ATT's Censorship of PJ Mentioned in Recent Congressional Testimony

Veddernarian

NET NEUTRALITY AND FREE SPEECH - CAROLINE FREDRICKSON
11 March 2008
Congressional Testimony by CQ Transcriptions

Statement of Caroline Fredrickson Director ACLU Washington Legislative Office

Committee on House Judiciary-Antitrust Task Force

March 11, 2008

I. Introduction

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Task Force, thank you for your invitation to testify on net neutrality and free speech on the Internet. I am Caroline Fredrickson and I am the Director of the American Civil Liberties Union`s (ACLU) Washington Legislative Office. As Director, I lead all federal lobbying for the national ACLU before Congress, the White House and all federal agencies. The ACLU is a non-partisan organization with over half a million members and activists and 53 affiliates nationwide. We have been a long-time leader on the issues raised in this hearing both in the courts and before Congress. Since 1920, the ACLU has been a leading defender of First Amendment rights.

The ACLU has been a principal participant in nearly all of the Internet censorship and neutrality cases that have been decided by the United States Supreme Court in the past two decades. In the landmark case of Reno v. ACLU, a challenge to the Communications Decency Act, the Supreme Court held that the government cannot engage in blanket censorship of speech in cyberspace. In Ashcroft v. ACLU, the Supreme Court upheld a preliminary injunction of the Child Online Protection Act, which imposed unconstitutionally overbroad restrictions on adult access to protected online speech. The ACLU also participated as amicus curiae in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, in which the Court struck down restrictions on so-called ``virtual child pornography`` that restricted a substantial amount of lawful speech. In 2005, the ACLU participated as amicus curiae in the Brand X decision, in which the Court held that cable companies providing broadband Internet access were ``information service providers`` for purposes of regulation by the FCC under the Communications Act.

I commend Chairman Conyers, Ranking Member Chabot, and the Task Force for their commitment to addressing net neutrality, which is vital to safeguarding free speech rights on the Internet. In the past, the House Judiciary Committee has considered alternative solutions for addressing the rapidly increasing consolidation of broadband services into a handful of providers, and the threats that consolidation poses to free speech on the Internet. The Court`s ruling in Brand X, combined with the FCC`s inaction in addressing increasing censorship by broadband Internet Service Providers (ISPs) has brought us to where we are today.

There is a growing bipartisan outcry for Congress to promptly enact meaningful net neutrality legislation that protects the rights of all Internet users to send and receive lawful content, free of censorship by either government or corporate censors. This hearing marks an important step towards ensuring that the marketplace of ideas for the 21st century, the Internet, remains the bastion of freedom that it has been since its creation.

My testimony will focus on both topics that are the subjects of this hearing: freedom of speech on the Internet and the growing threat to that freedom posed by network providers that actively censor groups or content with which they disagree. I will begin by discussing the importance of freedom of speech on the Internet, and how the courts have protected it under the First Amendment. Next, I will describe the explosive growth of the Internet under neutrality rules. I then will summarize several examples of Internet discrimination that have occurred following the elimination of neutrality rules for broadband ISPs in the aftermath of the Brand X decision in 2005.

Restoration of meaningful rules protecting Internet users from corporate censorship is vital to the future of free speech on the Internet. These neutrality rules should simply return us to where we were before the Brand X decision in 2005, prohibiting ISPs from picking and choosing which users can access what lawful content through the gateways they provide to their paying customers. Legislation that establishes mechanisms to enforce the ``Four Freedoms`` established by the FCC in its 2005 policy statement, including ``access to the lawful Internet content of their choice`` and running ``applications and services of their choice,`` with penalties for violations of those freedoms, is essential. Examples of the sorts of bills with those protections include H.R. 5273 from the 109th Congress, the Network Neutrality Act sponsored by Representative Markey, and S. 215, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, sponsored by Senators Dorgan and Snowe. Without those protections, online content discrimination by IPSs will continue to grow unabated.

II. Freedom of Speech on the Internet

A. The Internet is a Leading Marketplace of Ideas.

The Internet is one of today`s most important means of disseminating information. ``It enables people to communicate with one another with unprecedented speed and efficiency and is rapidly revolutionizing how people share and receive information.`` It also provides ``a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.`` These qualities make the Internet a shining example of a modern day marketplace of ideas.

