Supreme Court Nominee: ISPs have 1st Amendment right to block websites

[EPENEX]

Too bad most people can't just chose another ISP if they start blocking things. We have to keep giving them money for their terrible actions.

[handymanshandle]

2 hours ago, JoeyDM said:

1. Not being in the country does not and SHOULD NOT prevent people from commenting. Many people here have valid points. That's just silly gatekeeping.

2. You're forgetting that you're just straight fucked if all available ISPs in your area do this. Which isn't hard since most areas have 2 ISPs.

3. I'm from and in the U.S., so don't misconstrue 1. 

Well my original response was going to probably be longer and I start crossing over the CS more.

 

Which is one major gripe I have with the moderation team on this forum is they let these threads like this go through which turn political fast and I don't wanna make it that but these type of threads are inherently political and when you have a differing opinion you tend to find yourself in a bad spot.

 

When it comes to an American commenting on something in another country, people tend to shun you for it. But if a person from another country tries to comment on something going on here, it's not nearly as shunned as it would be with the former.

 

I won't agree or disagree the validity of points because with this specific topic, I think it's very subjective about a lot.

~Fin~

[DrMacintosh]

The Supreme Court has been perverted. Technically it was never supposed to exist but we created it anyway. It worked decently enough but ever since the events during the Obama admin the Supreme Court has been politicized beyond belief. 

 

The intent was to appoint those who would objectively uphold the constitution. Now we have people being appointed specifically on their stance on hot issues. It’s Absolutely disgusting and makes me feel embarrassed to be an American. 

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, pinksnowbirdie said:

Which is one major gripe I have with the moderation team on this forum is they let these threads like this go through which turn political fast and I don't wanna make it that but these type of threads are inherently political and when you have a differing opinion you tend to find yourself in a bad spot.

Some time ago around the height of the Net Neutrality news discussions we did lock them because of the issues they caused and how they were always turned directly political and rarely mentioned anything about the topic of the thread. After that a number of members raised concerns over this for the inability to discuss an important technology topic and a decision was made at a higher authoritative level that we should leave these topics open and that is the mandate since then that we acted under.

 

That isn't however free license to have political debates in those topics that aren't actually about the subject at hand. It is possible to have discussions about technology topics that are political in nature that are technology focused and that is generally the line that is drawn when moderating the topics, is it just purely political or on topic. Pure politics should be reported so we can deal with it before it leads to strings of replies and creates a mess that is much harder to clean up.

[handymanshandle]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Some time ago around the height of the Net Neutrality news discussions we did lock them because of the issues they caused and how they were always turned directly political and rarely mentioned anything about the topic of the thread. After that a number of members raised concerns over this for the inability to discuss an important technology topic and a decision was made at a higher authoritative level that we should leave these topics open and that is the mandate since then that we acted under.

 

That isn't however free license to have political debates in those topics that aren't actually about the subject at hand. It is possible to have discussions about technology topics that are political in nature that are technology focused and that is generally the line that is drawn when moderating the topics, is it just purely political or on topic. Pure politics should be reported so we can deal with it before it leads to strings of replies and creates a mess that is much harder to clean up.

Yeah for sure.

[TetraSky]

On 7/11/2018 at 6:23 AM, Amazonsucks said:

The rise of trash like facebook and amazon happened about 15 years ago.

Which I'd argue is when most people above a certain age truly started using the internet instead of just leaving it to their kids. To communicate with their extended families that they don't see often.

 

I and many others in my age groups(25~35), were going online long before our parents ever bothered giving a second look at it. Heck, my own mother(55) only started actually using the internet like 6 months ago. Before that, all she did on the computer was pay her bills with it, check her emails once in a while, maybe play Solitaire... and that was it. You couldn't call that using it. 

So is it really that surprising to hear that many millennial view older people as being overall unknowledgeable about the Internet/not as attached to it, thus they believe that they can "live" without it by passing these sort of ridiculous rulings/laws that limits our own freedom of access?
It's like having a pencil pusher in an office somewhere, decide what's best for farmers, just because he visited a farm once when he was a kid.

[Vanderburg]

On 7/11/2018 at 5:25 AM, leadeater said:

Maybe a side effect of the Supreme Court ruling that corporations are people so then should also have 1st amendment rights? No freakin clue tbh,

This is a pretty minor point, but the Supreme Court didn't necessarily determine that corporations are persons, but Congress has defined them as such, so the Supreme Court often makes rulings that treat them as such. (Hobby Lobby, Citizens United, etc)

 

Edit: The Citizens United decision didn't address corporate personhood.

