Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship The Media Government Communications Politics

Verizon Reverses Itself On Pro-Choice News Texting Ban 175

Posted by Zonk from the medium-is-the-message dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Verizon Reverses Itself On Pro-Choice News Texting Ban More

Verizon Reverses Itself On Pro-Choice News Texting Ban

Comments Filter:

  • Yes this is what net neutrality looks like. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Zeinfeld ( 263942 ) on Thursday September 27, 2007 @12:08PM (#20769785) Homepage
    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. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Kadin2048 ( 468275 ) * <.ten.yxox. .ta. .nidak.todhsals.> on Thursday September 27, 2007 @12:39PM (#20770259) Homepage Journal

      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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 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
      • 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.

        The telco's do not want to be piggy in the middle here. Its a lose-lose situation for them. Common carrier status was created in the first

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by morcego ( 260031 )
      I disagree with you, and strongly.

      Yes, taking sides is bad (Democrats can send messages, but Republicans can't). On the other hand, the company can (or should) be able to decide for "No Political Parties messages". As long as they are egalitarian. Why can't a company offer a "Political speech" free service ? I would sign with them. Must we be subjected to all that shit they keep throwing at us at election time ?

      Or maybe you are suggesting something like the DnC list, which worked oh so well. Oh, never mind

  • Law Needs To Catch Up...Again (Score:4, Interesting)

    by blueZhift ( 652272 ) on Thursday September 27, 2007 @12:10PM (#20769803) Homepage Journal
    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 (Score:4, Insightful)

      by $RANDOMLUSER ( 804576 ) on Thursday September 27, 2007 @12:18PM (#20769919)

      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?
    • Especially as it says you have to sign up to get these messages. It's not like they are sending them out randomly.

    • Re:Law Needs To Catch Up...Again (Score:5, Informative)

      by camusflage ( 65105 ) on Thursday September 27, 2007 @12:20PM (#20769945)
      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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by 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: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by 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.

          • Verizon's position was neutral - if Operation Rescue had been the first abortion lobby group to try to buy this kind of service, Verizon says their policy would have turned them down too, and you'd have seen the religious right flaming them for non-neutrality. In this case, NARAL's trying to lobby a somewhat younger and more technical crowd to lobby politicians, so they were the first ones to hit that wall.

            I think the policy was probably driven by worry about teenagers subscribing to information that their

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by cdrguru ( 88047 )
            The problem isn't Verizon deciding to block "some" messages they do not like. The issue is that Verizon is blocking messages constantly. From advertisers that want to assail your cell phone with text messages. Sure, Verizon could allow it all with a minor change in policy. Then you would get text messages just like you get spam - 24x7 constant mortgage offers, pseudo-pharmacies and male enhancement products.

            No, Verizon and all of the other carriers are doing a great job at blocking the sending of text m

    • No, this is good. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 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: (Score:2)

        by 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.
        • Verizon wasn't reading the text messages or filtering them - they were refusing to sell NARAL a mailing list server that would accept short-number messages and sign up the sender for the list.

          If they're doing any filtering, it's likely to be spam filtering on email-to-text servers, if those still exist. On the other hand, the comment that text messages can be read is definitely still true.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by xappax ( 876447 )
            Verizon wasn't reading the text messages or filtering them - they were refusing to sell NARAL a mailing list server that would accept short-number messages and sign up the sender for the list.

            True but the basis for their decision was the political viewpoints that would be expressed through the server. They may not have been using spam-style filtering the way you're thinking of it, but they were definitely attempting to prevent a specific type of political message (abortion-related) from being distribute

    • 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 (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Elemenope ( 905108 ) on Thursday September 27, 2007 @12:39PM (#20770277)

        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: (Score:2)

          by Speare ( 84249 )

          Not that I normally take my sociological cues from video games, ...

          • Not that I normally take my sociological cues from comedians, but Carlin, Cosby, Colbert...
          • Not that I normally take my sociological cues from comics, but Maus, Doonesbury...
          • Not that I normally take my sociological cues from movies, but Network, Inconvenient Truth...
          • Not that I normally take my sociological cues from books, ...

          Why is that? Is the video game format unsuitable for insight and their authors uninspired? I think not.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by 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: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by 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: (Score:2)

        by 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
        • But common carriers like UPS are not forced to transport hazardous materials, are they? Blocking viruses and so forth would fall under a similar exception, I think.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by 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: (Score:2)

      by 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: (Score:2)

      by 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

      • 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

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by COMON$ ( 806135 ) *
          If they signed up to receive a message and never receive it I think that would be a good indicator that your current service provider was behaving in a way that you may not like and would warrant further investigation.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jc42 ( 318812 )
        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.

