R U 4 Free Speech?

You may remember a small storm that erupted when it came to light that Verizon had stifled NARAL Pro-Choice America from sending its members text messages. Under public scrutiny, Verizon reversed itself.

But Verizon helped prove the point that we can't rely on self-governance when it comes to free speech in the texting world.

Sending text messages has become a common enough way to get quick messages out (nonprofits and organizations like CREDO Mobile Action use it all the time for political activism), that we can't rely on the goodwill of big telecoms to allow the text messages as they see fit. This new, quick way to connect needs to be regulated.

In initially turning down its program, Verizon had told NARAL Pro-Choice America 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."

How's this for unsavory: Verizon believes it can quash an organization's communications to its own members who had opted in to receive the messages. It was only because of enormous public outcry that Verizon changed its tune.

The fact that Verizon feels it can reject or block politically motivated messages should leave us all very worried. After all, how would you feel if Verizon decided to drop your phone calls the minute you started discussing a "controversial" issue like reproductive freedom?

This type of censorship would be unthinkable and illegal in the world of voice communications, and now text messaging needs to be protected, too. In response to this situation, as well as other instances of big telecom companies trying to censor text-messaging content they do not agree with, several progressive groups including my company, CREDO Mobile, have filed a petition with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) seeking to end the practice of discrimination in provision of text-messaging services.

Specifically, we're asking the FCC to declare that text messaging services are governed by the anti-discrimination provisions of Title II of the Communications Act, and that discrimination in providing these services is therefore illegal.

The FCC has opened a public comment period for this petition, so you can weigh in. You can speak up today to support free speech by posting a comment with the Federal Communications Commission to end the practice of discrimination in setting up text-messaging services.

Comments

[Jacky1]

"In initially turning down its program, Verizon had told NARAL Pro-Choice America 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."

Does that mean they do the same thing to pro-lifers, environmental groups, democratic groups, republican groups, neo-nazis, KKK, Black Panthers, Evangelical Christians? If they did, then I am shocked that they are still in business.

[magen]

The slogan of my new communications company is:

"Our company respects the Constitution and laws of The United States of America, and with our services you are guaranteed to NOT be illegally spied upon." (co2008)

[kellygrrrl]

You'll need to wait until the NeoCons are out of the control position before you launch that biz.

but put me on your MAIL list. I'm in!

[hamilton]

Is this really a free speech issue if you are using a private company's architecture (in a situation where competition exists so you have an alternative)? I mean, you can't force a newspaper to print your Op-Ed. I don't think it's very nice, or moral, for Verizon to do any of this, don't get me wrong. You use of the term "unsavory" seems spot-on. And the proper reaction ought to be a general boycott of their network. And if all of the companies did this, then there might be grounds for collusion. But I'm not sure we have a blanket constitutional right to free speech using someone else's property (meaning in a private sphere as opposed to the public square). If you don't like it, switch. That's the same thing we try to tell right-wingers that moan about naughty TV channels, right?
And if the issue is that Verizon is using "free" airwaves, well, then isn't that again the same issue as with the TV channels and the right wingers? The appearance of inconsistency in the application of principles tends to weaken the entire basis for those principles.
Now if there is truly a discrimination issue (race, gender, etc.) then I think there's more to go on. Clearly it's against our Constitution to deny service for one of these reasons. But last I checked one's political stance on any given issue was not a basis for discrimination. By trying to expand the rule to include specific issues I think we water down the arguments when there is a real case of discrimination. And we need to hold true to our core arguments even when it runs counter to our own agenda - it's easy to hold to principle when it works in your favor. Less so when you stand to lose by it.

[Startreklivz]

The significant difference is that NARAL is not demanding a newspaper to print their letter to the editor: they are expecting their utility company to provide the service for which they are paying. The utility does not have the right to censor messages, assuming the messages do not incite people to commit criminal or treasonous acts. So far, dissent and community political action are not illegal.

[hamilton]

But you can't switch your utility company. You can switch your cell phone provider. What makes them a utility?

I mean, HuffPo screens comments and clearly does not post ones they don't like. This is theoretically according to posted rules, but of course in the end it's up to the specific screener. I've had a couple of comments in recent days never appear, although they contained no profanity or ad hominem or the like. I assume it's because I'm sorta-centrist or was arguing against the crowd - but who cares, it's their board. If I don't like it, I can whine or boycott or tell my friends or whatever. But to push for legislation? My cable company - a utility! - doesn't show NFL Network. Should I cry censorship? I mean, I bought the sports package and everything.

NARAL has a case here in that they're paying for a service and not getting it. They should demand their money back and switch providers, not push for sweeping legislation about what a private company can or can't do with its equipment.

Again, if this was truly a utility (meaning no alternatives, life-critical service) like electric or gas or landline phone I might see this differently. But text messaging - I mean, you can switch providers tomorrow. And, by the way, I did. I'm not a Verizon customer anymore. But that was a decision that was easy to make on my own, without needing the goverment to do it for me.

[The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker]

Isn't that the same argument that would support Verizon disconnecting your telephone if it doesn't like who is calling you? Whoops! This phone call might be controversial!

[hamilton]

Sort of the same, except I'd reply that (landline) phone is truly a utility - you can't switch, and it has some life-criticality (like calling emergency) so there's decent justification to force private operators into some level of regulation. Do you think text-messaging merits the same regulatory oversight? If so, then how about the internet?

[Thorn]

If that headline is a clever play on "RU-486," you'll have to spell it out a little more for this crowd. I'm just sayin'.

[dadw5boys]

What is going on at Verizion????????

Businesses are typically "A MORAL" .

That means the businesses provide a service wiht what ever assets they have to provide them.
A store sells gas and cigs also skin mags and condoms.
They invest their profits in other businesses some may even make dirty movies and have a business arm that makes children toys or even prints bibles.

Something is rotten there if they are trying to force behavior on it's customers.

[realitytrumpsbull]

I just use email, and the phone at the house. I used to carry a mobile phone, but not anymore. Waste of money, don't want people calling me, frankly, and the people that I think should have my email address, well, they've already got it, I think, for the most part. Verizon? Ok, whatever, my monthly cell bill is ZERO.

[The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker]

I'm so tempted but I have a kid in school. Odd how the things have turned into NECESSITIES.

Hey - - stupid question, people: Is WIFI expensive? Maybe if I buy a laptop I'll ditch Verizon. They've done plenty to lose my business, THAT's for sure! Comcast too. What a bunch of jerks.