Verizon gave us a sneak peek into what the US and the state of free speech might look like in a few years after we’ve all forgotten that Net Neutrality has been done away with.
In a New York Times article, Verizon Blocks Messages of Abortion Rights Group, it was reported that Verizon has decided not to allow an abortion rights group "to make Verizon’s mobile network available for a text-message program."
Now, although you may not be a supporter of abortion rights, please see if you can put those feelings aside for a moment. Imagine, if it helps, that this was a anti-abortion group, or an anti-smoking group, or a republican group, or a freedom of religion group, or whatever group you may sympathize with.
The NYT went on to say:
In turning down the program, Verizon, one of the nation’s two largest
wireless carriers, told Naral that it does not accept programs from any
group “that seeks to promote an agenda or distribute content that, in
its discretion, may be seen as controversial or unsavory to any of our
users.” (emphasis mine)
What topic under the sun isn’t going to be controversial or unsavory to any of Verizon’s users? Isn’t the point of free speech to protect controversial ideas, and not to protect us from them? Isn’t this what the first amendment provides us?
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 of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The problem is that, as the article points out, "the First Amendment limits government power, not that of private companies like Verizon." And this is why we need to bring back Net Neutrality so that the freedom we enjoy in a free flowing of ideas over the Internet is protected under the first amendment, and not dictated by shareholder value.
And now, for the rebuttal….
After a ton of public pressure, Verizon reversed their decision yesterday. And yes, just imagine if it were something else, not abortion rights. It's scary to think a corporation can restrict what we see, read or hear. Especially when the messages being sent have been REQUESTED by the person receiving them.
Denise,
Thanks; heard that they reversed it after the fact. Still, very scary.
I forgot to mention that yesterday, by coincidence, we interviewed Russell Morgan, an expert on mobile message markting, on our show Blogging and Beyond. We discussed this issue and he said it's probably about the money.
Apparently, one way to send text messages is by email. If that's what NARAL was doing, then Verizon would not make any money on the organization. Only if they use "short key" technology, then the organization would be paying for the messages and the mobile company gets paid by both the sender AND the receiver.