A recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that throws out limits on corporate political-endorsement spending is giving new hope to opponents of net neutrality regulation proposed by the U.S. Federal Communication Commission.
In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court on Thursday reaffirmed earlier rulings granting corporations free-speech rights, by saying a limit on spending for endorsements for candidates violates those rights. While Citizens United has nothing to do with net neutrality rules, opponents of the FCC's proposal say the court appeared to strengthen corporate free-speech rights in a way that could apply to net neutrality.
Net neutrality backers, however, say that people looking to the Citizens United case for direction on net neutrality are stretching the definitions of free speech and exaggerating the role of broadband service providers. "It'd be kind of funny, if we didn't have to keep responding to some of these arguments," said Corie Wright, a lawyer for Free Press, a media reform group that supports net neutrality rules.
Under the FCC's proposed net neutrality rules, broadband providers would be prohibited from discriminating against any legal Web content and applications. Some net neutrality opponents have argued that the FCC, by forcing them to carry other content, would violate their free-speech rights, and the Citizens United ruling makes that a stronger argument.
Broadband providers aren't classified as common carriers under FCC rules, meaning there've been no requirements that they carry all traffic, said Michael Wendy, media relations director at Computing Technology Industry Association (CompTIA), a trade group that has questioned the need for net neutrality rules.
"I think that the FCC’s rules may hinder the speech rights of ISPs [Internet service providers]," said Wendy, a former director of government relations at the United States Telecom Association. "To me, I see facilities-based ISPs ... somewhat akin to private movie theaters, galleries or newspapers. We don't tell the gallery owner to hang other people's paintings, no matter how important those messages might be."
While there's not a direct link between the Citizens United case and net neutrality, the Supreme Court ruling "has to put the FCC on guard," Wendy added.
An FCC spokeswoman declined to comment on the Citizens United case, but Wendy is not alone in making this free-speech argument against net neutrality. Even before the Citizens United ruling, some conservative think tanks, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association and constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe have made similar arguments.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, guaranteeing free speech, does not give the government a role in ensuring that all voices have equal access to audiences, Tribe and high-profile lawyer and Supreme Court watcher Thomas Goldstein wrote in comments filed with the FCC.