The Internet`s marketplace enhances speech through its decentralized, neutral, nondiscriminatory ``pipe`` that automatically carries data from origin to destination without interference. Neutrality promotes open discourse. Consumers decide what sites to access, among millions of choices, and ``pull`` information from sites rather than having information chosen by others ``pushed`` out to them, as with television and other media in which the content is chosen by the broadcaster. The Internet`s structure facilitates free speech, innovation, and competition on a global scale. Accessibility to a mass audience at little or no cost makes the Internet a particularly unique forum for speech. ``The Internet presents low entry barriers to anyone who wishes to provide or distribute information. Unlike television, cable, radio, newspapers, magazines, or books, the Internet provides an opportunity for those with access to it to communicate with a worldwide audience at little cost.`` ``Any person with a phone line can become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox.``

Furthermore, the Internet differs from other forms of mass communication because it ``is really more idea than entity. It is an agreement we have made to hook our computers together and communicate by way of binary impulses and digitized signals.`` No one ``owns`` the Internet. Instead, the Internet belongs to everyone who uses it. The combination of these distinctive attributes allows the Internet to provide ``a vast platform from which to address and hear from a worldwide audience of millions.``

Never before has it been so easy to circulate speech among so many people. John Doe can now communicate with millions of people from the comfort, safety and privacy of his own home. His communication requires minimal investment and minimal time - once the word is written, it is disseminated to a mass audience literally with the touch of a button. Moreover, Internet speakers are not restricted by the ordinary trappings of polite conversation; they tend to speak more freely online.

``It is `no exaggeration to conclude that the content on the Internet is as diverse as human thought.``` ``Such broad access to the public carries with it the potential to influence thought and opinion on a grand scale.`` The Internet truly has become the leading 21st century marketplace of ideas because of neutrality rules that promote nondiscriminatory speech, association, and content.

B. Recognition by Congress and Courts of the Need to Protect Speech on the Internet.

It is vital to the freedom of all Americans that free speech on the Internet be protected. Without question, the unique nature of the cyber revolution has posed some challenges in protecting the Internet. Courts have confronted those challenges head on by observing, ``Each medium of expression . . . may present its own problems.`` Nevertheless, our ``profound national commitment to the free exchange of ideas`` requires that we meet those challenges to preserve Internet freedom. We cannot sit idly by and let any censor stifle those freedoms, regardless of whether it is the government or a handful of network providers. In many communities, local governments have granted network providers monopolies to provide paying consumers with open Internet access. Widespread violations by ISPs highlight the need for congressional action to reinstate Internet nondiscrimination rules.

Courts acknowledge the importance of keeping the Web`s channels of communication open and free from discrimination. The United States Supreme Court has concluded that speech on the Internet is entitled to the highest level of protection under the First Amendment. Any attempts to censor its content or silence its speakers are viewed with extreme disfavor. In addition, courts recognize that the public has a First Amendment interest in receiving the speech and expression of others. ``[T]he right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, aesthetic, moral and other ideas and experiences`` is one of the purposes served by the First Amendment. Indeed, the ``widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public.`` The Internet has become the principle source for the public to access this diversity of ideas.

Courts also understand that ``the Internet represents a brave new world of free speech.`` Specifically, the Internet provides unique opportunities for speech and discourse. Unlike other media, ``the Internet has no `gatekeepers` - no publishers or editors controlling the distribution of information.`` As a result, the Internet does not suffer from many of the limitations of alternative markets for the free exchange of ideas. Therefore, courts have vigorously protected the public`s right to uncensored Internet access on First Amendment grounds.

In a similar vein, Congress has enacted legislation to protect and promote free speech on the Internet. In the 1996 Telecommunications Act, Congress found that ``[t]he rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.`` Congress further declared that it is the policy of the United States ``to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet.`` Congress therefore immunized Internet providers and users from any liability for publishing ``any information provided by another information content provider.``

Congressional creation and funding of federal agency web pages is further evidence of the need to facilitate the free flow of information on the Internet. In response to growing demand for online government resources, Congress enacted the E-Government Act of 2002 that created the Office of Electronic Government. The Act`s purpose ``is to improve the methods by which Government information, including information on the Internet, is organized, preserved, and made accessible to the public.`` Net neutrality advances that goal. As Congress has recognized on repeated occasions, it is in the public interest to promote the Internet`s use as a forum to disseminate information and engage in free speech. Meaningful nondiscrimination rules will help ensure that happens.

III. A Nondiscriminatory Internet Always Existed Through Regulation of ISPs

A. The Internet Has Flourished Under Nondiscrimination Rules.

Internet users have the right to access lawful websites of their choice and to post lawful content, free of discrimination or degradation by network providers. In other words, network providers cannot block or slow down lawful content that they dislike. A vibrant marketplace of ideas on the Internet cannot function with corporate censors, any more than it can with government censors.

