Verizon Wants The "freedom" To Edit Your Internet

[jensjam]

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/07/09/verizon-wants-the-freedom-to-edit-your-internet/187003

 

 

Basically this one paragraph explains the article in a nut shell:

 

It goes like this: the Open Internet Order says that Verizon, as a provider of broadband Internet, can't block or slow access to (legal) online content because they disagree with its message or are being paid by an outside party to do so. This is essentially how the internet has operated since its inception, and the Open Internet Order is intended to prevent ISPs like Verizon from becoming gatekeepers. Verizon, however, argues that it has the constitutionally protected right to decide which content you, as a Verizon customer, can access -- that it is no different from a newspaper editor:

 

 

I do have verzion and I personally will be looking for another provider basically after reading this article. I know they had made some rumblings about this about a year ago BUT to see them go through with this is just wrong.

[blackpudd1n]

My internet doesn't like me looking at one supermarket chain's catalogues online. It did, however, let me get car insurance from them. It also doesn't seem to like my electricity company, as well as my university website. My internet provider has some strange issues

[LoneTarus]

This is what happens when you give corporations the same rights as people. this is why the money=speech thing passed. because we have corporate personhood. they have the same rights as citizens but few of the responsibilities. I can't see anything bad coming from ending corporate personhood and I wish something would be done about it (not likely to happen though since they already own our government lock stock and barrel)

[Yrth]

This is what happens when you give corporations the same rights as people. this is why the money=speech thing passed. because we have corporate personhood. they have the same rights as citizens but few of the responsibilities. I can't see anything bad coming from ending corporate personhood and I wish something would be done about it (not likely to happen though since they already own our government lock stock and barrel)

You know, the NYT is a corporation. Their free speech rights are derived from being treated as persons for purposes of the first amendment. The problem with Citizens is the effect it has on elections, not the underlying theory that corporations are 'people' for certain purposes of the law.

 

@OP: I'd look for a different provider too. Also, a newspaper is really a failed analogy. An ISP is more like a public utility at this point in the game.

[Paine]

This is the flap about "Net Neutrality". They make it sound so lofty and wholesome but it is about abridging free speech.

 

FUCK.

 

THEM.

[Will02]

This is what happens when you give corporations the same rights as people. this is why the money=speech thing passed. because we have corporate personhood. they have the same rights as citizens but few of the responsibilities. I can't see anything bad coming from ending corporate personhood and I wish something would be done about it (not likely to happen though since they already own our government lock stock and barrel)

 

I remember railing against corporate personhood when SCOTUS gave it the green light. Are the members of SCOTUS merely corrupt or just really fucking stupid?

 

If corporations are people, there should be a sort of jail for corporations that step out of line. If Corporation A pushes Corporation B out of the market and Corporation B ceases to exist as a consequence, is Corporation A guilty of murder?

[Guest wester]

Use a proxy like www.cooloo.com or TOR at www.torproject.org

If you are torrenting, I'm not sure about that one.

 

You can always find out how they throttle your bandwidth and fix it yourself.

One guy fixed his cable modem so he could randomly change its MAC address and undo the throttle.

 

All things are possible. Keep searching. Keep asking. Never stop questioning.

 

Cheers

 

PS - the supreme court is corrupt in the same way that prostitutes, pimps and bagmen are corrupt. The late 19th century of the supreme court was a monstrous maw of pro-business machine-like horror which set the stage for our times. It's not new - it is The Way.

 

I says : "Impeach em all and let gawd sort it out"

[Vigile]

This is what happens when you give corporations the same rights as people. this is why the money=speech thing passed. because we have corporate personhood. they have the same rights as citizens but few of the responsibilities. I can't see anything bad coming from ending corporate personhood and I wish something would be done about it (not likely to happen though since they already own our government lock stock and barrel)

You know, the NYT is a corporation. Their free speech rights are derived from being treated as persons for purposes of the first amendment. The problem with Citizens is the effect it has on elections, not the underlying theory that corporations are 'people' for certain purposes of the law.

 

@OP: I'd look for a different provider too. Also, a newspaper is really a failed analogy. An ISP is more like a public utility at this point in the game.

