I can't argue that most newspapers and the media in general are pretty weak these days, and I work for one of them. I don't think this is about creating a new

I can't argue that most newspapers and the media in general are pretty weak these days, and I work for one of them. I don't think this is about creating a new right to internet access, per se, instead, I think that the point is being made that the right to free speech extends across multiple mediums, not just the press. In other words, the government cannot interfere with your right to publish a newspaper, and similarly it can't interfere with your right to publish on the internet. In a sense, this is a question of due process. Note that I am not advocating the position that there should be no way for the government to sever your connection or that there should be any obligation for it to be provided. The government does not provide printing presses, either. If you commit a crime and are convicted of it, you can have your right to internet access terminated in the same way in the US you'd lose the right to bear arms or vote. That you say this is a worthless opinion doesn't really help your position. Ad hominem argumentation does no one any good. I see this situation as being similar to what happens in the US when legislation is overturned by the Supreme Court on constitutional grounds. You have the opportunity to go back and make the legislation compliant. It sounds like that could be done in this case.