During previous House and Senate hearings on net neutrality, several witnesses who represent telecommunications and cable companies that provide broadband services argued that nondiscrimination principles have never been applied to the Internet. For example, Tom Tauke, Executive Vice President for Verizon, testified that network providers have operated Internet gateways without nondiscrimination regulations. Similarly, Kyle McSlarrow, the President and CEO of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, defined Internet nondiscrimination as ``a first-time regulation of the Internet that will freeze investment and innovation.`` Nothing could be further from the truth. Network providers have been regulated by nondiscrimination rules since the Internet`s creation.

The Internet was born and flourished under well-established nondiscrimination protections. Those protections are derived from Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, which grants the FCC the authority to regulate telephone companies as common carriers. As computer technology was developed, data began to flow over telephone lines. In the 1970`s and 1980`s, the FCC responded by ensuring that network providers would provide access for data transmissions on a nondiscriminatory basis by protecting them like other communications services. Title II was strengthened by making common carrier telephone networks available to independent equipment manufacturers and ISPs. Internet nondiscrimination simply ensures that this same nondiscriminatory common carrier model continues to apply to the Internet when accessed through broadband connections.

Nevertheless, network providers ignore this lengthy history by wrongly suggesting that Internet nondiscrimination regulates the Internet itself. In reality, the opposite is true.

Nondiscrimination ensures that lawful activity on the Internet remains free from regulation by both the government and network providers. Those rules merely would prohibit telecommunications and cable companies from engaging in content-based discrimination against Internet users.

Veddernarian

Network providers` criticism that nondiscrimination rules will impede innovation and stifle growth of the Internet is completely unfounded. The Internet has blossomed under longstanding nondiscrimination protections. An April 2006 Pew study found that three-quarters of all adults in the United States, 147 million people, use the Internet. Over half of all teens go online on a daily basis, and 84 percent report owning at least one personal media device. Two-thirds of all American adults use the Internet daily. Internet use for working, shopping, pursuing hobbies and interests, and obtaining information continues to skyrocket.

The dynamic growth and vitality of the Internet is largely attributable to longstanding nondiscrimination rules. Until recently, all network providers were barred from censoring lawful Internet speech and webpages. A handful of providers also have been bound by temporary nondiscrimination restrictions included in merger agreements: SBC/ AT&T and Verizon/MCI, until 2007 and AT&T/BellSouth until December 2008. In other cases, such as the July 2006 acquisition of Adelphia by Comcast and Time-Warner, the FCC has declined to impose nondiscrimination requirements altogether. Only the continuation of existing nondiscrimination protections will achieve what its detractors profess to support: a forum for speech and innovation that ``has derived its strength by virtue of its freedom from regulation,`` corporate or otherwise.

B. Nondiscrimination Rules Do Not Violate the First Amendment Rights of ISPs.

Recently, commentator Randolph May argued that restoring pre- Brand X neutrality rules may violate the First Amendment rights of ISPs. According to his argument, ``like newspapers, magazines, cable operators, movie and music producers, and even a man or woman preaching on a soapbox, ISPs such as Comcast and Verizon possess free speech rights.`` Mr. May reaches that conclusion by making the broad generalization that for all of their online activities, ISPs are speakers ``entitled to use their facilities to convey messages of their own choosing.``

It is true that for some purposes, network providers engage in online speech entitled to at least some protection under the First Amendment. The level of protection that speech receives depends upon whether it is noncommercial or commercial in nature. The best example is the one identified by Mr. May: the content of a network provider`s home pages or ``other specialty pages.`` However, neutrality rules would have no impact on an ISP`s right to post whatever lawful content it wants on its own pages. Indeed, by their very nature, neutrality rules say exactly the opposite: like any online user, ISPs would be protected to say whatever they want on their pages free of outside censorship.

But that does not mean that neutrality rules violate the First Amendment rights of an ISP by barring the ISP from censoring its customers. Aside from Internet content that they create, edit, and maintain, network providers are not speakers. They are merely providing the wires through which each of its paying customers accesses the Internet, in much the same manner as telephone companies do for our phone lines. That is why the FCC was allowed to regulate ISPs as common carriers until 2005, when the Supreme Court ruled in Brand X that they instead may be regulated as ``information services.`` If telephone companies are not allowed to choose who can use their phone services, censor their phone calls, and disconnect calls when something is said that they dislike, then ISPs - many of which are also telephone companies - certainly cannot do those same things on the Internet. ISPs exist to provide customer access to the Internet and the range of online expressive and associational activities free of censorship, not the other way around. Otherwise, it would be a case of the tail wagging the dog.

