Current Events > Trump's Supreme Court pick: ISPs have 1st Amendment right to block websites.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/net-neutrality-rules-are-illegal-according-to-trumps-supreme-court-pick/

President Trump's Supreme Court nominee argued last year that net neutrality rules violate the First Amendment rights of Internet service providers by preventing them from "exercising editorial control" over Internet content.

Trump's pick is Brett Kavanaugh, a judge on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The DC Circuit twice upheld the net neutrality rules passed by the Federal Communications Commission under former Chairman Tom Wheeler, despite Kavanaugh's dissent. (In another tech-related case, Kavanaugh ruled that the National Security Agency's bulk collection of telephone metadata is legal.)

While current FCC Chairman Ajit Pai eliminated the net neutrality rules, Kavanaugh could help restrict the FCC's authority to regulate Internet providers as a member of the Supreme Court. Broadband industry lobby groups have continued to seek Supreme Court review of the legality of Wheeler's net neutrality rules even after Pai's repeal.

---

This is old news. Fair next. It's why Godaddy was able to shut down Richard Spencer's site.
---

Trump, who became president by railing against elites, has picked two Supreme Court justices who will gladly do their bidding for decades to come.
---

while i can't disagree, i do believe that the isp sector needs a more competitive atmosphere fostered lest the monopolies form a cartel of censorship
---

You have a first amendment right to block speech.

That is a fucking impressive mental Olympic championship quality performance all categories.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

This is old news. Fair next. It's why Godaddy was able to shut down Richard Spencer's site.

There's a difference between discontinuing DNS service when there are plentiful competitors who would like Spencer's business, and preventing end users from being able to access web sites that they ostensibly pay to access

Until ISPs start inserting contract clauses that say something along the lines of "we reserve the right to present to you any subset of the Internet that we like, and therefore block what we don't like, because First Amendment", it's not a valid comparison

(and when that day comes, we've got some serious thinking to do about how we approach our relationships with ISPs)

FLUFFYGERM posted...

This is old news. Fair next. It's why Godaddy was able to shut down Richard Spencer's site.

Godaddy is a domain registrar, not an ISP. Significant difference there @FLUFFYGERM
---

Joke administration continues to prove how shitty it is.
---

So that's why he picked him. RIP consumers

@treewojima
@0AbsoluteZero0

Yeah, you guys are right
---

Axiom posted...

So that's why he picked him. RIP consumers

I doubt consumers have anything to worry about. This is a ripe opportunity for disruption in the sector.
---

How can anyone defend this garbage that isn't on ISP payroll
---

i cant believe trump and his appointees are bowing before the whips of corporate leather daddies for the five millionth time.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Axiom posted...

So that's why he picked him. RIP consumers

I doubt consumers have anything to worry about. This is a ripe opportunity for disruption in the sector.

lol @ thinking it isnt rigged. nothing good about this. stop.
---

KobeSystem posted...

How can anyone defend this garbage that isn't on ISP payroll

by (rightly) believing that service outside the agreement is not mandatory, but not realizing that starting competition in the space is challenging due to how large Comcast, etc, have become
---

small government
take that libs
this is a good thing somehow
---

Oh my god, can we please have a concentrated effort to make sure RBG doesn't die before this buffoon is out of office

As if he couldnt get worse.
---

Fair, next. The ISPs are private companies. The 1st amendment only protects you from the government interference of free speech.

Oh wait, sorry. I forgot. That reasoning only applies when universities forbid conservative speakers from coming on campus or even when public universities give the antifa mobs free reign to shut them down with their violence.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

KobeSystem posted...

How can anyone defend this garbage that isn't on ISP payroll

by (rightly) believing that service outside the agreement is not mandatory, but not realizing that starting competition in the space is challenging due to how large Comcast, etc, have become

Comcast would love to "exercising editorial control".
---

I really think the government should not give any assistance to big companies. They're rich enough, why do they have to get the law on their side?
---

Someone pointed out that this would basically be the equivalent of the person who delivers your paper deciding they don't want you reading the Sports section and therefore removing it themselves.
---

LightningAce11 posted...

I really think the government should not give any assistance to big companies. They're rich enough, why do they have to get the law on their side?

Because big companies are the one who can give more money to the people making the laws.
---

DifferentialEquation posted...

Fair, next. The ISPs are private companies. The 1st amendment only protects you from the government interference of free speech.

Oh wait, sorry. I forgot. That reasoning only applies when universities forbid conservative speakers from coming on campus or even when public universities give the antifa mobs free reign to shut them down with their violence.

That awkward moment where ISPs draw their own boundaries so most people only get 1 choice. You MIGHT have a point if people could actually choose their ISPs.
---

LightningAce11 posted...