 

You are saying that NYT has been given speech protection because corps have always legally been considered people?

 

I bow to your superior legal knowledge, but I doubt this is true. I suspect the answer is more complex than this.

[LoneTarus]

This is what happens when you give corporations the same rights as people. this is why the money=speech thing passed. because we have corporate personhood. they have the same rights as citizens but few of the responsibilities. I can't see anything bad coming from ending corporate personhood and I wish something would be done about it (not likely to happen though since they already own our government lock stock and barrel)

You know, the NYT is a corporation. Their free speech rights are derived from being treated as persons for purposes of the first amendment. The problem with Citizens is the effect it has on elections, not the underlying theory that corporations are 'people' for certain purposes of the law.

 

@OP: I'd look for a different provider too. Also, a newspaper is really a failed analogy. An ISP is more like a public utility at this point in the game.

 

You are saying that NYT has been given speech protection because corps have always legally been considered people?

 

I bow to your superior legal knowledge, but I doubt this is true. I suspect the answer is more complex than this.

 

Actually it's a lot simpler the 1st amendment gives freedom of the press. so it's not really necessary to have corporations be full persons to keep that. if someone is actually a constitutional lawyer and I'm somehow wrong please correct me.

[Thurisaz]

Funny, no?

 

Whenever neofeudal groups/think tanks/corporations refer to you getting something from them, they babble incoherently about "respect the individual's freedom of choice, no laws making it mandatory for us to help!" but when they want something from you they cry for the judges to help them.

 

By their fruits you shall know them.

[Yrth]

You know, the NYT is a corporation. Their free speech rights are derived from being treated as persons for purposes of the first amendment. The problem with Citizens is the effect it has on elections, not the underlying theory that corporations are 'people' for certain purposes of the law.

You are saying that NYT has been given speech protection because corps have always legally been considered people?

 

I bow to your superior legal knowledge, but I doubt this is true. I suspect the answer is more complex than this.

Actually it's a lot simpler the 1st amendment gives freedom of the press. so it's not really necessary to have corporations be full persons to keep that. if someone is actually a constitutional lawyer and I'm somehow wrong please correct me.

@ Vigile: It's safe to say that the true story is always more complex. Consider this: the whole reason the NYT is able to bring a lawsuit is because they're 'persons' under the law. As a corporation, they're capable of suing and being sued under certain legal theories, which has included first amendment protections. If they weren't 'legal persons,' they would never have been afforded speech protection. So, yes, the speech rights of corporations, including the press, are ultimately derived from their legal status.

 

@ LT: 1) Corporations are not 'full persons.' They cannot adopt, vote, be murdered, etc.

2) The freedom of the press is closely related to but distinct from the freedom of speech. It's best described as a set of situational protections for 'the press.' It absolutely does not give the press more or less freedom of speech than other groups.

3) Corporate personhood is still fundamentally necessary to enable 'the press' to exercise their rights.

 

Here's a relevant an excerpt from an opinion piece on Citizens:

Here again, Stevens reveals the radical, activist position of the dissenters. For well over one hundred years, it has been recognized that corporations possess constitutional rights as "persons." Few of us, for example, would endorse the proposition that a corporation could have its property seized (i.e., the property of the natural persons who are its shareholders) without due process. While corporations do not have the ability to exercise, as corporations, all Constitutional rights, they have long been recognized as able to assert constitutional rights where doing so is necessary to preserve the rights of the corporate members or shareholders. Thus, where a corporation asserts a right to speak, it is really the members of the corporation asserting a right to associate and to speak as a group. That is why corporations possess First Amendment speech rights (as opposed to the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, or the right to vote, which are only exercised on an individual basis, not through association in the group).

