The outrageous hypocrisy behind Net Neutality support of Free Speech

Someone needs to call the SaveTheInternet/FreePress/net neutrality crowd on their outrageous hypocrisy in politically claiming that being for "net neutrality" is being for more "free speech" protections.

When the SaveTheInternet organization and their net neutrality allies were offered very specific legislative language that would explicitly protect "free speech'' on the Internet -- they actively blocked it from passage in the Senate Commerce Committee in August of 2006 and from it passing into law last Congress. 

The legislative text below was in the HR5252 Amendment proposed by then Chairman Stevens in the telecom reform bill in June of 2006.

• SaveTheInternet and the net neutrality movement opposed that protection of free speech language (Sec. 904. Application of the First Amendment) because what they really wanted was to make broadband subject to common carrier regulation.

 "SEC. 904. APPLICATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

Consistent with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution —

(1) no Federal, State, or local government may limit, restrict, ban, prohibit, or otherwise regulate content on the Internet because of the religious views, political views, or any other views expressed in such content unless specifically authorized by law; and

(2) no Internet service provider engaged in interstate commerce may limit, restrict, ban, prohibit, or otherwise regulate content on the Internet because of the religious views, political views, or any other views expressed in such content unless specifically authorized by law."

All of the broadband companies and industry supported these additional plain, clear and powerful free speech protections from becoming the law of the land.

• It was net neutrality supporters like SaveTheInternet, Free Press and Public Knowledge that actively opposed this free speech language because it did not forward their real agenda -- which was to apply commom carrier regulation to competitive broadband providers.  

 

Let's be very clear here. What net neutrality supporters really seek is not free speech protections, but common carrier regulation of broadband competitive providers.

• Free speech to these folks is just a poliltical pawn to be manipulated not a cherished American consitutional principle to be implemented.
• They cynically use defense of "free speech" to garner political support for net neutrality when they know in their hearts that they actually defeated free speech language that they claim to support. 

Bottomline: Be very skeptical of net neutrality advocates that claim to want free speech protections added to the law...

• ... when they could have succeeded in getting it in to legislation that would have actually passed,
• but they killed it because what they really wanted was a political issue and common carrier regulation of Internet service providers.