I really think the government should not give any assistance to big companies. They're rich enough, why do they have to get the law on their side?

Free speech isn't free. It costs cold hard cash
---

Bio1590 posted...

Someone pointed out that this would basically be the equivalent of the person who delivers your paper deciding they don't want you reading the Sports section and therefore removing it themselves.

No. That's not the delivery decision's person to make. It would be like that particular paper deciding they're not going to report on sports which would be perfectly fine.
---

Long known and he's not wrong since ISPs aren't a government entity. As much as I hate to agree with it.
---

DifferentialEquation posted...

Bio1590 posted...

Someone pointed out that this would basically be the equivalent of the person who delivers your paper deciding they don't want you reading the Sports section and therefore removing it themselves.

No. That's not the delivery decision's person to make. It would be like that particular paper deciding they're not going to report on sports which would be perfectly fine.

ISPs don't make their own content.

The newspaper company is the internet
The Sports section is Gamefaqs.com
The delivery person is whoever the fuck your ISP is
---

Bio1590 posted...

ISPs don't make their own content.

It's worse that they actually do though.
---

Isn't it illegal for lawmakers to take bribes from companies?
---

LightningAce11 posted...

Isn't it illegal for lawmakers to take bribes from companies?

Lobbying is perfectly legal but yes it's disgusting.
---

Also companies having "first-amendment rights" that are supposed to supercede that of consumers is the biggest load of bullshit what the fuck.
---

Will websites be able to sue ISP's when they're websites aren't freely available to consumers?
---

Ray_Dorset posted...

Will websites be able to sue ISP's when they're websites aren't freely available to consumers?

Of course!
---

The government controlling the media is the first step towards a dictatorship. Who's to say Trump won't make ISP's "exercise editorial control" to block news websites that report negative news stories about government officials, or websites run by people that oppose a bill that the government is trying to enact into law?

This is the type of thing that you'd see in China, Cuba, North Korea, and the former Soviet Union. As someone whose father experienced one of these communist countries first-hand and was able to escape to a better life, developments like this happening in the US absolutely terrify me and my family. We know where this usually leads.
---

Calwings posted...

The government controlling the media is the first step towards a dictatorship. Who's to say Trump won't make ISP's "exercise editorial control" to block news websites that report negative news stories about government officials, or websites run by people that oppose a bill that the government is trying to enact into law?

This is the type of thing that you'd see in China, Cuba, North Korea, and the former Soviet Union. As someone whose father experienced one of these communist countries first-hand and was able to escape to a better life, developments like this happening in the US absolutely terrify me and my family. We know where this usually leads.

Good thing California is still trying to enact their own Net Neutrality laws independent of the government.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

KobeSystem posted...

How can anyone defend this garbage that isn't on ISP payroll

by (rightly) believing that service outside the agreement is not mandatory, but not realizing that starting competition in the space is challenging due to how large Comcast, etc, have become

And you just nailed the crux of this of thos conundrum. Time to bend down for the comcast d I guess
---

Fuck this place
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

treewojima
0AbsoluteZero0

Yeah, you guys are right

so why is your original post still up

know people will only read that and take it seriously?
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Fuck this place

GameFAQs, the US, or both?
---

Wow
---

Wonder if Trumpers will be as happy if ISPs decide to block Breitbart or other shit sites

BWLurker posted...

Wonder if Trumpers will be as happy if ISPs decide to block Breitbart or other shit sites

They cry whenever a Nazi website gets delisted or their domain name gets pulled.
---

DifferentialEquation posted...

Fair, next. The ISPs are private companies. The 1st amendment only protects you from the government interference of free speech.

Oh wait, sorry. I forgot. That reasoning only applies when universities forbid conservative speakers from coming on campus or even when public universities give the antifa mobs free reign to shut them down with their violence.

What would your reaction to Comcast blocking Breitbart be?
---

BWLurker posted...

Wonder if Trumpers will be as happy if ISPs decide to block Breitbart or other shit sites

Honestly, they're more likely to block CNN.

And put Breitbart and Infowars in the fast lane.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

This is old news. Fair next. It's why Godaddy was able to shut down Richard Spencer's site.

This.
---

This is what happens when you don't understand how shit works.

ISPs don't have editorial control over internet content. An ISP is more accurately a pathway to the internet content you view.
---

darkjedilink posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

This is old news. Fair next. It's why Godaddy was able to shut down Richard Spencer's site.

This.

Godaddy isn't an ISP
---

CableZL posted...

This is what happens when you don't understand how shit works.

ISPs don't have editorial control over internet content. An ISP is more accurately a pathway to the internet content you view.

But my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge! - Americans
---