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/02/citizens-united-shareholder-rights-and-free-speech-restoring-the-primacy-of-politics-to-the-first-amendment/

 

and something else in that piece that I found disturbing:

In fact, the Supreme Court had to rule in favor of Citizens United, and what is remarkable is not that it did, but that four Justices dissented. Remember, the government's position in the case was that under the Constitution, it had the power to ban the distribution of books through Kindle; to prohibit political movies from being distributed by video on demand technology; to prevent Simon & Schuster from publishing, or Barnes & Noble from selling, a 500-page book with even one sentence of candidate advocacy; or to prevent a union from hiring a writer to author a book about the benefits to working Americans of the Obama agenda. For all the outrage about this opinion, I have yet to hear anybody seriously defend that result. The fact that not one of the dissenters could find a middle ground on which to concur in the judgment suggests that the majority was correct "“ this case was all or nothing. Far from being activist, the majority reached the only logical conclusion. The dissenters were the activists here, prepared to enforce an interpretation of the First Amendment wholly foreign to most Americans.

[Vigile]

In fact, the Supreme Court had to rule in favor of Citizens United, and what is remarkable is not that it did, but that four Justices dissented. Remember, the government's position in the case was that under the Constitution, it had the power to ban the distribution of books through Kindle; to prohibit political movies from being distributed by video on demand technology; to prevent Simon & Schuster from publishing, or Barnes & Noble from selling, a 500-page book with even one sentence of candidate advocacy; or to prevent a union from hiring a writer to author a book about the benefits to working Americans of the Obama agenda. For all the outrage about this opinion, I have yet to hear anybody seriously defend that result. The fact that not one of the dissenters could find a middle ground on which to concur in the judgment suggests that the majority was correct "“ this case was all or nothing. Far from being activist, the majority reached the only logical conclusion. The dissenters were the activists here, prepared to enforce an interpretation of the First Amendment wholly foreign to most Americans.

 

My head is not very clear at the moment so I'll need a minute to wrap my brain around this, but it's my understanding that corps were actually given super person status in terms of campaign contributions. Individuals are limited to $2k, whereas corps are unlimited.

 

Saying the dissenters were the activists appears to be massive spin.

[Yrth]

In fact, the Supreme Court had to rule in favor of Citizens United, and what is remarkable is not that it did, but that four Justices dissented. Remember, the government's position in the case was that under the Constitution, it had the power to ban the distribution of books through Kindle; to prohibit political movies from being distributed by video on demand technology; to prevent Simon & Schuster from publishing, or Barnes & Noble from selling, a 500-page book with even one sentence of candidate advocacy; or to prevent a union from hiring a writer to author a book about the benefits to working Americans of the Obama agenda. For all the outrage about this opinion, I have yet to hear anybody seriously defend that result. The fact that not one of the dissenters could find a middle ground on which to concur in the judgment suggests that the majority was correct "“ this case was all or nothing. Far from being activist, the majority reached the only logical conclusion. The dissenters were the activists here, prepared to enforce an interpretation of the First Amendment wholly foreign to most Americans.

 

My head is not very clear at the moment so I'll need a minute to wrap my brain around this, but it's my understanding that corps were actually given super person status in terms of campaign contributions. Individuals are limited to $2k, whereas corps are unlimited.

 

Saying the dissenters were the activists appears to be massive spin.

I find that hard to believe on equal protection grounds. *edit: but I admit, and you should know, that right now my head is so full of legal bs that getting into the details of this is beyond me. My comments on this are going to be shallow, and there's nothing I can do about it. D: apologies.

 

Also, didn't Maher just personally donate one million to the Obama campaign?

[Vigile]

In fact, the Supreme Court had to rule in favor of Citizens United, and what is remarkable is not that it did, but that four Justices dissented. Remember, the government's position in the case was that under the Constitution, it had the power to ban the distribution of books through Kindle; to prohibit political movies from being distributed by video on demand technology; to prevent Simon & Schuster from publishing, or Barnes & Noble from selling, a 500-page book with even one sentence of candidate advocacy; or to prevent a union from hiring a writer to author a book about the benefits to working Americans of the Obama agenda. For all the outrage about this opinion, I have yet to hear anybody seriously defend that result. The fact that not one of the dissenters could find a middle ground on which to concur in the judgment suggests that the majority was correct "“ this case was all or nothing. Far from being activist, the majority reached the only logical conclusion. The dissenters were the activists here, prepared to enforce an interpretation of the First Amendment wholly foreign to most Americans.