IV. The Growth of ISP Censorship Following the Brand X Decision

A. The FCC Eliminated Nondiscrimination Rules for Most Network Providers in 2005.

The cornerstone nondiscrimination principle ensures an Internet based upon the user`s right to engage in speech and to send and receive information free of censorship by network providers. In October 2004, the Chairman of the FCC acknowledged these principles by describing them as ``Internet Consumer Freedoms.`` Despite the FCC Chairman`s recognition of the Four Freedoms, in 2002 the FCC began attempting to reverse the Internet nondiscrimination principles that applied to ISPs under the common carrier provisions by reclassifying cable modem services as ``information services`` not subject to those principles. Federal courts initially rejected

All of that changed abruptly in June 2005 following the Supreme Court`s decision in NCTA v. Brand X. In Brand X, the Supreme Court for the first time concluded that broadband access constituted ``information services.`` Therefore, the Court found that the FCC had discretion to choose whether to retain nondiscrimination protections for all broadband users. Shortly after the Brand X decision, the FCC further curtailed nondiscrimination protections by reclassifying Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) services as ``information services.`` Within a span of a few months, the FCC and the Supreme Court managed to destroy decades of nondiscrimination protections for millions of Americans who currently use broadband and the millions more who will in the next few years.

Without those protections, most network providers are free to discriminate. Although ISPs offer the public gateways to the Internet and often have service monopolies within local communities, some courts have declined to recognize their position acting on behalf of the government. Therefore, companies such as Time Warner/AOL have been allowed to stop e-mail traffic or block access to content without facing liability under the First Amendment for infringing upon protected speech. As I described in Section III, historically, the nondiscrimination protections under the Communications Act filled any gap that might exist from not treating ISPs and other monopolies as state actors.

B. The Absence of Neutrality Rules Has Led to Internet Discrimination by ISPs.

Since nondiscrimination rules were removed in 2005, nothing has prevented most network providers from discriminating against Internet users. Even with heightened congressional scrutiny to determine whether to restore neutrality rules, ISPs have been engaging in content and user discrimination. At the same time, some ISP executives such as David Cohen, Executive Vice President of Comcast, have argued that nondiscrimination rules would prevent those same companies from protecting the Internet. However, network providers have clearly shown that they cannot be trusted to be gatekeepers for Internet content and access, any more than other censors can be.

There are now multiple examples of discrimination by ISPs against certain groups and particular content. These rather stark instances of censorship in the face of very close public scrutiny highlight the need for Congressional action. Network providers have established through their own actions that Internet censorship is a growing reality, and not merely the speculative hypothetical that ISPs and their phalanx of lobbyists claims it to be. (1) AOL/Time Warner`s censorship of an online protest.

Early in 2006, Time Warner`s America On-Line (AOL) began censoring e-mails that linked to the technology blog Slashdot, which criticized the ISP`s e-mail ``tax.`` The tax, more commonly known as a pay-to-send fee, is a quarter-penny charge for e-mail senders so that their electronic messages can bypass an AOL junk mail filter. E-mails also would appear to be stamped and certified in the receiver`s inbox with a blue ribbon stating, ``This mail has been certified.`` The e-mail sending option is an enhanced version of a free whitelist program, which allows users to bypass junk mail filters without a certification.

The pay-to-send e-mail certification system is a joint venture between AOL and GoodMail, a contracted company that runs background checks on e-mail senders. Since its introduction, the program has been popular with groups such as banks and charities, who use it to verify their legitimacy. Although AOL and GoodMail, which share the profits from the joint venture, claim that their program is nondiscriminatory, the facts tell us otherwise. Since the program`s introduction in February 2006, AOL has blocked e- mails that referenced the Slashdot blog report that criticized the program. AOL`s blatant censorship impaired e-mail services to over 300 individuals, including customers and non-customers, who reported receiving an automated message saying their e-mail had ``failed permanently.`` In response, the DearAOL.com Coalition, headed by Free Press, MoveOn and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, posted an open online petition disapproving of AOL`s actions. Since AOL first instituted the e-mail tax, over 35,000 people have signed onto the DearAOL.com letter opposing the fee. AOL spokesperson Nicholas Graham responded by claiming that the automated messages were due to faulty software and that AOL had lifted its block of the e-mail protests.

