Former FCC Commissioner Idiotically Claims Net Neutrality Helps ISIS

from the a-new-low dept

"In autocratic countries like China and Iran, it is the government that decides which Internet content is permissible, and which must be censored. Individuals have no choice. Under the new network neutrality rules, which prohibit blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization, the FCC dictates to businesses offering broadband services which parts of the Internet they must offer—all of it.



At first blush, this might sound reasonable, and certainly preferable to the government censorship that pervades much of the world. But the First Amendment protects not only the right to speak without government interference but also the right to remain silent and the right not to be coerced into speech by the government. Nowhere is the right to be free from compelled speech more important than the Internet.

"In an America with network neutrality rules, purveyors of indecent material and groups such as ISIS have a right to enter American homes through the Internet, and consumers lack the corollary right to have their broadband providers kick them out. As long as a site is “lawful,” broadband providers are powerless under network neutrality rules to respond to consumer preferences by blocking it or even parts of it, or favoring other websites—all under the banner of “neutrality."

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community. Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis. While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

There have been aof stupid net neutrality claims over the years. Net neutrality will somehow prevent ISPs from investing in networks is a common one. So are the claims that net neutrality will result in internet brown outs , trample ISPs' First Amendment rights , result in a return to the Fairness Doctrine , or that it's essentially " Obamacare for the internet ." Underpinning most of these arguments is the grand daddy of them all: the intentionally-divisive claim that net neutrality is a partisan issue to begin with.But former FCC Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth may have done the impossible: he's plattered what may just be the. In his editorial over at Capx titled "Why ISIS Celebrates the FCC’s Network Neutrality Rules," Furchtgott-Roth actually goes so far as to suggest meaningful net neutrality helps ISIS/Daesh. At the core of his stale argument is the idea that net neutrality rules somehow violate giant broadband ISPs' First Amendment rights:You know you're off to a solid, logical start when you try to compare regulations that, with the type of online censorship that's common in both Iran and China. As for net neutrality rules violating ISPs' First Amendment rights, we've repeatedly noted that's bunk. Basically, ISP lawyers threw every claim they could at the wall in the hopes that something would stick. But net neutrality rules don't violate ISPs' free speech rights because. In the case of net neutrality, most financially-objective people realize the threat is the ISP as censor.It's worth noting that the bigger ISPs (AT&T, Comcast, Verizon) have been backing away from this claim in recent months in court filings, seemingly aware that it wasn't going to be an effective tactic. And indeed, during last week's oral arguments in the neutrality case the three Judges involved seemed to indicate it's an argument that won't be getting any serious traction . Still, Furchtgott-Roth (who since his stint with the FCC has bounced around telecom industry think tanks defending horrible business practices ) uses that argument as the foundation for the dumbest net neutrality argument ever made:Yes, that's called, the very thing Furchtgott-Roth's pretending to give a damn about. And sure, if you want to stretch logic to its breaking point you can argue net neutrality helps ISIS, because it helps. That's kind of the whole point. Even if you can forgive Furchtgott-Roth's molestation of logic here, using ISIS to make a cheap political point in the wake of the Paris and San Bernardino shootings sinks to a new and notably-foul low for the broadband industry's anti-net neutrality brigades.

Filed Under: fcc, free speech, harold furchtgott-roth, isis, net neutrality