Skip to main content

Net Neutrality (9)

The First Amendment guarantees people’s right to speak and express themselves (for the most part), what it does not guarantee according to the Supreme Court is access to information (Tedford & Herbeck 401). The Court has consistently ruled that access to information is not a right, with the exception of criminal trails—the public and the media do have the right of access to criminal trials. However, media companies, the government, newspapers, the internet etc. have the right to limit and restrict citizen’s access to information (Tedford & Herbeck 401).

The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) has doubled down on this. Recently, the chair of the FCC Ajit Pai, announced that it would be rolling bag regulations that ensured equal access to the internet, stopping net neutrality (Kang). Essentially, the FCC had rules in place that said Internet Service Providers (ISPs) like Comcast and AT&T could not block or slow down access to websites. Basically, ISPs could not charge websites fees for the best streaming capability (Kang). So websites that do not pay will load slower, they will be harder to access. As a result, people will be more likely to leave the pages that load slowly. Big websites with a lot of money like Google, Facebook, Netflix, the New York Times, will be able to pay these fees. Smaller websites will not and the internet becomes less equal. Access to the internet is restricted.

It will be interesting to see if Congress responds, as net neutrality is fairly popular. It will also be interesting to see as more discussion about net neutrality occurs, if its supporters will bring up free speech as a defense of net neutrality. I know the Court has decided that the First Amendment does not guarantee access to information and fundamentally, net neutrality is about access which would make it difficult to use the First Amendment as defense in court. Yet access to information is an essential part of the freedom of speech and as free speech is a core U.S. value, the effects of net neutrality (or a lack of net neutrality) on that right is important and should be considered by the FCC when making its rules. Unfortunately it seems the current chair of the FCC is focused solely on profit.

Sources:
Kang, Cecilia. “F.C.C. Announces Plan to Repeal Net Neutrality.” The New York Times, 21 Nov.     2017.

Tedford, Thomas L., and Dale A. Herbeck. Freedom of speech in the United States. 8th ed., State      College, PA, Strata Publishing, Inc., 2017.

  

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gamifying Citizenship

The historical context of freedom of speech is an extremely interesting one. Why is it that the concept of free speech has been an undying one and has span the history of human communication. Breaking free speech in to three traditional rationals makes the concept easier to understand and definitely makes sense. These three modes of freedom of speech are philosophical, political and individual. They are easy to distinct from one another and function in completely different ways. From a philosophical level, free speech is a device of truth. That if people are able to speak freely and let their ideas compete, "in the long run the truth will prevail" according to Tedford and Herbeck. I find this interesting, because in my mind, this is the most important facet of free speech. I say this, because I find free speech essential for any kind of societal advancements. If people are not allowed to speak their mind and share their ideas, or discredit others ideas, how is a society supp...
1 comment
Read more

Wedding Cake Court Case (make-up post)

Wedding cake court case involving a gay couple, Charlie Craig & David Mullins, and a cake baker, Jack Phillips, who refused to bake a wedding cake for the couple. Just all around, it's a tricky debate with many different angles due to the baker arguing on the grounds of the First Amendment---its protections for free speech and the free exercise of religion. In the end, I think it comes down to whether we consider baking a cake qualifies an exercise of freedom of expression. I would say that it depends on the situation/context of baking. If Mr. Phillips wants his cake baking to be categorized artistic expression that falls under free expression, he can just go bake a cake on his own. Only then when he's on his own private time does it qualify, but as soon as he offered his skills as a public service via his business, I'd argue he gave that right to expression up. Also, what's stopping other artisans/professional services to deny services? By Mr. Phillip's logic...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why is Freedom of Speech Important in a Democracy

While reading Chapter 15, I got the sense that the book was really coming full circle. In the first week of class, we established a meaning for freedom of speech and that shared meaning allowed us to navigate the classroom together as a classroom and a collective group. Creating a space that also involved mutual respect of opinons but encouraging difference in them as well. This brings me to an article I found about the importance of Freedom of Speech in a democracy. It is a basic human right to be able to express opinions and beliefs in our country. Although that is the main component, just like we established in class the first few weeks, in a government and democracy, Freedom of Speech also consists of the ability to listen to people with difference in opinions. In the article , editor Rachael  Jolly says, “ We are going through a time where people don’t want to be on a panel with people they disagree with. But we should feel comfortable being in a room with people who disagree ...
4 comments
Read more