Verizon Reverses Itself On Pro-Choice News Texting Ban

fermion writes "Verizon has reacted to an NYT report filed earlier today on their decision to ban text message news clips from a pro-choice group, reversing the ban on that content. 'Text messaging is a growing political tool in the United States and a dominant one abroad, and such sign-up programs are used by many political candidates and advocacy groups to send updates to supporters. But legal experts said private companies like Verizon probably have the legal right to decide which messages to carry. The laws that forbid common carriers from interfering with voice transmissions on ordinary phone lines do not apply to text messages. In reversing course today, Verizon did not disclaim the power to block messages it deemed inappropriate.'"

Yes this is what net neutrality looks like.

[Zeinfeld (263942)]

One can imagine the process that led to the decision. Senior executive picks up New York Times, Senior Executive calls CEO, CEO gives order, New York Times receives correction. For any company to insert itself into such political situations is lose-lose proposition. The opposing side is only going to cheer a partisan ban that allows them to send messages while blocking the opposing side. The critics were right, the Verizon ban is a precursor of what a net without net neutrality would look like: occasional partisan decisions by corporations are rapidly reversed as the businesses attempt to eliminate themselves from the decision process.

Great plan.

[Kadin2048 (468275)]

The critics were right, the Verizon ban is a precursor of what a net without net neutrality would look like: occasional partisan decisions by corporations are rapidly reversed as the businesses attempt to eliminate themselves from the decision process.

So basically, the corporations get to do anything they want, until they do something egregious and politically incorrect enough for it to make the front page of the New York Times, at which point they say 'oops!' and make some show of backing off?

What do you do about the political causes that aren't powerful enough to have some Times reporter's direct line? Guess they're S.O.L.

Re:

[falconwolf (725481)]

Young people are going to be getting unasked for text messages advising them how to kill their children.

Making things up again? Naral only sends messages to those who sign up for them.

Falcon

Re:Great plan.

[PopeRatzo (965947)]

NARAL isn't for more abortions.

NARAL is for letting women choose for themselves whether or not they're going to have an abortion. Not the government, not the church, but the person who is actually, ultimately responsible for the fetus.

There is a big difference.

Re:

[Austerity Empowers (669817)]

I'm not sure if net neutrality is exactly their concern. Abortion is just hotly contested by two very vocal sides, with sufficient money and interest to see Verizon brought to court, and cause them to lose the ability to censor media not currently protected by the government. I doubt they care about abortion, or any other social issue that doesn't cost them any money.

Non big-brother uses of this ability might include their ability to control who uses their network for advertising and other 3rd party pay ser

Law Needs To Catch Up...Again

[blueZhift (652272)]

I don't think the notion of having one's text messages screened/monitored would sit well with most Americans any more than something similar would for voice messages. So it looks like the law will need to catch up again. Unfortunately, before that can happen I wouldn't be surprised to learn of other "controversial" text messages being quietly screened out by carriers. Obligatory dig: But of course all messages from Fox News get through! Just kidding, riiiiight?

Re:Law Needs To Catch Up...Again

[$RANDOMLUSER (804576)]

The laws that forbid common carriers from interfering with voice transmissions on ordinary phone lines do not apply to text messages.

What's wrong with this picture?

Re:Law Needs To Catch Up...Again

[camusflage (65105)]

This isn't about screening or monitoring general messages. This is about allowing a specific group to have access to the company's subscribers, through a subscription mechanism.

If the IGRA [igra.com] wanted to have its members sign up for updates by texting "cowboy up" to 57565, they would need to obtain a short code (the "57565") and obtain carrier approval to send and receive messages. It's the carrier approval that Verizon initially denied.

Re:

[Bob-taro (996889)]

MOD PARENT UP! (darn, I just used my last mod point earlier today)

This article touches on two key topics, censorship and abortion, that are sure to get people all fired up before they can read the details. You've covered censorship. Now I'd like to pour a little water on the abortion fire with this (FTA):

A spokesman for Verizon said the decision turned on the subject matter of the messages and not on Naral's position on abortion. "Our internal policy is in fact neutral on the position," said the spokesman, Jeffrey Nelson. "It is the topic itself" -- abortion -- "that has been on our list."

So they're not (at least they claim they're not) taking a "side" in the abortion issue, they just don't want to be associated with the issue at all. I'm not saying there isn't anything here to get f

Re:

[Billosaur (927319)]

So they're not (at least they claim they're not) taking a "side" in the abortion issue, they just don't want to be associated with the issue at all.

But they're not associated with the issue, until they choose to not let people receive messages from NARAL, messages their users signed up to receive. If Verizon had wanted to stay out of the fray, they wouldn't have made the initial decision to block the messages in the first place. As usual, they are talking out of both sides of their mouth; they got called on it by the media and had to do a hasty retreat before a backlash occurred.