 

My head is not very clear at the moment so I'll need a minute to wrap my brain around this, but it's my understanding that corps were actually given super person status in terms of campaign contributions. Individuals are limited to $2k, whereas corps are unlimited.

 

Saying the dissenters were the activists appears to be massive spin.

I find that hard to believe on equal protection grounds. *edit: but I admit, and you should know, that right now my head is so full of legal bs that getting into the details of this is beyond me. My comments on this are going to be shallow, and there's nothing I can do about it. D: apologies.

 

Also, didn't Maher just personally donate one million to the Obama campaign?

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

 

While Citizens United held that corporations and unions could make independent expenditures, a separate provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act, at least as long interpreted by the Federal Election Commission, held that individuals could not contribute to a common fund without it becoming a PAC. PACs, in turn, were not allowed to accept corporate or union contributions of any size or to accept individual contributions in excess of $5000. In Speechnow.org, the D.C. Circuit, sitting en banc, held 9–0 that in light of Citizens United, such restrictions on the sources and size of contributions could not apply to an organization that made only independent expenditures in support of or opposition to a candidate, but not contributions to a candidates campaign.^[94] The effectiveness of this system remains a hot topic in American politics.

[Yrth]

My head is not very clear at the moment so I'll need a minute to wrap my brain around this, but it's my understanding that corps were actually given super person status in terms of campaign contributions. Individuals are limited to $2k, whereas corps are unlimited.

It was bothering me, so I did some research: corporations are still prohibited from contributing money to non-Super-PACs. Individuals may still contribute to non-Super-PACs subject to the statutory limits. But when it comes to a Super-PAC, there is no limit to individual or corporate contributions.

 

Citizens United made it legal for corporations and unions to spend from their general treasuries to finance independent expenditures, but did not alter the prohibition on direct corporate or union contributions to federal campaigns; those are still prohibited.^[3][4] Such organizations seeking to contribute to federal candidate campaigns must still rely on traditional PACs for that purpose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee#2012_Election_.28estimates.29

 

This is how Bill Maher donated 1 million to Obama's Super-PAC.

[Vigile]

My head is not very clear at the moment so I'll need a minute to wrap my brain around this, but it's my understanding that corps were actually given super person status in terms of campaign contributions. Individuals are limited to $2k, whereas corps are unlimited.

It was bothering me, so I did some research: corporations are still prohibited from contributing money to non-Super-PACs. Individuals may still contribute to non-Super-PACs subject to the statutory limits. But when it comes to a Super-PAC, there is no limit to individual or corporate contributions.

 

Citizens United made it legal for corporations and unions to spend from their general treasuries to finance independent expenditures, but did not alter the prohibition on direct corporate or union contributions to federal campaigns; those are still prohibited.^[3][4] Such organizations seeking to contribute to federal candidate campaigns must still rely on traditional PACs for that purpose.

http://en.wikipedia.....28estimates.29

 

This is how Bill Maher donated 1 million to Obama's Super-PAC.

 

Yeah, you're right. I had somewhat of a misconception. However, what I also read was it opened up the doors to allow unlimited contributions to orgs that don't directly give money to pols, thus essentially the Speechnow.org ruling drew from the CU ruling, essentially creating the super PACs. Corps have huge leverage over individuals, who can never hope to outspend them, giving them a huge advantage over policy making in the US. For instance, if they wish to win a district, all they have to do is run mud slinging ads against the candidate they wish to take down.

 

While I had a misconception about how this works, it couldn't have been a blind spot for SCOTUS when they ruled on CU as I remember immediately following the ruling I read from numerous sources that corps had been given unlimited influence as a result.

 

Bottom line, I'm viewing this from a perspective of pragmatism, not strict legal reading. Pragmatically, SCOTUS drove the last nail in the coffin of true representative government. Legally, you can argue that citizens have a right to spend equal amounts too, but that implies those who have interest opposed to corporate interests have equal amounts of money to fight back with; clearly they don't.

