Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Dunedan
So it's yet another law/statute/ruling to prevent someone from doing as they see fit with their private property which they paid for and which they maintain. IOW, it would be illegal, were Halx an ISP, for him to disallow the posting of pictures of children, which was standing TFP policy for some time. Note; "prevent...from discriminating against particular internet content". I also note that Gov't bureaucrats and actual human beings almost always have wildly differing interpretations of "reasonable." Free Speech Zones were "reasonable" under the Bush Regime, remember?
I'm PRO GOVERNMENT NEUTRALITY because the hand that feeds me table-scraps is connected to the hand that beats me bloody and steals half my income, time, and productivity.
|
Your analogy fails in that you are trying to equate forum moderation decisions with violations of net neutrality.
Net neutrality does not mean that providers can't decide what type of content they will host. It means that providers will not be able to decide what sites and servers people can access.
And the "private property" is complete bullshit. First of all, as a public utility, it is subject to public regulation. But, most importantly, while ISPs might own the cables and servers, they don't own the airwaves and public land where those cables are, and as such the public can stipulate conditions for access to that land and airwaves.
Telephone companies cannot prevent you from calling out of network. Toll roads cannot prevent cars from a certain maker to access its roads.
Similarly, net neutrality, which was one of the founding principles of the internet, should be mandated, lest we go back to the age of the BBS.
If a telephone company cannot block you from calling out of network, why should they be able to prevent you from using skype on their network? Why should they be able to prevent you from sending email to certain addresses? Or from accessing certain websites?