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.

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.

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:

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.

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:

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 protecte

Law Needs To Catch Up...Again

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

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

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:

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 pou

Re:

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 th

No, this is good.

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 priva

Re:

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 th

Re:

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 pe

Re:Law Needs To Catch Up...Again

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:

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 be

Re:

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 in

Re:

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 infr

Re:

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

Re:

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 thi

Re:

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 t

Re:

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 start

capitalism

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 requ

This scares me

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

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 carr

Verizon?

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

Can you imagine ...

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

Actually, considering...

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

Time for a change.

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:

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 transmissio

I would like to call my cell carrier

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 car

Re:

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

Say what?

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 w

free market

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 me

Re:

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

It just isn't illegal.

Good Call

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 becau

Re:

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 lik

Re:

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 tha

Yeah.

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 definitio

Re:

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 acc

Re:

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 i

Zero Times

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 constit

Re:

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

Re:

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

Re:

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 s

Re:

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

Re:

ahh the partisan modding continues...

Re:

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 b

Re:

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:

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 r

Re:WTF?

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.