Edited July 14, 2018 by Vanderburg

[DeScruff]

3 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

but ever since the events during the Obama admin the Supreme Court has been politicized beyond belief.

I know for a fact, my dad who is extremely into presidential/political history would strongly disagree on that, saying its been politicized long before then,
If you mean the whole "We have to fill the seats with Conservative/Liberal judges, vs people who will look at the constitution objectively without political bias" Its been like that for a decades, possibly since the beginning. We tend to not learn much about former SC Judges, and who appointed them, and we certainly never learn the actual reasons they were chosen.

[DrMacintosh]

2 minutes ago, Sypran said:

I know for a fact, my dad who is extremely into presidential/political history would strongly disagree on that, saying its been politicized long before then,
If you mean the whole "We have to fill the seats with Conservative/Liberal judges, vs people who will look at the constitution objectively without political bias" Its been like that for a decades, possibly since the beginning. We tend to not learn much about former SC Judges, and who appointed them, and we certainly never learn the actual reasons they were chosen.

Doesn't matter what happened in the past, makes no sense to complain about that. Can't change it either. 

[imreloadin]

I guess I'm just a little confused here. Owners of websites (let's take LTT for example) are able to filter content on their platform because they own it. or at least I'm thinking that is the general sentiment. What makes it different for ISP's who own the platform (meaning the network infrastructure) to not be able to filter content on something they own? I guess I'm just having some cognitive dissonance because of these to seemingly the same scenarios.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, imreloadin said:

I guess I'm just a little confused here. Owners of websites (let's take LTT for example) are able to filter content on their platform because they own it. or at least I'm thinking that is the general sentiment. What makes it different for ISP's who own the platform (meaning the network infrastructure) to not be able to filter content on something they own? I guess I'm just having some cognitive dissonance because of these to seemingly the same scenarios.

Why can't a postman or a courier open letters and parcels, read them then decide not to deliver them because they do not agree with the contents? 

[mr moose]

8 hours ago, pinksnowbirdie said:

 

When it comes to an American commenting on something in another country, people tend to shun you for it.
 

I disagree with this,  It might happen occasionally, but so does the "you can't comment on US maters because you aren't American".   This forums see's countless number of posts that are specific to Sweden, UK, Norway, Australia, US etc. Though rarely does an opinion get dismissed because the originator is from a specific country.

[asus killer]

13 hours ago, Robert Morgan said:

Guys, ISPs absolutely can censor on their sites. Why? Because they are their sites. In the USA, the First Amendment protects against the government abridging free speech. However, ISPs aren't the government, and while I oppose restrictions on speech and am in favor of net neutrality since the ISPs aren't the government they can absolutely censor or block certain sites and content. Its like your home, You can censor the guests who visit you by kicking them out of your garden party if you disagree with them. That may make you a jerk, but it is your property and you can censor on your property, absent government involvement. ISPs are the same. Actually reading what the First Amendment says might help: 

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

"Congress shall make no law," is really the key to it all. Judge Kavanaugh isn't a loon. He's simply stating what the long settled law is. Heck, Fox censors lefties and MSNBC and CNN censor righties. All are private news sources and being private, they can do it since Congress had made no law telling them to. Its their choice to do so, or not at all. Some of the hysteria I'm reading  here and elsewhere really indicates a lot of people with zero grasp of the actual Constitution and its application, especially the Bill of Rights. A number of people on this thread wouldn't have passed the high school US History and Gov't classes that I teach, not even close. C'mon folks, drop the hysteria and fearmongering about Kavanaugh and read the Constitution. 

 

Okay, I'm done. Back to grading summer school papers. Some of them might even pass! 

and that's why it's important to consider internet providers as public utilities

 

scary that someone can think it's ok for a ISP to present only the internet he wants to present and even scary for a teacher to think so. And you can't compare CNN's view to an ISP. In that analogy CNN is just a website, CNN isn't able to stop you from seeing FOX

[mr moose]

12 hours ago, Robert Morgan said:

That actually happened to a teacher at my school, believe it or not. The semester after 9/11, her students wondered how an atomic bomb went boom (they were learning about Hiroshima) so they googled it. Nothing fancy, no hacking just google. They immediately were presented with a government warning page that their activities were being monitored. A week later, the nice gub'mnt men showed up in the principal's office asking to interview the teacher. Talk about weird and bizarre. Big  brother is watching.  

 

Yeah, it was all the class searching for bomb information, Sure it had nothing to do with the teacher looking at ISIS or porn or god knows what else at lunch? 

