5 ms·

And again we find Republican Party philosophy is that corporate rights are as strong as or stronger than human rights. Greed is good.

User23 8y ago
The first amendment doesn’t give you the right to use someone else’s printing press or network. This is a completely reasonable ruling. You’re free to start your own ISP. There are plenty of Democrat VCs. I’m sure they have no interest in greed and will be happy to fund you for purely idealistic reasons.
- DannyB2 8y ago
  You are paying your ISP to move packets to and from the internet backbone they are connected to without editing or blocking those packets. The contents of, source of, and destination of each packet is none of the ISP's business.
  - User23 8y ago
    That depends on the contract you signed with them. Even common carriers can refuse to transport objects. Many forbid even disassembled firearms for example.
    - DannyB2 8y ago
      Packets are data. Not explosives. Not dangerous chemicals. Packets may even be encrypted. And increasingly, they are.
      - User23 8y ago
        An AR 15 lower is not explosive or a dangerous chemical. It’s no more dangerous than any other couple pound hunk of metal. But common carriers choose not to transport them even though it’s safe and legal.
        manfredo 8y ago
        > But common carriers choose not to transport them even though it’s safe and legal. No, common carriers choose not to ship them precisely because it isn't legal (unless the sender and recipients are FFLs). Common carriers are usually fine with shipping muzzleloaders and pre '98 guns (all of which can be shipped and received by non FFLs).
- smichel17 8y ago
  > You’re free to start your own ISP. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/one-big-reason-we-lack-internet-competition-starting-an-isp-is-really-hard/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/one-b...
- lisper 8y ago
  > You’re free to start your own ISP. Not really. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/another-state-lawmaker-has-proposed-banning-municipal-broadband-networks/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/another-state-la... This is the Republican hypocrisy: only corporations (or extremely wealthy individuals) can start ISPs. Municipalities, a.k.a. The People, cannot.
  - User23 8y ago
    Republicans generally oppose what they consider unnecessary public spending and public control of markets. Reasonable people can disagree on the merits of that posture, but where’s the hypocrisy? Also, I’m not sure that law actually precludes a municipality from setting up an independent public utility that funds itself with subscription fees rather than taxes.
    - lisper 8y ago
      > where’s the hypocrisy? Republicans claim to favor local control over state and federal control. But in fact they are perfectly happy to exercise state control over local government (or federal control over state government) if local control threatens business interests or empowers minorities or women. Republicans also claim to revere the Constitution and the intent of the founders. The Founders clearly intended for the means of communication to be a public good. The government's duty to provide a postal service is written into the Constitution. But the postal service was simply the state of the art in communications technology in 1791. There is no reason to think that the founders did not intend for that government responsibility to keep up with technological advancements.
      - User23 8y ago
        > Republicans claim to favor local control over state and federal control. But in fact they are perfectly happy to exercise state control over local government (or federal control over state government) if local control threatens business interests or empowers minorities or women. You just disqualified yourself from being considered intellectually honest by engaging in bigoteering. > The Founders clearly intended for the means of communication to be a public good. The government's duty to provide a postal service is written into the Constitution. But the postal service was simply the state of the art in communications technology in 1791 Again, don't take this the wrong way, but your ignorance is shocking. There was this little thing called the (optical) telegraph that was a bit more state of the art than post horses. Furthermore, Ben Franklin quite clearly states that in order to have freedom of the press you must first have a press. The 1st amendment wasn't construed by any of the founders to imply socialized printing presses.
- contravariant 8y ago
  Similarly energy companies should have the right to deny service based on political views. You could always start your own energy company.
tinalumfoil 8y ago
While I don't agree with Kavanaugh in this case, the legal reality is corporations are just as protected by the first amendment as any person. If they weren't, we couldn't have things like a free press. Painting this view as strictly Republican is painting everyone who's not Republican as at odds with the constitution.
- mmt 8y ago
  > If they weren't, we couldn't have things like a free press. We could still have a free press, since "the press" is explicitly mentioned in the First Amendment. Whether things that resemble a free press (if that's what you meant by "like") are desirable, is another matter.
- timoth3y 8y ago
  > the legal reality is corporations are just as protected by the first amendment as any person That's not the case. There have always been restrictions on commercial speech that are not allowed towards individual speech. For example, it is completely acceptable to restrict commercial speech based on content.