        Lucky you, that you have so many phone companies (or maybe ISPs) to choose from. Most people have one (or zero ;-) such "choice". For most of us, if we don't like the phone company's policies, we can just move somewhere else where we like the local monopoly's policies. Then, of course, that company migh

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by COMON$ ( 806135 ) *
          In all honesty, where do you live that you only have one choice? If you are in the US you definately have at least 2. Last I checked Verison and Alltel have guaranteed coverage nationwide. Whether or not you have a vendor within a mile is a different issue.

          Currently I live in midwest, having grown up in BFE midwest I still had 2 options at least when cell coverage arrived.

          Perhaps, but the idea that a private corporation that's answerable to nobody but their shareholders and/or private owners is even s

  • This scares me (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tsa ( 15680 ) on Thursday September 27, 2007 @12:20PM (#20769947) Homepage
    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.
    • It's not that they have no idea about the efforts and hardships. Some of them do, some don't. It's irrelevant to them. From their point of view it's not about moral and history, it's about money and control (which, ultimately, translates to money again).

      If a second Enlightening would turn the currently powerful conservative elite (and their followers) into a science and art and culture loving, even atheist, but still authorative bunch, then Verizon would be glad to ban SMSs with the word 'God' in it, as lon
  • 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? (Score:5, Funny)

    by MrKevvy ( 85565 ) on Thursday September 27, 2007 @12:25PM (#20770049)
    Now you'd think it'd be Virgin banning pro-choice messages...
    (Silver Ringtone Thing?)

  • Can you imagine ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kalidasa ( 577403 ) on Thursday September 27, 2007 @12:29PM (#20770111) Journal
    The radio outrage if it had been a "pro-life" group that Verizon had banned?

    • 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

      • IRC, (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

        Before issuing judgment... Exactly how controversial was the ad? Did it images pictures of aborted fetuses or something?

        I can conceive of advertisements for eith

        • It's not the stance on abortion wrt to contraceptives and STD's that's bothersome, but that these are ads which, 20 years ago, would not have been shown on television because the subject nature was considered too personal. It just goes to show that the networks' pretense of decency is just that - a pretense. They don't care what they broadcast so long as it doesn't disturb their political sensitivities. And considering that the airwaves are technically a publicly-owned, shared resource, it should disturb

  • Time for a change. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Stringer Bell ( 989985 ) on Thursday September 27, 2007 @12:31PM (#20770151)

    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: (Score:2)

      by 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.
    • 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

      As I understand it (IANAL).

      The status of common carrier does not require explicit legislation. It helps. But it comes into US law via English Common Law as well as by explicit legislation. As such, they have a choice:

      - They can pick and chose what messages to carry and/or what customers to serve - and be liable for the messages they carry a

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by cdrguru ( 88047 )
        Today the carriers choose what outside text messages to allow into the system. If you want to set up a system to send text messages to lots and lots of people, you need to deal with the carrier and they will ask you what you are sending. And filter agreements based on this.

        Failure to do this will clearly result in text messaging being used for advertising. Lots of advertising because it is both (a) cheap for people that sign up with the carrier and (b) a revenue source because they charge people to recei
        • Failure [of the carriers] to [select who may use bulk text messaging] will clearly result in text messaging being used for advertising.

          You misunderstand what is at issue.

          The issue is not whether the carriers may chose to block bulk text messages. They may block:
          - Nobody,
          - Everybody, or
          - Everybody but who their customer opts-in to.

          The issue is whether, once the carriers set up a system where their customers can opt-in to bulk-message broadcasters, they can then arbitrarily accept SOM
  • 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: (Score:2)

      by praxis ( 19962 )
      I don't think we are talking about spam here, but rather an opt-in news update to members of a group.

  • 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

    • 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
  • text messages are sent via the data network, aren't there similar common carrier requirements for data as there are for voice?
  • One thing that seems to have shot over the heads of most of the previous posters was that this was essentially about an opt-in "short code", not "blocking". People have latched onto the words block, ban, and censor when they don't seem to apply. Although Verizon may have said it reserved the right to filter/block/whatever messages, that wasn't what actually happened here.

    It's difficult to filter through the NYT's FUD but apparently this group tried to get a short code where you can text 'join' to 55555 or s
  • Don't know about US law but in Ireland some years back this came up at an ISPs convention (think it was IOL).

    The ISP was berated for censorship for dropping alt.sex.binaries section.

    The presenter pointed out it would be impossible for them to censor anything that passes through their server. Common Carrier laws forbid it. The second they start censoring anything then they become liable for all content that passes through the system. So for example at that time someone posting to a newsgroup in Ireland abort

Slashdot Top Deals

I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"

Close