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

free market if you have an ISP that blocks something get a new ISP and the problem solves itself

I know I know the left thinks tyranny is our only option

Perfect. This way the government could threaten an ISP if they are carrying a website that promotes content that differs from their narrative. Not that the government would EVER do something like that --- ask Ecuador.

originally posted by: jtma508
Perfect. This way the government could threaten an ISP if they are carrying a website that promotes content that differs from their narrative. Not that the government would EVER do something like that --- ask Ecuador.

The government threatening an ISP is a different matter than what is occuring.

The FCC giveth a rule, the FCC taketh away. This is why we don't let the Executive Branch make law.

Congress should have acted years ago to designate the Internet a public utility/common carrier.

Just because an ISP COULD restrict certain sites does that mean they WOULD do so? If you don't give the people what they want they will go elsewhere. Doesn't sound like a smart business action to me. Although I can see some having to just through a hoop or two to change as they have their cable, phone and ISP bundled.

originally posted by: toysforadults
free market if you have an ISP that blocks something get a new ISP and the problem solves itself

I know I know the left thinks tyranny is our only option

Most markets have one cable company. An alternative is typically more expensive satellite internet with slow speeds.

I don't think they should be able to decide what content you are able to access. I also don't see how that's tyranny, more consumer protection as we don't have to many choices when it comes to internet providers.

The government regulates plenty of companies to protect consumer interest, funny some people only call this tyranny because their parties politicians are paid by internet providers to promote internet censorship.

a reply to: intrepid

That's another good point toward Congress getting their act together ... voice over IP.

Nice.

originally posted by: intrepid
Just because an ISP COULD restrict certain sites does that mean they WOULD do so? If you don't give the people what they want they will go elsewhere. Doesn't sound like a smart business action to me. Although I can see some having to just through a hoop or two to change as they have their cable, phone and ISP bundled.

Since they're all in bed with the CIA / NSA, thats like saying 'they cant watch me and my wife having sex, we're not terrorists its okay they snoop thru our phones and cameras and computers in real time to spy on us all'.

a reply to: Oldtimer2

a reply to: toysforadults

That doesn't really work with ISPs. Most localities have exclusivity contracts with certain companies. For example my only option is Comcast. If Comcast decided to block ATS I would have no options to access it.

Now say both Comcast and Verizon decided to block ATS. That's a large percentage of all internet users right there. ATS would probably have to shut down because they were no longer making enough money to afford their overhead.

That's all it would take to get a website shut down permanently. Two corporations that are close with the government blocking access to it. But I'm sure the government would never ask these corporations to block certain sites. That's just unthinkable.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Allowing an isp to control content violates the rights of everyone it services. I really don't see how this could fly in the scotus. If say 1 or 100,000 people have websites, an isp restricting access to those websites, could easily be construed as denying free speech for those people running those websites. Everybody has the same rights or nobody does. What would probably happen is smaller isps would pop up and grow rapidly to fill the vacuum the large isps create through restrictions, resulting in large isps going bankrupt. Remember, that if you take away 30% of the large isps customers, they are dead in the water.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: Southern Guardian

What a complete surprise. You do not approve. I'm shocked.

He could have nominated a liberal judge and you would oppose it, cause Trump.

a reply to: TheRedneck

First of all impeachment does not mean the President is removed from office. Secondly the constitution clearly states that a President can be removed if found guilty of various crimes. If the constitution says he can be removed for various crimes, then it also clearly means that he can be charged with those crimes while President.

The net neutrality issue is the one issue that I'm worried about with this new justice, now that you brought it up. I could deal with the rest all right.

a reply to: sligtlyskeptical

You might want to read the Constitution.

The House of Representatives can impeach the President by a 2/3 supermajority vote. That happened with Bill Clinton. Once impeached, a President can be removed fro office by a 2/3 supermajority of the Senate. That's where the President is tried for crimes... not in a court of law.

I closed that tab, but it's in article II.

TheRedneck

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?

Look up "Common Carrier". That's the difference.

Common Carrier An individual or business that advertises to the public that it is available for hire to transport people or property in exchange for a fee.

A common carrier is legally bound to carry all passengers or freight as long as there is enough space, the fee is paid, and no reasonable grounds to refuse to do so exist.

A common carrier that unjustifiably refuses to carry a particular person or cargo may be sued for damages.

The states regulate common carriers engaged in business within their borders. When interstate or foreign transportation is involved, the federal government, by virtue of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, regulates the activities of such carriers. A common carrier may establish reasonable regulations for the efficient operation and maintenance of its business.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

Data is the 'freight' that ISPs carry.

a reply to: FyreByrd

ISPs are not common carriers ... that's the issue you're poitning to right?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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).

Exvept They aren't utilities either and that wasnt my point. Obviosuly there are sites all over the place, the point was they control whats being seen, searched, viewed, who sees it, who can comment or have a public opinion is controlled by them, etc.. it's there rules as a private business. Control of information or throttling of competitors. Not much different from the pro net neutrality argument, freedom of speech, etc.. There's already a monopoly, I have just 2 choices for an ISP where I live. More competition is needed, not government takeover.

a reply to: Gryphon66

That'd make for a pleasant change of pace, wouldn't it?

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.

That's not a bad notion, at all. I kinda like it, in fact. Well thought!!

a reply to: TheRedneck

eedom of choice is at stake. I suggest you contact your Congressmen,

It is kinda why they're there, supposedly...

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Whether you like it or not I read his argument and it's interesting to think about. It's more that the law as it is now is wrong. He's saying there are steps they need to take and are bypassing.