User23 8y ago

The first amendment doesn’t give you the right to use someone else’s printing press or network. This is a completely reasonable ruling. You’re free to start your own ISP. There are plenty of Democrat VCs. I’m sure they have no interest in greed and will be happy to fund you for purely idealistic reasons.

DannyB2 8y ago
You are paying your ISP to move packets to and from the internet backbone they are connected to without editing or blocking those packets. The contents of, source of, and destination of each packet is none of the ISP's business.
- User23 8y ago
  That depends on the contract you signed with them. Even common carriers can refuse to transport objects. Many forbid even disassembled firearms for example.
  - DannyB2 8y ago
    Packets are data. Not explosives. Not dangerous chemicals. Packets may even be encrypted. And increasingly, they are.
    - User23 8y ago
      An AR 15 lower is not explosive or a dangerous chemical. It’s no more dangerous than any other couple pound hunk of metal. But common carriers choose not to transport them even though it’s safe and legal.
      - manfredo 8y ago
        > But common carriers choose not to transport them even though it’s safe and legal. No, common carriers choose not to ship them precisely because it isn't legal (unless the sender and recipients are FFLs). Common carriers are usually fine with shipping muzzleloaders and pre '98 guns (all of which can be shipped and received by non FFLs).
smichel17 8y ago
> You’re free to start your own ISP. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/one-big-reason-we-lack-internet-competition-starting-an-isp-is-really-hard/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/one-b...
lisper 8y ago
> You’re free to start your own ISP. Not really. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/another-state-lawmaker-has-proposed-banning-municipal-broadband-networks/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/another-state-la... This is the Republican hypocrisy: only corporations (or extremely wealthy individuals) can start ISPs. Municipalities, a.k.a. The People, cannot.
- User23 8y ago
  Republicans generally oppose what they consider unnecessary public spending and public control of markets. Reasonable people can disagree on the merits of that posture, but where’s the hypocrisy? Also, I’m not sure that law actually precludes a municipality from setting up an independent public utility that funds itself with subscription fees rather than taxes.
  - lisper 8y ago
    > where’s the hypocrisy? Republicans claim to favor local control over state and federal control. But in fact they are perfectly happy to exercise state control over local government (or federal control over state government) if local control threatens business interests or empowers minorities or women. Republicans also claim to revere the Constitution and the intent of the founders. The Founders clearly intended for the means of communication to be a public good. The government's duty to provide a postal service is written into the Constitution. But the postal service was simply the state of the art in communications technology in 1791. There is no reason to think that the founders did not intend for that government responsibility to keep up with technological advancements.
    - User23 8y ago
      > Republicans claim to favor local control over state and federal control. But in fact they are perfectly happy to exercise state control over local government (or federal control over state government) if local control threatens business interests or empowers minorities or women. You just disqualified yourself from being considered intellectually honest by engaging in bigoteering. > The Founders clearly intended for the means of communication to be a public good. The government's duty to provide a postal service is written into the Constitution. But the postal service was simply the state of the art in communications technology in 1791 Again, don't take this the wrong way, but your ignorance is shocking. There was this little thing called the (optical) telegraph that was a bit more state of the art than post horses. Furthermore, Ben Franklin quite clearly states that in order to have freedom of the press you must first have a press. The 1st amendment wasn't construed by any of the founders to imply socialized printing presses.
contravariant 8y ago
Similarly energy companies should have the right to deny service based on political views. You could always start your own energy company.

tinalumfoil 8y ago

While I don't agree with Kavanaugh in this case, the legal reality is corporations are just as protected by the first amendment as any person. If they weren't, we couldn't have things like a free press. Painting this view as strictly Republican is painting everyone who's not Republican as at odds with the constitution.

mmt 8y ago
> If they weren't, we couldn't have things like a free press. We could still have a free press, since "the press" is explicitly mentioned in the First Amendment. Whether things that resemble a free press (if that's what you meant by "like") are desirable, is another matter.
timoth3y 8y ago
> the legal reality is corporations are just as protected by the first amendment as any person That's not the case. There have always been restrictions on commercial speech that are not allowed towards individual speech. For example, it is completely acceptable to restrict commercial speech based on content.