Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government The Internet United States Your Rights Online

FCC Falsely Claims Community Broadband an 'Ominous Threat To First Amendment' (vice.com) 313

Posted by BeauHD from the false-claims dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: The Trump FCC has declared towns and cities that vote to build their own broadband networks an "ominous threat to the First Amendment." The claims were made last week during a speech given at the telecom-funded Media Institute by FCC Commissioner Mike O'Rielly. In his speech, O'Rielly insinuated, without evidence, that community owned and operated broadband networks would naturally result in local governments aggressively limiting American free speech rights. "I would be remiss if my address omitted a discussion of a lesser-known, but particularly ominous, threat to the First Amendment in the age of the Internet: state-owned and operated broadband networks," claimed O'Rielly.

In his speech, O'Rielly highlighted efforts by the last FCC, led by former boss Tom Wheeler, to encourage such community-run broadband networks as a creative solution to private sector failure. O'Rielly subsequently tried to claim, without evidence, that encouraging such networks would somehow result in government attempts to censor public opinion. "Municipalities such as Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Wilson, North Carolina, have been notorious for their use of speech codes in the terms of service of state-owned networks, prohibiting users from transmitting content that falls into amorphous categories like 'hateful' or "threatening," O'Rielly claimed. The closest O'Rielly gets to supporting evidence appears to be a 2015 white paper written by Professor Enrique Armijo for the ISP-funded Free State Foundation. That paper similarly alleges that standard telecom sector language intended to police "threatening, abusive or hateful" language somehow implies community-run ISPs are more likely to curtail user speech. But municipal broadband experts say the argument has no basis in fact.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC Falsely Claims Community Broadband an 'Ominous Threat To First Amendment' More

FCC Falsely Claims Community Broadband an 'Ominous Threat To First Amendment'

Comments Filter:

  • Welcome To Your Trumpian Future (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    where doublespeak is the norm.

    Thanks to all you ass hats that voted for Trump.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Interesting perspective (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sarten-X ( 1102295 ) on Monday October 29, 2018 @04:32PM (#57557931) Homepage

    That's an interesting perspective, since it's the FCC that is in charge of actual censorship.

    They're the ones who won't let you swear on broadcast television, not your local municipality.

  • bigger word than "lie" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Monday October 29, 2018 @04:37PM (#57557973) Journal

    It's stunning how dishonest this administration has been. I mean, all politicians lie, but none have ever done it with such relish and fervor as the Trump administration, and certainly none has ever come close to the sheer volume of falsehoods. It's a daily torrent of horseshit.

    "Community broadband is a threat to the First Amendment" is like saying "Republicans are the ones who want to protect coverage for pre-existing conditions," even though they've voted like 60 times to end coverage for pre-existing conditions.

    I guess what surprises me most is that there are so many willing participants, like the FCC, and the GOP caucus in congress and members of the cabinet. They lie and then they laugh at you for buying it.

    • or Iran Contra? This is nothing new. The difference here is that the media isn't calling him on it. To be blunt, they never do when the checks are cashing in the form of multi billion dollar tax cuts and military budgets. But that same media has been trying to get a sound bite out of Bernie and Occassio Cortez where they say they'll raise middle class taxes to pay for healthcare for months now.

      • Claiming that the media doesn't call out Trump lies (especially relative to Reagan lies) is as absurdly out of touch with reality as Trump's lies are. The problem, or at least part of it, is that people naturally tune it out after they've heard about a thousand previous lies.

        Sometimes a thousand small lies are a great way to sneak the big whoppers past fatigued citizens who might've had more reaction to fact checkers if they hadn't heard it so many times. People who are emotionally or financially invested i

      • But that same media has been trying to get a sound bite out of Bernie and Occassio Cortez where they say they'll raise middle class taxes to pay for healthcare for months now.

        As opposed to their real plan, which is to pay for it with unicorn poop?

    • Re:bigger word than "lie" (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Registered Coward v2 ( 447531 ) on Monday October 29, 2018 @05:27PM (#57558327)

      It's stunning how dishonest this administration has been. I mean, all politicians lie, but none have ever done it with such relish and fervor as the Trump administration, and certainly none has ever come close to the sheer volume of falsehoods. It's a daily torrent of horseshit.

