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

[Noctus]

Wtf are you lot doing over there? Americans going even more cray these days...

[Vanderburg]

There's a lot of lawyers here.

[Christophe Corazza]

1 hour ago, Vanderburg said:

There's a lot of lawyers here.

 

That's fairly typical with these types of news threads  

[Theminecraftaddict555]

So if an isp blocked a website that doesn't fit their political agenda, wouldn't that violate freedom of speech?

 

Not trying to stir anything too political here but just an example

[Zodiark1593]

2 hours ago, Theminecraftaddict555 said:

So if an isp blocked a website that doesn't fit their political agenda, wouldn't that violate freedom of speech?

 

Not trying to stir anything too political here but just an example

Other way around. It is suggested that forcing an ISP (via federal law) to display a website that opposes their political beliefs violates their first amendment rights.

[Drak3]

1 hour ago, Theminecraftaddict555 said:

So if an isp blocked a website that doesn't fit their political agenda, wouldn't that violate freedom of speech?

 

Not trying to stir anything too political here but just an example

Nope, freedom of speech is from the government, not private entities.

[mr moose]

6 hours ago, Vanderburg said:

There's a lot of lawyers here.

You don't need to be a lawyer to understand that it is illegal not to provide the service to a customer you promised.  You also don;t need to be a lawyer to see the US system with ISP's is messed up and BBS, forget NN, the fact there are only 2 options for something like 77% of the population is enough to know the system is broken.

 

5 hours ago, Theminecraftaddict555 said:

So if an isp blocked a website that doesn't fit their political agenda, wouldn't that violate freedom of speech?

 

Not trying to stir anything too political here but just an example

As far as I know freedom of speech is simply a constitutional right not to be persecuted by the government for your opinions on government, it does not force anyone to provide you a platform for said opinions.

[leadeater]

21 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You also don;t need to be a lawyer to see the US system with ISP's is messed up and BBS, forget NN, the fact there are only 2 options for something like 77% of the population is enough to know the system is broken.

When we have like over 50 options and you hear the argument of "Just change ISP" and all I can think is "But you don't actually have any other legitimate or sensible options?!?".

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

When we have like over 50 options and you hear the argument of "Just change ISP" and all I can think is "But you don't actually have any other legitimate or sensible options?!?".

At last count I had the choice from 127 different companies.  And that is in a country where the cost to do business (especially, absolutely and pinnacley,  anything that dependent on internet infrastructure), are all higher.  Also I am technically rural Australia being in a town with only 3000 people and outside the Melbourne metro region. If consumers don't actually have a choice then the system is broken, that by itself is proof there is a barrier to entry for competition.

[Vanderburg]

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

You don't need to be a lawyer to understand that it is illegal not to provide the service to a customer you promised.  You also don;t need to be a lawyer to see the US system with ISP's is messed up and BBS, forget NN, the fact there are only 2 options for something like 77% of the population is enough to know the system is broken.

There's a reason contracts with ISP's aren't only one line that says "We're giving you unfettered access to the internet". There are terms of service, there are conditions of service and there are Terms and Conditions of Service (mmm, TaCoS). I'm not saying what they are doing is or isn't illegal, and I'm not saying it's good or bad (it's probably not good), but I'm sure the lawyers they pay millions a year to take care of this stuff generally know what they are doing.

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, Vanderburg said:

There's a reason contracts with ISP's aren't only one line that says "We're giving you unfettered access to the internet". There are terms of service, there are conditions of service and there are Terms and Conditions of Service (mmm, TaCoS). I'm not saying what they are doing is or isn't illegal, and I'm not saying it's good or bad (it's probably not good), but I'm sure the lawyers they pay millions a year to take care of this stuff generally know what they are doing.

Companies spend millions on lawyers and still break the law and get caught (Intel anyone).  As I said before, we are not talking about the usual ToS, things like using your connection to host a game server or funding ISIS or whatever the condition may be,  We are talking about the very basic notion of fraudulent misrepresentation of a product.  If a company sells internet access and doesn't tell you they are blocking parts of it, then it would be like buying a full membership to a gym then after paying finding out you aren't allowed to use the treadmills and the cycles are limited to half friction.   And this gets worse when they put you on contracts and the only other option is just as bad. 

 

To be honest I don't know what's worse, the fact the system over there managed to get this bad or the fact that people are still defending it. 

 

 

[Theminecraftaddict555]

On 7/15/2018 at 2:50 PM, Drak3 said:

Nope, freedom of speech is from the government, not private entities.

forgot that isps were private entities woops (at least from what i have seen)

 

On 7/15/2018 at 2:41 PM, Zodiark1593 said:

Other way around. It is suggested that forcing an ISP (via federal law) to display a website that opposes their political beliefs violates their first amendment rights.

So isps should be allowed the freedom to display their political agenda or other beliefs to their customers that paid for their service?

[Theminecraftaddict555]

On 7/15/2018 at 6:13 PM, mr moose said:

You don't need to be a lawyer to understand that it is illegal not to provide the service to a customer you promised.  You also don;t need to be a lawyer to see the US system with ISP's is messed up and BBS, forget NN, the fact there are only 2 options for something like 77% of the population is enough to know the system is broken.

 

As far as I know freedom of speech is simply a constitutional right not to be persecuted by the government for your opinions on government, it does not force anyone to provide you a platform for said opinions.

So just to clarify, freedom of speech applies to having opinions of only the government but not private companies/platforms (like youtube?)

[Zodiark1593]

4 minutes ago, Theminecraftaddict555 said:

 

So isps should be allowed the freedom to display their political agenda or other beliefs to their customers that paid for their service?

Well, that is currently our subject of debate in this thread.

[vorticalbox]

On 11/07/2018 at 11:03 AM, Master Disaster said:

Honestly, with the way the US is going, the UK still pushing to ban pornography and the EUs Copyright Bill I'm worried over how the internet is going to look in 10 years time.

Much like tor. Hidden and highly encrypted.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Theminecraftaddict555 said:

So just to clarify, freedom of speech applies to having opinions of only the government but not private companies/platforms (like youtube?)

You are allowed to have opinions of private companies and people, but you're not protected under the same laws.  Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want. If you lie about another person/company you can be held liable for damages. 

 

 

 

[Theminecraftaddict555]

11 hours ago, mr moose said:

You are allowed to have opinions of private companies and people, but you're not protected under the same laws.  Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want. If you lie about another person/company you can be held liable for damages. 

 

 

 

yeah I know that freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want but allow you to form your own opinions