Apparently, in the eyes of NARAL and the Christian Coalition of America, I must be un-American. Why? Today the Red Star Tribune ran an editorial coauthored by Nancy Keenan (NARAL) and Roberta Combs (CCA) on how Verizon is "censoring" content. From their opinion piece:
Free speech shouldn't stop when you turn on your computer or pick up your cell phone. But recent actions by the nation's biggest communications corporations should be of grave concern to all who care about public participation in our democracy, particularly our leaders in Congress.
The last I checked, free speech hasn't stopped on my computer (as evidenced by this blog and the many other blogs out there, and some are really OUT THERE) or when I use my cell phone, which I rarely use. So what are they talking about?
Last month, Verizon Wireless refused to approve NARAL Pro-Choice America's application for a text-messaging "short code," a program that enables people to voluntarily sign up to receive updates by texting a five-digit code. When NARAL Pro-Choice America protested, the nation's second-largest wireless carrier initially claimed the right to block any content "that, in its discretion, may be seen as controversial or unsavory."
After news of Verizon's censorship hit the front page of the New York Times and sparked a public outcry, the company quickly backpedaled. Verizon issued an apology and blamed the blocking on a "dusty internal policy," while still reserving the right to block text messages in the future at its discretion.
First off, Verizon does not, nor is it capable of censorship. That is something only governments can do. Businesses can refuse to distribute certain types of content, just as many web hosting providers enforce their policies concerning content by stating that their customers can not post pornographic material (as well as many other types of content) on websites that they are hosting. Message texting with short codes such as detailed in the Verizon complaint is clearly content distribution that has to traverse their (Verizon's) infrastructure, and Verizon has the right to determine the kinds of content that they will allow to be transmitted on their systems. If they opened it wide up, then all kinds of offensive content could be freely transmitted, including pornographic and obscene material. This is why they put controls in place, to prevent their infrastructure from being used for the delivery of such material.
Now, I can agree that they probably shouldn't limit access to political activities, however it is still within their legal and constitutional rights to say whom they will serve, just as businesses can put up signs "no shoes, no service". It is a business decision than can, and obviously did, have some consequences that Verizon now has to deal with. It also sounds, at least according to the opinion piece (there are no facts to validate the assertions) that Verizon blamed it on an old policy, which has further acerbated the problem.
When it comes to censoring free speech, sorry isn't good enough. Whatever your political views -- conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat, prochoice or prolife -- it shouldn't be up to Verizon to determine whether you receive the information you requested. Why should any company decide what you choose to say or do over your phone, your computer or your BlackBerry? Technologies are converging in our communications system, but the principles of free expression and the rights of all Americans to speak without intervention should remain paramount.
Businesses have a right to determine who they will sell to, just as Dell exercised its rights several years ago when they refused to sell computer hardware to a gun dealer (the left didn't harangue Dell over that one!). They also have a right to determine what content they are willing to distribute, just as many web hosting services refuse to carry pornographic and other obscene material.
Again, this is not censorship. As for "free expression" I take that NARAL and the CCA are okay with forcing Verizon to allow the transmission of obscene material.
If corporations can't tell Americans what to say on a phone call, they shouldn't be able to control content or tell us what to say in a text message, an e-mail or anywhere else.
To the best of my knowledge, they don't make any attempts to control what is in our e-mail, although some do provide controls to limit the attempts of spammers using their infrastructure by spammers. Again, if they are providing a service, they have a right to make certain determinations of how that service is used. Publishable content, which is the real issue here, is something that communications companies can exert control over what is transmitted over their infrastructure. If a business wants to publish porno, all they have to do is find a service provider willing to let them publish their pornographic content and power to them.
That's something all Americans -- regardless of their political views -- can agree on.
Nope, because these ladies are wrong in their assertions: this is not censorship nor is it a limit on free speech. I can agree that Verizon may have screwed up in refusing to carry NARALs content, if NARAL was the only one being denied access while organizations with the opposite view were able to access the same services denied NARAL. However, if Verizon were treating all organizations with the same rules, then it isn't a problem, and certainly not a constitutional one as the government is not the one limiting the transmission of content, but a private business. If Keenan and Combs had stated that Verizon had dropped the ball on this one, then I would be in agreement with them, regardless of their political views.
Tags:
NARAL Constitution Free Speech Verizon Star Tribune
Feedburner