      "Community broadband is a threat to the First Amendment" is like saying "Republicans are the ones who want to protect coverage for pre-existing conditions," even though they've voted like 60 times to end coverage for pre-existing conditions.

      I guess what surprises me most is that there are so many willing participants, like the FCC, and the GOP caucus in congress and members of the cabinet. They lie and then they laugh at you for buying it.

      We are at war with Eastasia. Eurasia is our ally. 2+2=5.

      Seriously, the 1st would make it harder to censor since town or city owned community broadband would be subject the 1st; unlike privately owned broadband. Threats to profits, however, are another thing. Follow the money.

      • Seriously, the 1st would make it harder to censor since town or city owned community broadband would be subject the 1st; unlike privately owned broadband.

        Hmmm. Is there an existing parallel? Why yes, there is. PEG channels (public, education, government) are carried on the local cable TV but run by the government. And yet, those channels have standards for what can appear there. I would like to see someone try to get a half hour program that contains nothing but people saying the word "fuck" onto the government-run public access channel. I'm pretty sure that if a high school student tried the same thing on one of the education channels they'd find themselves

        • Seriously, the 1st would make it harder to censor since town or city owned community broadband would be subject the 1st; unlike privately owned broadband.

          Hmmm. Is there an existing parallel? Why yes, there is. PEG channels (public, education, government) are carried on the local cable TV but run by the government. And yet, those channels have standards for what can appear there. I would like to see someone try to get a half hour program that contains nothing but people saying the word "fuck" onto the government-run public access channel. I'm pretty sure that if a high school student tried the same thing on one of the education channels they'd find themselves in trouble, too.

          Seems to fall under existing FCC rules and consistent with obscenity not being protected free speech.

          From the FCC:

          Franchising authorities may also require cable operators to set aside channels for educational or governmental use on institutional networks, i.e., channels that are generally available only to institutions such as schools, libraries, or government offices. Franchising authorities may require cable operators to provide services, facilities, or equipment for the use of PEG channels.

          In accordan

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dryeo ( 100693 )

          A better parallel would be a municipal run phone service. Do they get censored down there?
          You do have a lot of government censorship on the public airwaves. Heard a DJ ranting here on the CBC as he was interviewing a band called the Fuckheads or such and the problems that the fact that his program would be broadcast on NPR caused, namely having to self-censor. Seems your Federal government actively bans certain types of speech and other types of freedom of expression on the public airwaves. It was quite ama

  • Headline is just as bad (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    "insinuated, without evidence" does not mean it is false. It may be false. It may also be true. We won't know until it plays out.

    • Re:Headline is just as bad (Score:5, Insightful)

      by BeckyLookAtHerButt! ( 5603623 ) on Monday October 29, 2018 @05:47PM (#57558461)
      Chattanooga, TN for one turned up their municipal fiber ISP service in 2010. It's customer satisfaction usually ranks as the best among ISPs; No reports of wanton censorship. I am thinking we know how it plays out. We have evidence that those serviced love (...not like) their municipal ISP service. Why try to legitimize these unfounded, dishonest, scare tactics from the telecoms?

      One other thing, since the First Amendment actually only protects us from government censorship, wouldn't it actually be better from a legal standpoint to get our ISP service from municipal organizations and that way if there was a claim of censorship we'd actually potentially have standing under the 1st amendment? Could be wrong but my understanding is corporations can censor you all they want since they are technically not the government (....or are they? LOL....[insert nervous laugh])

      These same corporate telecoms just fought like hell to squash the FCC net neutrality rule which was designed to prohibit playing favorites with data packets. Now they want us to believe they are looking out for free, unfettered speech? Yah...right.

    • Can you find evidence of wanton censorship when the NSF ran the entire U.S. side of the Internet?

      Can you find any evidence of the alleged censorship in Chattanooga, TN?

      If no, there's your proof, plus proof of deliberate falsehood by the FCC.

      The big bad wolf has a vested interest in straw arguments.

  • and Comcast making executive deal with HOA's (Score:3)

    by Joe_Dragon ( 2206452 ) on Monday October 29, 2018 @04:43PM (#57558023)

    and Comcast making executive deal with HOA's with no network neutrality is ok as well?

  • to the first amendment; the FCC.

    The greatest threat to the FCC is if lobbyists can't continue to control legislation with their generous "campaign contributions"

    More evidence of malfeasance by the FCC would include the suppression of public comments on net neutrality.

