardian

The cheap labor express, lobbyists and donor class own the politicians.
This is one thing that remains the same between all parties.

That's like saying they can edit your phone conversations in real time if they dont like your jokes.

This is like saying phone companies can block access to stores they dont like. Sorry folks we don't like sears, home depot, ectera so you can't call them.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

It might have been interesting to see his actual argument. From your article:

"The rule transforms the Internet by imposing common-carrier obligations on Internet service providers and thereby prohibiting Internet service providers from exercising editorial control over the content they transmit to consumers," Kavanaugh wrote. The FCC's imposition of the rule was unlawful because "Congress did not clearly authorize the FCC to issue the net neutrality rule" or to impose common-carrier obligations on ISPs, Kavanaugh argued. But even authorization from Congress wouldn't have saved the net neutrality rules from Kavanaugh's dissent, because he also argued that the rules violate ISPs' First Amendment free speech rights.

Under Supreme Court precedents, "the First Amendment bars the Government from restricting the editorial discretion of Internet service providers, absent a showing that an Internet service provider possesses market power in a relevant geographic market," Kavanaugh wrote. "Here, however, the FCC has not even tried to make a market power showing. Therefore, under the Supreme Court's precedents applying the First Amendment, the net neutrality rule violates the First Amendment."

TO me, Judge Kavanaugh is interpreting SCOTUS precedent and the Constitution quite clearly and reasonably.

Unless the Congress puts a legal structure in place guaranteeing "net neutrality" ... it should be a businesses right to provide services as they see fit so long as customers are treated equitably.

IMO.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
This is like saying phone companies can block access to stores they dont like. Sorry folks we don't like sears, home depot, ectera so you can't call them.

That was Kavanaugh's argument. ISPs are not common carriers by law. If Congress makes them so, rather than the Executive Branch declaring that, it seems to me that the Judge's argument would be satisfied.

originally posted by: avgguy
How is that any different from other private providers ie:Facebook,Instagram,Twitter or YouTube from taking down things that they don’t like?

Tell me you are frigging kidding .....