Though AOL`s unwarranted e-mail blockage appears to have been resolved, the pay-to-send fee creates the potential for additional problems. The removal of free whitelists and implementation of mandatory verification fees already have materialized with other Internet providers such as Hotmail. After the implementation of its pay-to-send fee, Hotmail began demanding a $2,000 fee for customers to be placed on their whitelist. Hotmail`s actions prevented legitimate organizations that could not afford the fee from communicating with their members and customers. The absence of neutrality rules would allow AOL to follow suit or to simply reinstate its e-mail block at its own whim.

Veddernarian

(2) AT&T: Censorship, filtering and Terms of Service agreement.

AT&T has been one of the more prolific violators of neutrality principles. In each case, AT&T initially denied its actions, only to later reverse its discriminatory policies after being subject to withering public criticism. AT&T`s increasing boldness in censoring content provides a compelling example of why neutrality rules must be restored.

(a) Jamming Eddie Vedder`s political protest.

During a performance by the rock group Pearl Jam at the August 2007 Lollapalooza concert in Chicago, Illinois, AT&T censored words from lead singer Eddie Vedder`s performance. The ISP, which was responsible for airing the concert via a Blue Room webpage, shut off the sound as Vedder sang, ``George Bush, leave this world alone`` and ``George Bush find yourself another home.`` By doing so, AT&T, the self-advertised presenting sponsor of the concert series, denied Blue Room visitors the complete exclusive coverage they were promised. Although Vedder`s words contained no profanity, AT&T spokeswoman Tiffany Nels claimed that the words were censored to prevent youth visiting the website from being exposed to ``excessive profanity.`` Nels also blamed the censorship on an external Website contractor hired to screen the Lollapalooza performances, calling it a mistake and pledging to restore the unedited version of Vedder`s performance on Blue

(b) Threats to censor its customers through draconian Terms of Service.

In October 2007, AT&T unilaterally revised its customer Terms of Service (``TOS``) agreement to give itself the right to terminate a customer`s DSL service for any activity that it considered ``damaging`` to its reputation, or that of its parents, affiliates or subsidiaries. ISPs routinely use TOS agreements to create a binding contract with their customers. AT&T`s new contract does not specify any types of actions that it would consider to be ``damaging,`` thereby giving the company unfettered discretion to decide on its own. An AT&T spokesperson claimed that the TOS term was meant to ``disassociate`` the company from language that promotes violence or threatens children. After vehement protests by AT&T customers, AT&T revised the TOS by removing its broad discretionary language. Verizon followed suit after it was publicized that the ISP`s TOS contained a similar provision. Without neutrality rules, nothing prevents either company from readopting those provisions.

(c) Proposed filtering in the name of anti-piracy.

In January 2008, AT&T announced that it is considering installing a copyright filter on its subscribers` broadband connection. Filtering technology would permit AT&T to examine all of its users` transmissions, facilitating the company`s ability to search and block digital transfers under the pretext of preventing the dissemination of pirated materials.

(3) Bell South`s censorship of MySpace.

In 2006, BellSouth blocked its customers in Florida and Tennessee from using MySpace and YouTube. Both sites are interactive social networks that are especially popular with younger users, with MySpace currently the second most utilized site on the Internet. It appears that BellSouth blocked the websites to test a tiered system of usage that would block certain websites if their administrators refused to pay for BellSouth`s quality of service package. Bill Smith, the Chief Technology Officer of BellSouth, has openly supported the principle of tiered access for his company

In response to customer complaints, BellSouth Media Director Joe Chandler stated, ``To my knowledge, we`re not blocking any site right now.`` Chandler`s vague statement did little to allay the concerns of BellSouth customers and media interest groups. BellSouth separately claimed that users who downloaded the latest version of its FastAccess DSL tool may have been blocked from accessing the Internet. However, BellSouth`s reasoning does not explain its users` inability to access only specific social sites like MySpace and YouTube.

(4) Cingular Wireless blocks PayPal.

Cingular Wireless, part of AT&T, recently blocked attempts by its customers to use any competing online billing services to make purchases on eBay, an online auction site. PayPal, an electronic commerce company owned by eBay, gives Internet users the option of making online payments without sharing their financial information directly with payment recipients. Instead, users send their credit card or account information to PayPal, which sets up an agreement with the recipient. Cingular blocked PayPal after contracting with another online payment service called Direct Bill. Cingular made its discriminatory motives apparent in a leaked memo by stating, ``Please be aware that Cingular customers should always and only be offered the Direct Bill option for payment of content and/or services. Any programs that offer Paypal and/or credit card options to Cingular Wireless customers will be escalated and reviewed by Cingular Wireless for possible immediate shut off.``

(5) Comcast`s impairment of online file-sharing through BitTorrant.

