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:

[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: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

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:

[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:

[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.