Hundt, Copps, Others Join First Amendment Defense of Net Neutrality
Former FCC chairmen Reed Hundt and Michael Copps disputed free speech challenges to the net neutrality order (see 1507310042 and 1508070058). “These arguments are unsound as a matter of constitutional principle, and are contrary to common sense and to common…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
understandings that broadband Internet access service providers have long encouraged and benefited from,” said the brief they submitted Monday to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in USTelecom v. FCC, No. 15-1063. “While the very nature of communications regulations makes them likely to generate plausible-sounding 'Free Speech' objections, it has never been the law -- and it cannot be the law -- that the mere provision of facilities over which others’ constitutionally-protected communication occurs is itself 'Free Speech,' making basic common-carrier non-discrimination duties the constitutional equivalent of a government-compelled 'pledge or oath.'” Copps and Hundt said they were encouraged that most industry petitioners “abandoned these mischievous arguments,” but they are taking the speech objections of Alamo Broadband and Daniel Berninger seriously “to prevent them from gaining a foothold.” If accepted, the objections “would imperil the entire project of communications law and Congress’s longstanding and until now unquestioned, power to regulate in this field,” said the brief, which was joined by law professors Nicholas Johnson, a former FCC commissioner, and Susan Crawford, a former technology adviser to President Barack Obama. Also defending the order on First Amendment grounds were Pennsylvania State University Palmer Chair in Telecom Sascha Meinrath, Fordham University law professor Zephyr Teachout and 45,707 Internet users who joined their separate brief. The Internet is an “essential platform,” net neutrality rules “serve fundamental democratic interests” consistent with “two centuries of commitment to open communications platforms,” and “the idea that ISPs would suppress speech and organizing is not speculative,” they said. “The Internet’s vital role as a conduit between government and the people would be irrevocably damaged if this Court accepts some petitioners’ argument that the Net Neutrality rules violate their First Amendment interest in exercising unfettered ‘editorial discretion’ over the Internet content that their customers choose to send or receive.” Other groups also filed briefs Monday (see 1509220052)