{"id":339778,"date":"2017-05-02T05:28:50","date_gmt":"2017-05-01T21:28:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/techcrunch.com\/?p=1483861"},"modified":"2017-05-02T05:28:50","modified_gmt":"2017-05-01T21:28:50","slug":"judge-argues-net-neutrality-violates-the-free-speech-rights-of-internet-providers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/people.utm.my\/asmawisham\/judge-argues-net-neutrality-violates-the-free-speech-rights-of-internet-providers\/","title":{"rendered":"Judge argues net neutrality violates the free speech rights of \u2026 internet providers"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

In perhaps the most absurd attack on net neutrality yet attempted, a federal judge argues that the rules established in 2015 by the FCC violate the first amendment rights of\u2026 internet service providers. Fortunately, this line of reasoning is as ineffectual as it is mistaken.<\/p>\n

The DC Circuit court of appeals upheld the net neutrality order last year; it was a significant victory for proponents. But because not every judge weighed in on the decision, there was a petition for another hearing \u201cen banc,\u201d meaning with all judges present. Today\u2019s decision rejected that petition on numerous grounds, though not unanimously. Judges Janice Brown and Brett Kavanaugh attached lengthy dissenting statements.<\/p>\n

It is Judge Kavanaugh who makes the first amendment argument. He relies on a court decision from 1994 involving Turner Broadcasting in which cable TV providers were found to exert (and deserve) free speech rights when choosing programming to air; they could not, the court found, be required by law to carry certain shows or promote the views of certain people.<\/p>\n

It was a good decision and still timely, but in attempting to apply it to net neutrality, Kavanaugh immediately loses the plot:<\/p>\n

\n

Internet service providers and cable operators perform the same kinds of functions in their respective networks. Just like cable operators, Internet service providers deliver content to consumers. Internet service providers may not necessarily generate much content of their own, but they may decide what content they will transmit, just as cable operators decide what content they will transmit. Deciding whether and how to transmit ESPN and deciding whether and how to transmit ESPN.com are not meaningfully different for First Amendment purposes.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This is, of course, wrong on several counts. If you\u2019d like to know exactly<\/em> why, the majority opinion in the court\u2019s ruling (PDF)<\/a> goes through it in detail. But briefly summarized:<\/p>\n