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

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
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.

Multinational Corporations already control the news and Facebook, Twitter and Google use algorithms to control what news you see (overwhelmingly biases against conservative news sources), shadow ban innicent people, remove innocent youtube channels regularly, demonetize conservative channels, and all further anti free speech actions - Not to mention, regularly rape our privacy. All of which never seem to bother these net neutrality proponents.

a reply to: mkultra11

There are right-biased websites all over the internet (and all over Youtube).

On the other hand, Youtube is a private business, not a utility (which is the basis of the argument here).

a reply to: mkultra11

Using Twitter or YouTube is a choice. You have plenty of other alternatives. But if those companies pay ISPs for favoritism than you may not have a choice.

That being said, keep in mind that in America many markets only have one option for viable broadband internet.

a reply to: Gryphon66

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

Kavanaugh is taking 18th century thought and applying it to a 21st century matter Gryphon. The internet is an extension of the public area. Why should a CEO dictate where some guy chooses to eat out? Or chooses to shop? Freedom of choice is at stake here so I respectfully disagree.

a reply to: Gryphon66

That's some right fine sleuthin' there Gryph! In light of that statement, his decision does make Constitutional sense.

I still support net neutrality, but it appears the problem with it lies with Congress, not with Brett Kavanaugh. Not a surprise, really... the immigration problems and the medical marijuana problems also sit squarely on Congress' doorstep.

Do you have a link to that?

TheRedneck

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Freedom of choice is at stake. I suggest you contact your Congressmen, now that we know why Kavanaugh made his decision and who bears final responsibility, and lobby them to introduce a bill to declare ISPs as common carriers. That will do more good than complaining a nominee for Supreme Court Justice made a decision based on the Constitution.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Southern Guardian

An 18th Century idea? What exactly, the Constitution?

I have always believed that the internet should have been nationalized as a fundamental public utility ... but it hasn't been to date. The logic behind this is, among other reasons, the government has basically created the infrastructure that the internet uses, not dissimilar to the electric grid.

My second argument would be that the internet is the 21st century equivalent of "the post roads" and therefore comes under the direct purview of Congress under Article 1, Section 8.

Therefore, as I said, Judge Kavanaugh's dissent makes perfect sense to me. The FCC is not a legislative body, and the internet is not, at this moment, a public utility.

Therefore, as long as a business treats all customers equally (restricting content universally) it really is their choice. It's not a matter of public accomodation really, althought that could be an interesting argument.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I am very much in favor of a Congressional return to their Constitutionally mandated task: making laws.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I have always believed that the internet should have been nationalized as a fundamental public utility ... but it hasn't been to date.

Then you would understand Gryphon that it's been treated as such prior to the FCC move to eliminate it. The internet came about in part by government funding, investment i.e your taxes. It is an extension of the public space. Even prior to net neutrality rules protected ISPs from dictating what their users could chose to source their information from. Now all of a sudden the FCC guts internet freedom and what? Kavanaugh is suddenly just following the constitution? On the basis of his very own interpretation of it. Gee, I guess the founders neglected to envision the internet? Right.

It's a load of bullsn*p. This guy doesn't get a pass.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

I do understand that "it was treated as such" but that's not the place nor the decision of a Federal agency like the FCC.

You should see the weakness in having it be so based on the fact that the political winds change, and a rule established by a previous FCC is changed by a later FCC.

The internet is not merely a fun novelty anymore, but is the backbone of commerce and communication around the world.

It should not be regulated at the whim of a politically biased agency/Administration. Again, the matter is of such import that it should have been settled by Congress at least a decade ago.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The internet was a military project until it went public... Unless I'm mistaken?

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Ok, so when Facebook, YouTube etc take down conservative content that they don’t like you guys say “ it’s a private company, they can do what they want”, but now when it is ISPs that have he opportunity to do the same thing, now it’s a problem. This is the hypocrisy of the left. You guys cheer when major corps disallow things that you don’t agree with, but now that it may affect you, you care .

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Gryphon66

The internet was a military project until it went public... Unless I'm mistaken?

Military/educational-scientific, yes. Government systems fused with systems at universities.

As I said, it SHOULD be of the nature of a national public utility ... but it isn't. That's Congresses job, not the FCC.

a reply to: TinySickTears

Each are private companies that can do what they want, no? If you don’t like it don’t use their service.

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Ok, so when Facebook, YouTube etc take down conservative content that they don’t like you guys say “ it’s a private company, they can do what they want”, but now when it is ISPs that have he opportunity to do the same thing, now it’s a problem. This is the hypocrisy of the left. You guys cheer when major corps disallow things that you don’t agree with, but now that it may affect you, you care .

You have a point but don't be too righteous about it ... we all do the same things.

Case in point: Trump should receive the honor and respect due the Office, but that didn't go for Obama.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I would have thought the private sector was far more involved, considering how inept and self serving government is.

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: TinySickTears

Each are private companies that can do what they want, no? If you don’t like it don’t use their service.

They are private companies that are utilizing resources created by the government. You really can't push that argument very far until these companies create their own infrastructures on their own dimes.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Gryphon66

I would have thought the private sector was far more involved, considering how inept and self serving government is.

*nods* Some days the fact that we have opposable thumbs amazes me.

a reply to: avgguy

Users of sites like YouTube agree to follow their T&Cs. This gives them the right to pretty much do whatever they want.

On the other hand a site like ATS did not sign an agreement with every ISP under the sun stating those ISPs can remove their content as they see fit.

They have a contract with their host. If they violate that contract then the host is within their rights to remove ATS' content.

But a company like Comcast has no such agreement with ATS. So on what grounds should Comcast be allowed to block access to ATS?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Because the ISP is providing the link to ATS.

They’ve been doing it for almost 15 years now.

www.freepress.net...