No, this is good.

[Tipa (881911)]

It's always good to be reminded that our text messages are read, our cell phone conversations are easily eavesdropped, and the government can listen to any of our communications at any time and many carriers will gladly help the government invade our privacy.

Scott McNealy said it best -- "Privacy is dead, get over it."

Re:

[xappax (876447)]

It's not about our messages being read though, it's about them being filtered. This is a censorship issue, not a privacy one. Even if "privacy is dead", and even if people trust their government and corporate institutions so much that they don't think that's a problem, access to unfiltered information channels is absolutely vital. Invasion of privacy can cause people to be fearful to speak out, but censorship makes it flat out impossible.

Re:

[wizardforce (1005805)]

I don't think the notion of having one's text messages screened/monitored would sit well with most Americans any more than something similar would for voice messages.

warrentless wiretapping ring a bell? I wouldn't have thought that would sit well with people either, I was wrong. never underestimate the power of complacency and ignorance.

Re:Law Needs To Catch Up...Again

[Elemenope (905108)]

Have you ever played Deus Ex? Near the end of the game, a character notes that surveillance fulfills a role that used to be reserved for religiously-inspired deities, in that at some level people want to be watched because they crave notice and approval, to believe that they matter and to erase the feeling of loneliness that civilization can otherwise paradoxically inspire. Humans, being social creatures, have a need to be a part of a greater whole, and define themselves at least partially by other people's labels and opinions. We may love our privacy, or seem to externally, but deep down we crave to be valued. The character points out that as the original religious paradigm began to lose significance, the need started to be re-located onto worship of fame, cults of personality, and ubiquitous state surveillance. Sound familiar?

Not that I normally take my sociological cues from video games, but this observation strikes me as an accurate one.

Re:

[Elemenope (905108)]

You misunderstand; perhaps I came off as too defensive. I was attempting to distinguish myself from people (and they do exist) who uncritically swallow the ideas and ideologies of their favorite media, whether it be books, movies, or video games, simply because it is their favorite, and not because of the relative quality of the particular ideas being presented. A video game, per se, is no more or less worthy a conduit for serious ideas than any other media, though particular games may be individually more

Re:

[TheRaven64 (641858)]

Very true, and the legal fix is simple. If you run a network, and interfere with the contents of any message, then you are responsible for the contents of every message. If you censor things, then any message that is illegal (slander, libel, copyright infringement, etc.), is your legal liability. You may choose to filter based on traffic type (e.g. only allow voice over your mobile phone network, only allow HTTP over your IP network, whatever), but if you filter based on origin, destination, or content t

Re:

[mcrbids (148650)]

Very true, and the legal fix is simple. If you run a network, and interfere with the contents of any message, then you are responsible for the contents of every message. If you censor things, then any message that is illegal (slander, libel, copyright infringement, etc.), is your legal liability.

Sounds simple, doesn't it? It isn't.

Text messages now have attachments (pictures, video, etc) which can then access potential vulnerabilities in your phone. Thus, they are no different than Email in practice.

What ab

Re:

[Paul Carver (4555)]

Spammers would love such a law, as that would effectively outlaw any spam-blocking at the ISP level.

Be careful what you wish; your wish may be granted.

Not necessarily. If the ISP provided spam filtering as a selectable service with the end user given options about what means of filtering is being used that would probably be acceptable. After all, the POTS network has some support for call blocking doesn't it? A common carrier must not restrict what it's customers send or receive, but a single company could probably legally combine the common carrier function of delivering all messages with and recipient controlled active filtering feature.

It might lead t

Re:

[mikelieman (35628)]

NY Pubic Service Law.

(1) Common carrier means a corporation that holds
itself out to provide service to the public for hire to provide conduit
services including voice, data, or video by electrical, electronic,
electromagnetic or photonic means.

Hmmm... I think VZ reversed itself because it realized they had well and truly screwed up.

Re:

[Endymion (12816)]

But of course all messages from Fox News get through!

I was thinking more along the lines of "But of course all the messages still get billed".

Actually, the big part I want to know about is if they are accepting liability for censorship with this. Because they have demonstrated the ability to censor successfully, does this mean they have to censor anything "illegal"? So if some kid gets sent an SMS of "suggestive content", can the parent sue for exposing their kid to pr0n?

This is the big argument/lawsuit tha

Re:

[COMON$ (806135)]

However, this begs the argument of what Law should enforce in business. What if I am a consumer that wants to be on a filtered network? What if company X wants to ban what they deem as offensive content to their customers? Or what if Joe SixPack starts receiving political advertisements that do not reflect well on Verizon's policies.