Comcast Corporation, the nation`s largest cable TV operator and second largest ISP, has discriminated against an entire class of online activities. In fall 2007, Comcast engaged in ``traffic shaping,`` which is the management of data flows over the Internet. While traffic shaping is a common practice among ISPs, Comcast went further by blocking file transfers from customers using popular peer-to-peer networks such as BitTorrent, eDonkey, and Gnutella. To prevent the successful transmission of materials, Comcast delivered messages to users involved in file- sharing that forced them to terminate the transmission. It succeeded in its attempts by using hacking technology to pose as a party involved in the file-sharing process, contrary to company statements that it ``[respects its] customers' privacy.`` Comcast`s actions were confirmed by nationwide tests conducted by the Associated Press. Comcast`s online discrimination is contrary to the FCC`s Internet Policy Statement, which provides that ``consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice`` and ``are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.``

Comcast`s censorship has severely impaired business operations of its customers who rely upon file-sharing for their livelihood. Many independent filmmakers, small business owners, and entrepreneurs use file-sharing as the primary avenue to advertise their productions and products. If ISPs like Comcast are allowed to discriminate against peer-to-peer networks, sites like BitTorrent may be shut down, preventing users from maintaining their businesses. In the process of shutting down innovation that relies on file-sharing, Comcast is ``closing the door on a whole new generation of services,`` according to Fred von Lohmann, an attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

In response to Comcast`s online discrimination, one of its customers filed suit in California. The customer had upgraded to Comcast`s High Speed Internet Performance Plus which was the subject of an FCC field hearing at Harvard Law School a few weeks ago. service in order to have access to higher bandwidth for peer- to-peer sharing. Several public advocacy groups representing customers affected by Comcast`s actions, including Free Press and Public Knowledge, have filed a separate complaint with the FCC,

Some industry experts believe that Comcast may be blocking file- sharing attempts to prevent the consumption of too much bandwidth by its customers. However, according to a Comcast customer service center, there are no restrictions on customer bandwidth usage in the company`s TOS agreement. BitTorrent`s President, Ashwin Navin, noted that Comcast could apply the funds it currently uses to falsify communications between users to effectively address the problem of low bandwidth. Economic scholars from Loyola University of Chicago Law School and Stanford University Law School advanced Navin`s argument, stating that groups like Comcast actually lose more funds and significantly reduce the immeasurable social value of file- sharing by actively engaging in Internet discrimination.

(6) Verizon Wireless`s censorship of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

In late 2007, Verizon Wireless committed one of the most egregious examples of online discrimination documented to date. Claiming it had the right to block what it determined to be contentious text messages, the company cut off NARAL Pro-Choice America`s access to a text-messaging program that the right-to- choose group uses to communicate messages to its supporters. Verizon Wireless stated it would not service programs from any group ``that seeks to promote an agenda or distribute content that, in its discretion, may be seen as controversial or unsavory to any of our users.`` Verizon claimed that it had the right to ban NARAL`s messages because current laws that prohibit carriers from blocking voice transmissions do not apply to text messages. In addition, Verizon argued that the Communications Act, which requires that commercial cellular providers must be nondiscriminatory for commercial mobile services, does not apply to non-traditional uses of phone services such as text-messaging.

In response to Verizon`s censorship, a group of consumer advocacy organizations including Public Knowledge, Consumers Union, the New America Foundation and Free Press, filed a petition with the FCC in November 2007. The petition asks the FCC to forbid wireless carriers from preventing the transmission of text messages from any group, regardless of their political convictions. The groups also urged the Commission to create rules regulating the level of control cell phone providers have over communications sent using their networks. As the groups explained in their petition, ``Mobile carriers currently can and do arbitrarily decide what customers to serve and which speech to allow on text messages, refusing to serve those that they find controversial or that compete with the mobile carriers` services. . .. This type of discrimination would be unthinkable and illegal in the world of voice communications, and it should be so in the world of text messaging as well.``

Verizon Wireless reversed its censorship of NARAL only after widespread public outrage. Verizon`s spokesperson Jeffrey Nelson claimed the company`s initial resistance to NARAL`s messages was merely ``an incorrect interpretation of a dusty internal policy`` that was implemented before text messaging technology could ensure that customers would not receive unwanted messages. However, according to Congressman John Dingell, ``[Verizon`s] latest statement does not identify any substantive change in policy. I ask Verizon to decisively state that it will no longer discriminate against any legal content its customers request from any organization.`` Verizon Wireless`s readiness to exercise unfettered discretion to censor groups or content with which it disagrees, such as NARAL Pro Choice America, provides the most compelling evidence that Congress must act to stop Internet discrimination.