[Yrth]

Yeah, you're right. I had somewhat of a misconception. However, what I also read was it opened up the doors to allow unlimited contributions to orgs that don't directly give money to pols, thus essentially the Speechnow.org ruling drew from the CU ruling, essentially creating the super PACs. Corps have huge leverage over individuals, who can never hope to outspend them, giving them a huge advantage over policy making in the US. For instance, if they wish to win a district, all they have to do is run mud slinging ads against the candidate they wish to take down.

 

While I had a misconception about how this works, it couldn't have been a blind spot for SCOTUS when they ruled on CU as I remember immediately following the ruling I read from numerous sources that corps had been given unlimited influence as a result.

 

Bottom line, I'm viewing this from a perspective of pragmatism, not strict legal reading. Pragmatically, SCOTUS drove the last nail in the coffin of true representative government. Legally, you can argue that citizens have a right to spend equal amounts too, but that implies those who have interest opposed to corporate interests have equal amounts of money to fight back with; clearly they don't.

OK I see what you're saying. Essentially, even though wealthy individuals have contributed 80% of the 2012 Super-PAC funds as of March, their interests are aligned with corporate interests because wealth fits hand-in-glove with general corporate aims.

 

Definitely food for thought. I wonder whether it makes that much of a difference given the shrouded soft money system in place prior to the CU. If funds were always coming from somewhere in relatively similar proportions, has anything but scale really changed? Or alternatively, given that 'the poor' never had money to match the low statutory limits in the first place, did the prior system represent them any better? Or, a 3rd alternative, given that widespread effective advertising is getting cheaper and cheaper due to social networking, I wonder whether there isn't an effective 'money ceiling' where more campaign funds simply won't make a difference to an election. Food for thought.

[Vigile]

If funds were always coming from somewhere in relatively similar proportions, has anything but scale really changed?

 

Scale makes all the difference. When limitations were just a few thousand per individual, average people could pool their money and have their voice recognized. When contributions start running into the millions, only those with interests worth millions are going to have their voice recognized.

 

Or alternatively, given that 'the poor' never had money to match the low statutory limits in the first place, did the prior system represent them any better?

 

The poor were always marginalized, but at least the middle and upper middle classes had some influence. Today, they can't hope to compete with multi national interests, which is no doubt why you see regulatory agencies, laws, etc... producing policy that squeezes the small business and favors corporate conglomerates. Just one small example can be seen in the agra industry. This documentary does a pretty fair and even expose on how local coops are being squeezed to protect giant corporate farms. It's happening in all industries, though. Ask yourself why you have so few choices in the US when it comes to cell phones and providers. In the rest of the world, you can get a provider without a contract, can choose between 10-20 providers and can pick your own phone, and simply slide in a sim card from the provider of your choice. In the US, phones are locked, you have to sign multi year contracts, and you only get to choose from a handful of major corporate providers.

 

Then of course you have the bank-sided bailout, which refused to consider any type of consumer relief, and which instead just covered the gambling losses of the banks that started the whole thing. It's pretty clear when you examine US policy, who is benefiting and who is getting the shaft; this is a direct result of who the politicians work for IMO.

 

My solution, which will never be implemented, is to adopt the UK system, limiting campaign spending. The government can never hope to limit contributions in a meaningful way as there is always back-handed ways to fund a campaign, but it's pretty easy for the government to regulate how much money the campaign spends and how much is spent on the campaign since most of the money goes toward ads and abuses would be easily recognizable.

[Vigile]

I wonder whether there isn't an effective 'money ceiling' where more campaign funds simply won't make a difference to an election.

 

Where the super PACs are most powerful is employing surgical strikes. For example, Congressman Grayson in FL was stepping outside and not towing the party line, complaining about precisely the same things I'm complaining about here, and the PACs flooded his district with mud slinging ads that caused him to lose, even though he was one of the most popular congressmen in the country.

 

It's not an issue of the GOP or dems having more or less money than one another, but rather which types of politicians get elected. Its the individuals they need to keep in line and/or individual districts that play key roles in turning the majorities of the parties.

[Noraa]

Guess I'll treat them like I treat the oil and gas industry and not buy their product. Although I never used Verizon for internet