I am more of a consumer who believes in the power of capitalism. As long as the phone company in question outlines their company policies I can make my own decision on wh

capitalism

[falconwolf (725481)]

I am more of a consumer who believes in the power of capitalism. As long as the phone company in question outlines their company policies I can make my own decision on which company behaves the way I like.

I believe in capitalism as well, however it requires you to do the details and limitations and I bet most people didn't know that Verizon would block messages they signed up to receive. I bet here's nothing in any contract you sign when signing up with Verizon saying they will block pro choice text mes

This scares me

[tsa (15680)]

Not only in America but also in Europe you see the rights that citizens fought hard and long for in the 19th and 20th century carelessly chucked away by people who who have no idea about the efforts and hardships it cost to achieve those rights, and the reasons why gouvernments back then changed the laws to the citizens benefits. I know Verizon is not a gouvernment but they should be utterly ashamed of themselves. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, regardless of media.

what the

[wizardforce (1005805)]

I don't usually text but isn't there some blacklist/whitelist you can set, if not there should be. Verizon doesn't/shouldn't have a right to decide who what when and why anyone gets information wanted or not, it isn't their job. Their sole job is to carry the information, not to act as information cops. it's disturbing that they thought this was an appropriate thing to do but with the wiretapping nonsense I'm not the least bit surprised.

Verizon?

[MrKevvy (85565)]

Now you'd think it'd be Virgin banning pro-choice messages...
(Silver Ringtone Thing?)

Can you imagine ...

[kalidasa (577403)]

The radio outrage if it had been a "pro-life" group that Verizon had banned?

Actually, considering...

[gillbates (106458)]

The number of companies that support Planned Parenthood, I was quite surprised to read that it was pro-choice messages that were being blocked.

IIRC, (and that's a big if) - just recently, a network covering the superbowl refused to carry a pro-life ad because of its "controversial" nature.

Think about that for a moment. They'll advertise contraceptives and STD medications on tv on a regular basis, (Toddler voice: Daddy, what's an S-T-D?), yet refuse to accept money for pro-life advertising. You woul

Time for a change.

[Stringer Bell (989985)]

The laws that forbid common carriers from interfering with voice transmissions on ordinary phone lines do not apply to text messages.

Then that needs to change. Text messages are closer to speech than either campaign donations or flag burning. This isn't strictly a first amendment issue (since the first amendment only applies to the gummint), but for purposes of content voice transmission == text transmissions.

Plus, wireless carriers (in the U.S.) are a near-monopoly. If the three or four of them all adopt the same policy, then the group they're trying to squelch is completely locked out from that medium.

Re:

[PhxBlue (562201)]

Then that needs to change. Text messages are closer to speech than either campaign donations or flag burning. This isn't strictly a first amendment issue (since the first amendment only applies to the gummint), but for purposes of content voice transmission == text transmissions.

Actually, from a certain point of view, it is a First Amendment issue. After all, the government owns the wavelengths that Verizon uses for its business.

I would like to call my cell carrier

[iamacat (583406)]

And tell them to block all text message "news clips" and all unsolicited phone calls addressed to me. In fact, if I give someone my number, I probably add theirs to my phone book. I want my phone to automatically drop calls from unregistered numbers. I care about pro-choice issue too much for that, but spam about other political issues and candidates could very well cause me to vote against the sender who clearly lacks moral character.

They better find more effective forms of political speech to get their me

Re:

[praxis (19962)]

I don't think we are talking about spam here, but rather an opt-in news update to members of a group.

Say what?

[joto (134244)]

Well, I'm probably not the first to comment on how braindead this decision is by Verizon, how troublesome it is for the future of democracy and free speach if this sort of shit is allowed to continue, and all that.

But one thing that also catched my eye was this comment by Christopher S. Yoo (a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania) from the original article: "Instead of having the government get in the game of regulating who can carry what, I would get in the game of promoting as many options as

free market

[falconwolf (725481)]

This case has already proven that the free market doesn't work, if that's so: regulate!

This IS NOT the free market. A free market requires a voluntary exchange, and I bet no where in any Verizon contract does it say Verizon will block any pro choice messages. Without such a statement it's not voluntary if Verizon does block said messages.

Falcon

Re:

[Reason58 (775044)]

You need to brush up on your dictionary.com skills. This is the very definition of censorship.

It just isn't illegal.

Good Call

[paladinwannabe2 (889776)]

This confusion doubtless pops up from the countless First Amendment discussions on /.. The 1st Amendment protects us from government censorship, but not us censoring each other- so 1st Amendment rights don't help us against Verizon. Of course, just because it may be legal for me to censor you doesn't make it right.