[leadeater]

13 minutes ago, asus killer said:

and that's why it's important to consider internet providers as public utilities

 

scary that someone can think it's ok for a ISP to present only the internet he wants to present and even scary for a teacher to think so.

Some people are just unable to see a distinction between content creators, content hosts and content deliverers and act as if they are the same. The quoted TV example is a good example of just that, not that TV is even a good example because there are laws that censor what can be said and shown on TV anyway which technically violates that quoted passage. If only things were so simple, but alas they are not.

[asus killer]

7 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Some people are just unable to see a distinction between content creators, content hosts and content deliverers and act as if they are the same. The quoted TV example is a good example of just that, not that TV is even a good example because there are laws that censor what can be said and shown on TV anyway which technically violated that quoted passage. If only things were so simple, but alas they are not.

yep he mixes up everything and doesn't understand the distinction. I even went back and added something about the analogy he makes to see if he can understand the difference. On can only hope. 

[imreloadin]

12 hours ago, leadeater said:

Why can't a postman or a courier open letters and parcels, read them then decide not to deliver them because they do not agree with the contents? 

So LTT doesn't log/read/moderate any private messages sent between forum users then I take it?

[asus killer]

17 minutes ago, imreloadin said:

So LTT doesn't log/read/moderate any private messages sent between forum users then I take it?

how is a forum anything like an ISP? this analogies are out of control

[Christophe Corazza]

20 minutes ago, imreloadin said:

So LTT doesn't log/read/moderate any private messages sent between forum users then I take it?

 

Not that I'm aware of 

[imreloadin]

2 minutes ago, asus killer said:

how is a forum anything like an ISP? this analogies are out of control

They're the same in that they both own the infrastructure? LTT owns this website/forum therefore they can read monitor PMs. Why can't ISPs do the same thing since they actually OWN the infrastructure? It would be different if ALL of the infrastructure was government property and the ISPs simply leased it or something but that's not the case. When you get fiber installed to your home it wasn't uncle Sam out there laying the fiber and connecting your house to it, it was the ISP you purchased it from. Tell me how this is different from LTT? All everyone seems to be doing is creating some kind of false dichotomy for when people that own something can make decisions on it or not and it literally makes zero sense to me. I'm not saying it's right or wrong here, I'm just wanting someone to make an argument that makes sense so I can see why it should be the way they're saying.

 

@leadeater's analogy was asking why USPS or FedEx or UPS can't open your packages and mail and that's because they don't own those items, you can't own a mail route either sooo they're simply the transportation of said items so it doesn't make any sense. ISPs actually own the infrastructure that this information is being sent/viewed on so why shouldn't they be able to filter content just as LTT does with the website that they own themselves?

 

[Robert Morgan]

Quote

scary that someone can think it's ok for a ISP to present only the internet he wants to present and even scary for a teacher to think so. And you can't compare CNN's view to an ISP. In that analogy CNN is just a website, CNN isn't able to stop you from seeing FOX

 

That’s not what I said and you know it, but nice try attempting to mischaracterize my statement. If you’d bothered to actually READ AND COMPREHEND better, you’d have also seen that I took no opinion of the kind you have misattributed to me. Instead, what I actually said was,

 

Quote

and while I oppose restrictions on speech and am in favor of net neutrality since the ISPs aren't the government they can absolutely censor or block certain sites and content.

 

There. See? Fixed it for you.

 

Quote

Some people are just unable to see a distinction between content creators, content hosts and content deliverers and act as if they are the same. The quoted TV example is a good example of just that, not that TV is even a good example because there are laws that censor what can be said and shown on TV anyway which technically violates that quoted passage. If only things were so simple, but alas they are not.

 

C'mon there, Mister Moderator. Television channels are content creators, content hosts and content deliverers, especially in this age of satellite radio and TV.  They can sometimes be any or all three and depending upon how the content is delivered, especially in the case of satellite radio making them at times exempt from the regulations that you're mentioning. That's why Howard Stern moved to satellite radio, to get around the FCC decency rules! And, those are rules promulgated by a federal agency, not laws - there's a legal difference. They can be changed, challenged in court, and so on. They are not set in stone and really only exist to ensure that children don't hear swearing or see bare breasts at too young of an age. However, the same programming alluded to can be aired later at night when those kiddies are supposedly in bed so no one's sensibilities will be harmed. Or, the TV channel or network will simply put the edgy content on a pay channel to insulate itself from any FCC rules, but they can and will still air the content - they can't be stopped by these rules and regulations which will only really modify the behavior, not halt it. The bottom line is that whatever 1950s decency rules are still on the books are easily gotten around and only apply because the airwaves are viewed as publicly owned and hence regulatable. ISPs are not. 

