Daily Archives: July 4, 2012

Its been awhile since net neutrality has been in the headlines, but that doesnt mean the war is over--far from it. In its renewed challenge to the net neutrality rules imposed by the FCC, Verizon is citing its First Amendment right to free speech. The argument itself seems dubious, but if Verizon wins it could lead to unintended consequences it might like even less.

First, a little background on net neutrality itself. The framework of rules developed by the FCC is intended to ensure an even playing field for all on the Internet, and prevent Internet service providers (ISPs) like Verizon or Comcast from blocking certain content, or giving preferential treatment to other content.

Verizon claims the FCC net neutrality rules violate its right to free speech.Verizon originally filed suit against the FCC in early 2011. However, that case was thrown out of court because the FCC had not yet officially defined the rules and the court ruled that Verizon couldnt sue the FCC over rules that didnt technically exist yet.

In that case, Verizon simply asserted that the FCC was exceeding the bounds of its authority. However, according to the FCC site, "The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions." That sweeping charter appears to grant the FCC the exact authority Verizon claims it doesnt have.

This time around, Verizon is playing the First Amendment card. The challenge, essentially, is that by limiting Verizons ability to choose which content to block or promote, the FCC is infringing on Verizons right to free speech.

There are a couple major flaws in the argument. First, an individuals right to free speech shouldnt apply equally to a corporation. Im not a Constitutional scholar nor a legal expert, but it seems to me that a corporation can say what it chooses as a function of the fact that the people actually saying it have an individual right to free speech. However, the corporation as an entity doesnt necessarily enjoy that same right, andin factthe corporations right to free speech is already limited by rules governing false advertising or mandates to include specific text or warnings on products.

Second, the FCC net neutrality rules dont actually inhibit an ISPs ability to express itself freely. Under the FCC rules, Verizon is free to publish whatever content it chooses--it simply cant block or discriminate against other content as a matter of business practice.

The fact of the matter is the vast majority of the data traversing the ISPs network (like Verizon) doesnt belong to the ISP in the first place. An argument could be made that by throttling or blocking traffic Verizon is actually the party guilty of stepping on the First Amendment rights of others.

Lets assume for a minute, though, that Verizon has a First Amendment right to free speech, and that the court agrees this right is somehow violated by the FCC net neutrality rules. There is another approach to the problem that might make net neutrality the lesser of two evils by comparison.

Perhaps the real problem is that the pipe owners shouldn't also deliver content.Part of the underlying problem is the fact that the major ISPs are also content providers. Verizon has a vested interest in preventing Netflix traffic because it has its own streaming entertainment services. Comcast is owned by NBC, so it could gain a strategic advantage for its own content by throttling the bandwidth for rival networks. The simple solution is for Congress to impose regulations banning ISPs from delivering their own content, or being owned by companies that publish or deliver content.

Continue reading here:
Verizon Playing Dangerous Game in Net Neutrality Battle

A group of animal rights advocates, led by a Redwood City man named Joseph Cuviello, crashed into the city's more obscure free speech regulations last September, when they tried to protest a Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey circus in Union Square. Defying police officers' warnings, they hung a "Ringling Bros. Beats Animals" banner in the northwestern corner of square, right in the audience's sightline. The officers took down the sign, wrote up citations, and told the protesters they were only allowed to organize in the event's "free speech zone," a bike-rack-barricaded box in the southeastern corner of the square, according to Cuviello.

Fred Noland

The protesters argued that the space around 20 feet by 20 feet was too constricted and secluded. One of the activists' lawyer showed up. A police sergeant showed up. After some discussion and a look into Parks Code Section 7.08(d), the police confirmed that the protesters were, in fact, allowed to demonstrate throughout the entire eastern half of Union Square.

This confusion shouldn't be surprising. Section 7.08(d), made law in 1981, dictates "designated public assembly areas" for parks. But the locations are precise, unmarked, and seemingly arbitrary, like that random corner of the club where guys awkwardly congregate to sip drinks, lean against the wall, and stare at the dancefloor.

When there's a permitted event at Justin Herman Plaza, you can picket in "the western portion of the Plaza at street level," but not "the east end below street level, including the steps leading down to that area." At Portsmouth Square, you have just a 50-foot radius from the parking garage elevators at your disposal.

The rationale, the Parks Code explains, is "to prevent interference with the progress and enjoyment" of the events.

The way Cuviello sees it, though, the Parks Code laws restrict free speech. Cuviello and two other activists are suing the city, charging this is "plainly unconstitutional." According to their complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court of Northern California in June, "demonstrators were forced to adhere to an imaginary, unspecified 'free speech meridian' line," which limited their "ability to promote their message to the people attending and witnessing the circus' event."

Challenging 7.08(d) is certainly a legal longshot. Supreme Court rulings, such as Frisby v. Schultz in 1988, give government the power to control the "time, place, and manner" of free speech just not the content as long as the so-called free speech zones "are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest." This precedent has been invoked to keep Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist fanatics away from soldiers' funerals and pro-life protesters away from the homes of doctors who perform abortions. It allows cities to enact zoning restrictions for strip clubs. And notably, in the mid-2000s, President George W. Bush's secret service team used strict "free speech zones" to clean up his public events.

So watch where you say.

Read the original here:
Free Speech: Activists Challenge Parks Code's Protest Rules