Net Neutrality and Free Speech

NET NEUTRALITY AND FREE SPEECH
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: Randolph J. May, Progress & Freedom Foundation]
[Commentary] May argues that Network Neutrality should be opposed on First Amendment grounds. Broadband providers possess free-speech rights just like other media. Last year, in its Brand X decision, the Supreme Court upheld the FCC’s determination that ISPs are not common carriers required to carry all content indifferently. Under traditional First Amendment jurisprudence, it is as much a free-speech infringement to compel an entity to convey messages it does not wish to convey as it is to prevent it from conveying messages it wishes to convey. Net-neutrality mandates would prevent an ISP from restricting access, say, to content that it thinks is indecent or homophobic. Similarly, a service provider would be compelled to allow subscribers to post any messages they choose. Such compelled-access mandates are akin to the right-of-reply statute the Supreme Court in 1974 held violated a newspaper’s First Amendment rights. May concludes: "When you think about it, laws imposing “neutrality” are eerily reminiscent of the defunct Fairness Doctrine that required broadcasters to present a balanced view of controversial issues. Although the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in the 1969 Red Lion decision, it did so on the basis that the spectrum used by broadcasters is a scarce public resource. Many doubt the Court would reach the same conclusion today, in light of the abundance of media outlets we enjoy."
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6372794.html?display=Opinion