 

Look at ESPN; they create their own content, they sometimes commission or buy it from elsewhere, they host and deliver it. Oh, and they own the rights to some very specific bandwidth and broadcast frequencies. And, being some or all three, they can choose to self-censor what they broadcast. They have, in recent years, been criticized for becoming a very liberal, left wing "news" channel. You know what? They can be. That's ESPN's right, and that means that they can willingly choose to not cover conservative athletes and their causes. I'm not saying that its right, but they can. The law allows it. ISP's can do the same. Want an alt-right ISP? Someone can set one up and only host far right wing content, websites, etc, and censor out liberal ones. Want a Marxist ISP? That can be set up, too, and it can create its own content, host liberal websites only, etc.

 

The key is they can't be forced to broadcast certain viewpoints and opinions are part of their regular programming. They just can't. Again, there's that pesky First Amendment again  - "Congress shall make no law..." Now, regular TV and radio channels are federally regulatable under the Commerce Clause since their signal crosses state lines they can be forced to participate  in such things as disaster services, airing political campaign commercials equally if paid for, and so on. However, this does not affect the content that they create or choose to buy from elsewhere and then broadcast; even viewing the Commerce Clause very expansively has never allowed for that interpretation., though Hamilton might desire it were he alive today!   

 

What I've noticed is that a lot of people in other countries do not understand how the US Constitution works. Far enough, I wouldn't necessarily expect them to and I normally don't hold that against them. But, if one is to comment on the state of the law on a given subject, then one would naturally expect said commentator(s) to actually be up to speed on how the Constitution and settled case law apply to it.

 

Okay guys, I'm done with this thread. I've tried to interject the legal, Constitutional reality to the question at hand regarding Judge Kavanaugh's views which are actually very mainstream on this issue. He's simply quoting long settled constitutional law. I'm going to move along, now, You are all free to misquote and mischaracterize my earlier statements but it won't change the constitutional analysis. 

 

Have a great day, everyone.

 

[asus killer]

15 minutes ago, imreloadin said:

 

 

you do know LTT forum is a part of the internet? An ISP is (part) the infrastructure that gets you LTT forum

 

14 minutes ago, Robert Morgan said:

ISPs aren't the government they can absolutely censor or block certain sites and content.

 

[imreloadin]

1 minute ago, asus killer said:

you do know LTT forum is a part of the internet? An ISP is (part) the infrastructure that gets you LTT forum

Yes...LTT can filter content on their site to what they see fit...so why can't ISPs do the same?

What nobody has explained to me is how it's ok for LTT to filter content on a website they own but ISPs aren't allowed to filter content that passes through infrastructure that they own. That is where the cognitive disconnect is for me. You seem to be someone who wants ISPs to not be able to do this so how is it justified for LTT to do it but not for ISPs when they both own the stuff?

[asus killer]

9 minutes ago, imreloadin said:

Yes...LTT can filter content on their site to what they see fit...so why can't ISPs do the same?

What nobody has explained to me is how it's ok for LTT to filter content on a website they own but ISPs aren't allowed to filter content that passes through infrastructure that they own. That is where the cognitive disconnect is for me. You seem to be someone who wants ISPs to not be able to do this so how is it justified for LTT to do it but not for ISPs when they both own the stuff?

I get an analogy could be better but i think this topic is already filled with them.

 

because LTT forum can't stop you from accessing the internet besides their own website if you misbehave. A ISP can decide that you can't access LTT forum. Do you see the difference?

 

I think you are mixing blocking content for whatever reason for as much personal and not objective it could be, with moderating your own website for whatever reason and i guess that it could be for the wrong reasons but most of the time is just moderating to keep things civil and because they have responsibility if this became a KKK meeting point to schedule killings.

 

If it's for the wrong reasons you're free to leave, your decision, not some corporate decision for you not to be able to access LTT

[imreloadin]

8 minutes ago, asus killer said:

because LTT forum can't stop you from accessing the internet besides their own website if you misbehave. A ISP can decide that you can't access LTT forum. Do you see the difference?

There isn't any difference though. Of course LTT can't stop you from accessing the internet, they don't own the internet. What about an ISP makes it so they don't have the right to block access to the infrastructure that they own? Did something change in the past that made it so they are required to sell me internet service? "Blocking content for whatever reason" and "blocking KKK websites" are literally the same thing, they're both arbitrary reasons. Who said anyone has to be objective with their reasoning?