  • They just want to fuck us. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DewDude ( 537374 ) on Monday October 29, 2018 @04:50PM (#57558079) Homepage
    So........ municipal broadband threatens free speech? We have a thing to prevent that kind of thing.......

    THE FIRST ADMENDMENT!!!!!!!!!!

    What kind of fucking morons do these ass clowns think we are? Is that the intelligence level they expect to deal with?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Calydor ( 739835 )

      And at the same time we keep being told that private companies (eg. game companies and their forums for their games) aren't affected by the first amendment, and they can censor anything they want because it's on their property.

      But it's the STATE owned internet connection that is a threat to free speech, not the company owned one ... Huh.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by OYAHHH ( 322809 )

        But it's the STATE owned internet connection that is a threat to free speech, not the company owned one ... Huh.

        Um if there were two or more STATE owned ones that competed against each other for my $ I would be far more amenable to the idea.

        Only a fool would believe that a sole-source provider is ever going to be adequate over the long term.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Calydor ( 739835 )

          How is your sole-source electricity and water doing, or your sole-source school system and road infrastructure?

    • While I wouldn't put it that way, it's an interesting point...

      Currently, you have various people complaining about "free speech" issues on the Internet. The argument is that I shouldn't have my Twitter account shut down because of something I said might have offended somebody. Of course, corporations don't have to adhere to "free speech" principles and I would imagine it's the same with ISPs. If I said something horrible, my cable provider could decide that they don't want to sell me Internet access. An

    • Re:They just want to fuck us. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Registered Coward v2 ( 447531 ) on Monday October 29, 2018 @05:28PM (#57558339)

      What kind of fucking morons do these ass clowns think we are? Is that the intelligence level they expect to deal with?

      Look at who America elected...

    • Perhaps he is drawing parallels with what's happening at public universities regarding free speech.

      Then again Google, FB etc. are not government and they too engage in censorship too.

  • Corporations != Free Speech (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bjwest ( 14070 ) on Monday October 29, 2018 @05:11PM (#57558201)

    Really interesting take on what's the real threat to the First Amendment when it's the Government that is bound by it. Corporations are in no way accountable to free speech protections, and this is how we loose them.

    When the corporations own all the conduits of speech, there will be no free speech.

    • Pardon me, but while that is something for concern, government has a mass murderous track record with respect to freedom of speech.

      Even our own must be dragged kicking and screaming into court over it, over and over again.

      The more government fatfingers things, the more they will try to censor, either directly, or indirectly by delaying regulatory approvals for uppity companies or people.

      Given government's attempts (and successes historically and currently, viz. Tv, Radio, campuses, work environments, some o

      • Then you're fucked. Simple as that. Because that means obviously you're no longer able to change your government if you find out it sucks donkey balls.

        When again die the US become a dictatorship?

      • Pardon me, but while that is something for concern, government has a mass murderous track record with respect to freedom of speech.

        Here you are implying that this is something that is exclusive for governments, and that is absolutely not true. There are many examples thought out history of companies with worse track records than governments, for instance British East India Company [behindthebastards.com].

        With governments there is at least some transparency and accountability for its ruling (although seldom enough), which is missing for private companies. When companies becomes as influential and powerful as governments without the corresponding checks and

  • Its True (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Tulsa_Time ( 2430696 ) on Monday October 29, 2018 @05:39PM (#57558415)

    If the government provides it, the government can take it away.

    Or filter it as it deems necessary.

    • You do know what the first amendment says? Yes? Ok. Who does the first amendment apply to? Government or private businesses? Who does it NOT apply to?

      And now please answer who can and who cannot dictate to you what you may say on "their" cables: Private businesses or government?

  • ... War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.

  • There's a nugget of truth there. Municipal ISPs can't put in the same kinds of restrictions on behavior that private ISPs can. Government is covered by the first amendment, but private industry is not.

  • NoogaNet seems to fit description nicely. 2. There is no guarantee of privacy associated with any User's use of the Service. 3. Your wireless-enabled device used to access the Internet will be logged and associated with your browsing. 7. The City reserves the right to impose time, place or manner restrictions on the viewing of certain materials accessed through the Service. 8. The City may suspend or terminate your use of the Service if it reasonably believes that you are in violation of any provision of th

    • Ok, now look at the nearly-identical phrasing in a commercial ISP's contract. And remember that you can't take the commercial ISP to court for first amendment violations.