Re:

[fistfullast33l (819270)]

Of course it's censorship. Does the person have the right to refuse someone to proclaim speech on their property? Yes. But it's still censorship - denying that person their right to free speech is still censorship. It's just legal censorship. It's like saying that it's not censorship for private entities to slap ratings on movies, music, books, television, whatever. They protect themselves by calling it "optionally required" ratings. But you now can't buy an M rated game under the age of 18 because g

Re:

[everphilski (877346)]

Take NC-17 movies - no theater will show them because they fear publicity. That's censorship as well.

Then if I refuse to watch a movie in my own house (for whatever reason ... maybe complete ignorance of the movie's existence is the only reason), is that censorship? By your definition, it is, solely because I didn't allow it to exist. You are just watering down the word censorship, soon it becomes meaningless. What you describe above is simply a business decision. Don't like the decision? Find a business

Yeah.

[pavon (30274)]

Then if I refuse to watch a movie in my own house (for whatever reason ... maybe complete ignorance of the movie's existence is the only reason), is that censorship? By your definition, it is, solely because I didn't allow it to exist.

By his definition (by the examples he gave) something is censorship if a group restricts access to information solely because of it's content. So no, if you don't show a movie because you don't know about it then it is not censorship by anyone's definition.

On the other hand you won't watch a movie in your house because you dislike the content then yeah, it is self-censorship, in the same way that refraining from saying everything that comes to mind is self-censorship. I've heard that term used on many occa

Re:

[fistfullast33l (819270)]

How the heck can you argue that the ratings bodies are executing free speech? How many times does a movie producer have to go back and recut their movie to achieve an R rating over an NC-17 rating? What about the Hot Coffee mod? People couldn't even access it in the PS2 version and yet they had to go back and take the time to cut it out because the ESRB was pissed. Finally, Take Two makes a stand and says we aren't cutting Manhunter 2, and then the ESRB basically rates it AO which makes it inaccessible

Re:

[fistfullast33l (819270)]

You have the right to do whatever you want in your house. Censoring yourself seems like a pointless concept, but I guess you consider it that if you'd like. In the cases where retailers are the only locations in a town providing a product (i.e. Walmart in the Midwest) and they decide not to sell it, then it definitely is forced censorship. In big cities, you can just go elsewhee. In small towns, you have no choice.

Zero Times

[pavon (30274)]

It doesn't need to be said because it isn't true.
If you allow public speech on your property, or through your service, but pick and choose what is allowed then you are censoring people. It right there in the dictionary. It isn't a violation of your constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech, but it is censorship.

Re:

[Turn-X Alphonse (789240)]

No matter how you put it, it is censorship. You don't seem to understand what censorship is, like a lot of slashdot it seems.

Censorship is taking measures to restrict access to content. Be it through editing or disabling the supply chain at some point. To refuse to carry a book is not censorship, to force the book to never get published any where is censorship.

A private entity can censor something, it's just Americans seem to have this idea that if a company does it then it's legal. Well the BBC here puts b

Re:

[$1uck (710826)]

Parent is modded "Troll" yet the gp isn't even modded? seriously?

Re:

[garcia (6573)]

Parent is modded "Troll" yet the gp isn't even modded? seriously?

It's either one of two things. 1) my favorite troll mods that will mod me down (even days later) just because it was me that posted or 2) it's a pro-life troll mod that hates the fact that someone might want to leave it up to someone to make their own mind about an issue rather than agreeing to Groupthink (TM).

It's really unfortunate that I haven't had mod points in years but douchebags that routinely moderate me down w/o good reason continue

Re:

[king-manic (409855)]

People with mod points, please mod parent up in any fashion you think fits.

Re:

[king-manic (409855)]

ahh the partisan modding continues...

Re:

[jandrese (485)]

From what I can tell it's a big downmod fest in this thread. If by "partisan modding" you mean "everybody who posts flamebait gets modded down" then yeah, it's partisan as hell. Also, I'd ask you to throw away your shrill internet whiner dictionary and buy a new one.

Re:

[king-manic (409855)]

The problem is Flamebait often coincides with a valid or interesting point. Controversial posts shouldn't be buried simply because they are controversial. A post that conveys a side of an issues may still contain content of value.

Re:

[king-manic (409855)]

I see this arguement constantly, "we can't legislate against it because it will force people into "back alley abortions".

WAKE UP PEOPLE in what alternate reality do you base laws on what people "are going to do anyway"? I mean by that logic we should get rid of all of the laws against normal murder, because hey, since we can't just walk people into a "deathspital" and have them killed, we have to go and do it in an alley. That's a slippery slope if I've ever seen one.

Or, lets see, people are going to steal

Re:WTF?

[multisync (218450)]

Fuck. Verizon.

I would say they appear to have fucked themselves. By taking steps to decide which text messages are "appropriate" for their network, are they not assuming responsibility for the content of all text messages carried on their network? The terms "safe harbour" and "common carrier" spring to mind.

Of course, IANAL, and may be full of it. But this doesn't look like a very smart move.