V. Conclusion

The growing prevalence of online censorship in the absence of neutrality rules no longer can be denied. Internet discrimination by ISPs is on the rise, and will only increase as more Americans rely upon the broadband services that they provide. I recommend in the strongest terms that the Task Force begin consideration of legislation that will protect the rights of all Internet users to send and receive content free of corporate censorship and provide meaningful remedies for violations.

Otherwise, the Internet will be transformed from a shining oasis of speech to a desert of discrimination that serves to promote only the ISPs` commercial products.

Thank you very much for your attention. I will welcome the opportunity to answer any questions you may have.

Man_Of_The_Hour

Great find, but I'm not gonna read through all that

4Powers20

AT&T has the right to censor things being put out with thier name on it. If PearlJam puts out its own Webcast nothing would be cenosered.

bettermanofthehour

Pearl Jam wasn't the only act censored that weekend. They were the only ones that said anything about it.

If you were to go back and look at some of the other performances there are other times when the sound mysterously cuts out when it looks like the artist is about to say something they weren't going to like.

I have noticed this with the Regina Spektor performance. I would love to give specific examples, but I am at work right now.

AmentsChick

Wow. That was alot of words. :eek:

Veddernarian

AmentsChick wrote:

Wow. That was alot of words. :eek:

Over 5500 words. This message pit allows 15000 characters max per post and this article was over 36000. So I had to break it into 3. Then, while doing so, I got hit with the 50 second wait between posts. So posting this was actually quite a bit of work and persistence.

oktacoma

4Powers20 wrote:

AT&T has the right to censor things being put out with thier name on it. If PearlJam puts out its own Webcast nothing would be cenosered.

They absolutely have the right to censor whatever they want, just like I have the right to cancel my AT&T coverage for this reason...which I gladly did, and made sure the customer service rep knew the reason. Obviously, losing one customer won't make a big dent in their profits, but knowing that at least one customer is leaving because of their censorship has to make them a bit nervous. Losing money is the ONLY thing major corporations listen to.

AmentsChick

Veddernarian wrote:

Over 5500 words. This message pit allows 15000 characters max per post and this article was over 36000. So I had to break it into 3. Then, while doing so, I got hit with the 50 second wait between posts. So posting this was actually quite a bit of work and persistence.

Just out of curiosity...why didn't you just post the PJ part??

4Powers20

oktacoma wrote:

They absolutely have the right to censor whatever they want, just like I have the right to cancel my AT&T coverage for this reason...which I gladly did, and made sure the customer service rep knew the reason. Obviously, losing one customer won't make a big dent in their profits, but knowing that at least one customer is leaving because of their censorship has to make them a bit nervous. Losing money is the ONLY thing major corporations listen to.

true. that is your right. Or you could be grateful that they gave you 99.99% of the performance for free and uncensored.

gfraser

holy shit! cliffs?

Veddernarian

AmentsChick wrote:

Just out of curiosity...why didn't you just post the PJ part??

Great question and I thought that given the activism on the part of the band, and their attitudes on free speech, corporate control, etc., I thought it might be interesting for people here to see the overall context of the testimony, how the PJ part was used, what the total message was, etc. If I cut the article, I'd be guilty of the same. Remember, in 2000, they didn't want to play arenas with corporate advertising. Remember the LA 2000 rant at the Greek Theatre where Ed sang, "Can't buy a better van". And the inclusion of "Know your Rights"~Clash in the 2003 tour. (by the way, Melbourne was awesome and the rest were sort of hammed up). The only thing was whether to post it here or in Moving Train. I thought the PJ reference should steer me here where Moving Train is more of any political topic PJ related or not. If the mods feel it should be over there, I guess they'll move it. In summary, I wanted to show the total context, and what was being done with the censorship issue as a whole.

U R A Crazy Breed

4Powers20 wrote:

AT&T has the right to censor things being put out with thier name on it. If PearlJam puts out its own Webcast nothing would be cenosered.

AT&T DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO FUCK WITH THE !ST AMENDMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


PERIOD,END OF FUCKING STORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

4Powers20

Crazy Breed wrote:

AT&T DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO FUCK WITH THE !ST AMENDMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


PERIOD,END OF FUCKING STORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree. Eddie said it, they didnt stop it. They choose not to broadcast it, which is thier right. its not like Eddie told AT&T that he was planning to do that, where they could have put a disclaimer up. Besides didnt AT&T apologize for it already?

chromiam

Too many exclamation points to be taken seriously.... and Ed's first amendment rights were never infringed upon.

