The FCC's Net neutrality rules violate the First Amendment, argues a free-market proponent, and are thus antithetical to \"Internet freedom.\"<\/p>\n
commentary These two words -- \"Internet freedom\" -- are ricocheting around cyberspace almost as fast as neutrons and protons bouncing around inside an atom's nucleus. Well, almost as fast. <\/p>\n
So, no worries? We're all for \"Internet freedom\" now? <\/p>\n
Not so quick. <\/p>\n
I am reminded of Abraham Lincoln's remark: \"The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty. We all declare for liberty, but in using the same word we do not mean the same thing.\" Substitute \"Internet freedom\" for \"liberty,\" and that's where we are today.<\/p>\n
The Republican platform declares: <\/p>\n
There is a gulf separating the Democrats' and the Republicans' understanding of Internet freedom. And it essentially comes down to this: Net neutrality regulation is an essential element of Internet freedom for most Democrats. (Note I said \"most\" because there are certainly individual exceptions, including a number of Hill Democrats; I am referring here mainly to party positions.) <\/p>\n
Those favoring net neutrality claim to fear that, without government intervention, Internet service providers might \"discriminate\" among users or content providers or may block access to web sites. In this view, government must intervene to prevent such discrimination or blocking from occurring. <\/p>\n
Those opposing net neutrality fear that the greater threat to Internet freedom arises from giving the government the power -- or, more accurately, the government arrogating unto itself the power -- to determine whether private Internet providers are discriminating among users or content providers, or to force Internet providers to carry content they may prefer not to transmit. This fear is enhanced by the knowledge that net neutrality's \"discrimination\" prohibition is inherently vague, and, therefore, that the range of bureaucratic discretion is inherently large, if not unbounded. <\/p>\n
This divergence is reflected, too, in different understandings of the First Amendment's role. For most who favor net neutrality regulation, including those FCC commissioners who voted for it, such regulation presents no First Amendment free speech problem. The pro-regulatory forces claim that net neutrality mandates are consistent with the First Amendment because the government is merely ensuring that private Internet providers do not interfere with the speech of users and content providers. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Continued here:<\/p>\n
Why Net neutrality is incompatible with 'Internet freedom'<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The FCC's Net neutrality rules violate the First Amendment, argues a free-market proponent, and are thus antithetical to \"Internet freedom.\" commentary These two words -- \"Internet freedom\" -- are ricocheting around cyberspace almost as fast as neutrons and protons bouncing around inside an atom's nucleus. Well, almost as fast Continue reading