  • A ghost of a point, but not intentional. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SuricouRaven ( 1897204 ) on Monday October 29, 2018 @06:57PM (#57558849)

    It's hyperbole, but it's not completely ungrounded. The internet, as we all know, has a *lot* of porn on it. There are also a lot of people who would like to see porn banned. It gets a lot easier for them to get their way when the government is involved in operating an internet service, for much the same reason that the FCC is able to regulate indecency transmitted on government-allocated radio frequencies. The argument that "we don't want our tax money to pay for other people to watch smut" is going to be a pretty powerful one, and anti-porn activists generally do not consider themselves as violating the first amendment because they do not recognize pornography as a form of speech. Similar concerns can be raised about government being pressured to block copyright infringement.

    But bizarrely, the federal government is currently dominated by a faction which supports banning the porn! There's a weird double standard going on here that shows the writer of this speech does not care at all about everything outlined in the above paragraph. The strongest argument that could be made in relation to the point raised is the possibility of anti-pornography efforts, but the FCC can't even acknowledge that possibility because they are allied to the people who are pushing it. Instead he is using the current bogeyman of liberal censorship of 'threatening' behavior - which every conservative is supposed to fear right now, though any attempt by a municipal provider to do that would likely be smacked down in the courts. It's quite the fear on the right though - you need only skim a few suitably skewed news sites to find them full of stories about how prominent right-wing activists have been 'censored' on social media and punished for their political views. Strangely though, very few of these stories actually repeat the contents of the banned posts, and the victims invariably turn out to be raging homophobes or conspiracy theorists. Usually both.

    I can't even interpret this at near-midnight. It's too deep in political dog-whistles and codephrases. None of it makes any sense, and I don't think it's supposed to. It works because most of the country loves the first amendment in the abstract sense, but is also very eager to disregard it when they have an agenda to advance - usually while accusing everyone else of doing the same.

    If the FCC really cared about preserving freedom of speech on the internet, they'd be doing everything they can to promote the use of universal encryption at every level. But they aren't doing to do that. It would get in the way of things like keeping television free of dirty words and making sure the government can issue warrants worth the effort.

    This posts is bleh and rambling... I shouldn't write these while barely awake. Screw it, too tired to care. Night.

  • So many of you have gripped about net neutrality, which was a fucking joke. The best thing to do was to allow net neutrality to go. After all, the argument went that it was freedom for these companies. Ok.

    Now, I have been arguing that the Sats esp. Starlink, along with utility style broadband, should be allowed and would make a HUGE difference. In fact, with net neutrality gone, these will grow fast.

    However, I was wondering if Trump's ppl would pull their BS. The first one is to go after 'rural broadba
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • As a libertarian, I am always guarded against the government getting more involved in my life. I truly understand the statement of "the scariest phrase you will ever hear is 'We are from the government, we are here to help.' I can definitely see how something like this could lead to abuses, not just first amendment but also fifth amendment.

    At the same time I think that a municipality (not just wireless but also last-mile connectiions to the customer) needs to be an independent, unbiased, 3rd party. Every

    • Maybe the solution is to require the municipalities to create the infrastructure of Layer2 but let independent isp's provide the layer3 on top of it, via tunneling, so that they lack the ability to do any sort of censoring, snooping, or data collection.

      Given that there is documented illegal data collection from private ISPs, and those ISPs are now required by law to continue that data collection on behalf of the government, why on Earth do you think private corporations are any safeguard for your rights?

      Think some privacy-centric ISP would appear? Guess what? They're subject to the same laws as Verizon and will be collecting data on you.

  • The FCC, of all the organizations possible, call something a threat to free speech. For real. The FCC. The same organization who made it its business to make broadcasters bleep and bloop every word that could remotely be called a "bad" word.

    The hypocrisy is so far off the chart that I can't even find a suitable parallel anymore to make a snide comment along the lines of "that's like X saying Y".

    • Fuck you very much the FCC
      Fuck you very much for fining me
      Five thousand bucks of fuck
      So I'm really out of luck
      That's more than Heidi Fleiss was charging me

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

Slashdot Top Deals

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Close