AmentsChick

chromiam wrote:

Too many exclamation points to be taken seriously....

LMAO!! Funny! That cracked me up!

Vedderlution_Baby

They can censor what they want but when they list the reason for censoring as "excessive profanity" when there was not one single profane word uttered, then they make themselves look like they know what they did was wrong but they decided to do it anyway.

U R A Crazy Breed

chromiam wrote:

Too many exclamation points to be taken seriously.... and Ed's first amendment rights were never infringed upon.

what the fuck are you talking about? his freedom of speech was infringed upon when he was censored for talking Ill of Bush. (maybe you need to read the bill of rights.)

stop being a bunch of sheep and stand up for your rights.this is still America (for now)

U R A Crazy Breed

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

They can censor what they want but when they list the reason for censoring as "excessive profanity" when there was not one single profane word uttered, then they make themselves look like they know what they did was wrong but they decided to do it anyway.

just because you own a company doesn't all the sudden give you the right to defy the constitution (the supreme law of the land)

only Bush can do that (sarcasm)

4Powers20

Crazy Breed wrote:

what the fuck are you talking about? his freedom of speech was infringed upon when he was censored for talking Ill of Bush. (maybe you need to read the bill of rights.)

stop being a bunch of sheep and stand up for your rights.this is still America (for now)

where in the Bill of Rights does it say a company must broadcast a singer telling our President to find another country? AT&T has the right to censor anything it wants to when it is thier "product".

4Powers20

Crazy Breed wrote:

just because you own a company doesn't all the sudden give you the right to defy the constitution (the supreme law of the land)

only Bush can do that (sarcasm)

A company has a right to determine what is presented to the public when it thier name on the product.

U R A Crazy Breed

4Powers20 wrote:

A company has a right to determine what is presented to the public when it thier name on the product.

to a certain extent.they don't have de facto powers.

U R A Crazy Breed

4Powers20 wrote:

AT&T has the right to censor anything it wants to when it is thier "product".

no they don't.

4Powers20

Crazy Breed wrote:

no they don't.

except for "warnings" or "Ingredients" and stuff like that sure they do.

U R A Crazy Breed

4Powers20 wrote:

except for "warnings" or "Ingredients" and stuff like that sure they do.

in the case of profanity,yes,they do.

when it comes to political statements,no they don't.

Two Birds

Crazy Breed wrote:

AT&T DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO FUCK WITH THE !ST AMENDMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


PERIOD,END OF FUCKING STORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Amen!!!

4Powers20

Crazy Breed wrote:

in the case of profanity,yes,they do.

when it comes to political statements,no they don't.

If I own a magazine and I do an interview with someone and they go into. lets say, the holocaust never happened, I absolutely have the right not to publish it in my magazine. Are you saying I would have to include it, even though it is my magazine and my reputation and livelyhood at risk from backlash?

Vedderlution_Baby

4Powers20 wrote:

If I own a magazine and I do an interview with someone and they go into. lets say, the holocaust never happened, I absolutely have the right not to publish it in my magazine. Are you saying I would have to include it, even though it is my magazine and my reputation and livelyhood at risk from backlash?

I don't really see how that would affect you any. It was the guy that said it, not you. You interviewed Mel, Mel said shit that would offend people, so Mel gets the repercussions. How you could be held responsible for what someone else said is beyond me. Unless your magazine already endorsed the idea of a holocaust conspiracy then the mag wouldn't be affected.

Kel Varnsen

Crazy Breed wrote:

AT&T DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO FUCK WITH THE !ST AMENDMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


PERIOD,END OF FUCKING STORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Doesn't the first amendment only say that the government can't make laws prohibiting free speech? Since when is the guy who runs the AT&T website considered the government?

Personally I think they can do anything they want with the stuff that is on their website (as long as it is not in breach of contract). It is the same way if I buy an expensive painting, realize I don't like it and take a paint roller to it, am I infringing on the artist's free speech?

U R A Crazy Breed

4Powers20 wrote:

If I own a magazine and I do an interview with someone and they go into. lets say, the holocaust never happened, I absolutely have the right not to publish it in my magazine. Are you saying I would have to include it, even though it is my magazine and my reputation and livelyhood at risk from backlash?

so you think that AT&T can censor/alter whatever they want and PJ has no rights just because it was an AT&T SPONSORED event?