How many options do you have when it comes to choosing an Internet service provider (ISP) for your home? If you’re like millions of Americans, you might only have access to one ISP. Or perhaps you have the option of 2 ISPs offering slow Internet speeds; the FCC’s own research has found that 55% of developed census blocks have no providers offering 100 Mbps internet speeds.
If you’ve followed the debate over net neutrality laws over the past year, then you likely already know that ISPs and the services they provide consumers are deeply intertwined with the First Amendment. What you might not know is that many of the prominent arguments coming out recently are in favor of the Internet service providers’ free speech rights, which are often viewed as conflicting with citizens’ free speech rights.
To give you a refresher on the current situation, let’s examine how the First Amendment impacts business operations and public perceptions surrounding ISPs:
ISP Monopolies
As mentioned previously, millions of Americans only have access to one ISP in their area. This effectively creates a monopoly, as Internet access has become an essential household necessity, and only one company is available to provide that service in countless communities across the U.S.
Why is a monopoly necessarily bad? ISPs have a long history of attempting to block consumers from accessing certain websites and slowing down Internet speeds when consumers try streaming video content from services like Netflix, Hulu and HBO.
Net neutrality laws classified Internet services as Title II public utilities and forbade ISPs from prioritizing certain websites over others. Without those laws, consumers are increasingly unable to readily access content from their favorite websites because ISPs are now in control over how fast webpages load (if they load at all). Prominent individuals like Justice Kavanaugh have consistently argued against net neutrality on the basis that it presumably violates ISPs rights to freedom of expression, but what about consumers’ First Amendment rights?
Community-Owned ISPs
The battle of net neutrality may not end any time soon, but there’s another battle happening in the world of American ISPs right now: The rise of government-owned and operated ISPs. The FCC commissioner recently argued that community-owned broadband services represent a threat to free speech rights in the U.S., but several research studies have shown that community broadband is typically cheaper and more reliable than commercial ISPs, so how is this a loss for consumers?
The debates over net neutrality and community vs. commercial ISPs are far from over, but at the end of the day it’s important to ask ourselves this crucial question: When in conflict, should we be more concerned with for-profit Internet service providers’ rights to freedom of speech or American citizens/Internet users’ rights to freedom of speech?
Re internet providers CENSORSHIP OF OUR EMAILS
Warning to ISP AI Censorship
You are routinely violating our First Amendment Rights of free speech.
Therefore, Constitutional Violations on your part may ultimately jeopardize your licenses to operate
First Amendment and Censorship
First Amendment Resources | Statements & Core Documents | Publications & Guidelines
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791.
One of the ten amendments of the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment gives everyone residing in the United States the right to hear all sides of every issue and to make their own judgments about those issues without government interference or limitations. The First Amendment allows individuals to speak, publish, read and view what they wish, worship (or not worship) as they wish, associate with whomever they choose and gather together to ask the government to make changes in the law or to correct the wrongs in society.
The right to speak and the right to publish under the First Amendment has been interpreted widely to protect individuals and society from government attempts to suppress ideas and information, and to forbid government censorship of books, magazines, and newspapers as well as art, film, music and materials on the internet. The Supreme Court and other courts have held conclusively that there is a First Amendment right to receive information; the right to receive information is a corollary to the right to speak. Justice William Brennan elaborated on this point in 1965:
“The protection of the Bill of Rights goes beyond the specific guarantees to protect from Congressional abridgment those equally fundamental personal rights necessary to make the express guarantees fully meaningful. I think the right to receive publications is such a fundamental right. The dissemination of ideas can accomplish nothing if otherwise willing addressees are not free to receive and consider them. It would be a barren marketplace of ideas that had only sellers and no buyers.” Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301 (1965).
The censorship of my emails appears to be politically motivated against Conservative content and traditions of American values. Therefore, it is my belief that the programmers that set up their censoring computers have a liberal socialist agenda. According to Justice Brennan, the marketplace of ideas has a great lack of information. Every computer that I know of has a delete button. Let my friends and I DECIDE for ourselves what we will agree or disagree with. The ISP nonhuman entity MUST take second place behind my and your thoughts in the marketplace of ideas.
Thank you for your submission. The First Amendment applies to the government, as you point out in your comment. In general, it does not apply to private companies or individuals who restrict content on their platforms. FAV suspects the area that you highlight will continue to receive public attention and litigation in the coming years. We encourage you to keep publishing your ideas. If one platforms removes them, post on another!
This issue of our first amendment rights seems even more crucial when it comes to senior citizens. As our incomes do not keep up with inflation and when we can not have the right to choose internet providers that can offer competitive rates, we are in essence being denied equal rights. It is so very unfair. It seems all we can do is complain, but if there is some group that is joining together with the intention of changing these unfair practices, let me know so that I can join with them to enact changes.