Kavanaugh: Net neutrality violates free speech rights of ISPs

[dalton99a]

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/43pyxd/one-of-trumps-top-scotus-contenders-is-a-major-net-neutrality-opponent

Trump’s Supreme Court Nominee Is a Major Net Neutrality Opponent
Judge Brett Kavanaugh argued that the regulations violated the First Amendment rights of ISPs.
Kaleigh Rogers
Jul 9 2018, 11:47am

President Donald Trump has nominated federal Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, a conservative stalwart and a major opponent of net neutrality.

Along with having a record of siding with anti-abortion and anti-contraception groups, Kavanaugh, who sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, also recently argued that net neutrality rules were unconstitutional because the violated the free speech rights of ISPs.

“Just like cable operators, Internet service providers deliver content to consumers,” Kavanaugh wrote in a 2017 dissent on an appeal to have the court reconsider federal net neutrality protections. “Internet service providers may not necessarily generate much content of their own, but they may decide what content they will transmit, just as cable operators decide what content they will transmit.”

[dchill]

1. Wow. This dude is wrong about everything, eh?

[Phoenix61]

2. Authoritarian little shit ain't he? nt

[MontanaMama]

3. Would love to see this asshole's bank records

to see who has given him gifts over the years. His pockets are lined with corporate gold, no doubt.

[Leith]

4. That Doesn't Even Make Sense

Does he think that T-Mobile has the right to decide what I talk about on the phone?

He has been trying to make law on things he knows nothing about.

[AlexSFCA]

5. he appears worse than gorsuch

an activist judge with rw agenda. Constitution doesn’t mention anything about internet, originalist my ass.

[angrychair]

6. First, this is the oddest line of logic I've ever heard

More importantly cable providers and television stations have a lot of rules of what they can and cannot do. With respect to an ISP’s “free speech” rights is not the same as controlling the access or speed at which that data flows. The concept of the internet was created with public funding, not so much different than public airwaves used to broadcast TV, therefore what the do and do not broadcast is not entirely at a TV station’s or ISP’s sole discretion as the medium they use is not intrinsically their’s alone.

They can no more own such a thing anymore than they can claim to own a sunbeam or a spring breeze.

It belongs to all of us and while some may not like what comes across their TV screen or on a website, the ultimate authority is the consumer who will decide what is worthy of their attention and money, as both TV and websites cannot survive without both.

[Volaris]

8. Yes and yes.

And can we reiterate the point that ISP's, wouldn't have
S. to P IN THE FIRST PLACE, without the public research and development dollars that came from the DOD building the I.

I said it in another post and I'll say it again here:
Jesus... I thought alito was a prick.

[Cha]

7. Yeah, you Fucking Feckless Fascist.. that's what

Stupid Fascists think

[Beartracks]

9. But... But... rightwingers CAN'T be activist judges, dontcha know!

Because, of course, rightwingers have been led to believe that "activist" means "liberal."

But when you actively push a right-wing agenda, you're an activist judge. Period.

=========

[mr_lebowski]

10. I don't care what the headline says, this guy isn't just anti-net-neutrality he's

saying that your ISP doesn't just have a 'right' to limit your speeds for certain things, but to actually limit THE CONTENT you receive through 'their' lines.

And it's a Constitutional FIRST AMENDMENT right they have to do this, no less.

That's right, in Brett Kavanaugh's world, it's this fucking 'corporations' FREE-SPEECH RIGHT ... to decide what content you, the Citizen ... can read/view on the Internet

Yeah, NO DOUBT the Founder's intended ... the 1st was intended to allow CORPORATIONS to CENSOR ... what the citizenry is allowed to view/see/read, etc.

This dude is a REAL 'strict' reader of the Constitution's 'intent', boy.

FUCK THIS SHIT.

C'mon MUELLER, time to shit or get off the pot man.

[moondust]

11. Based on "money equals speech"?

I get the feeling that his argument is connected to the nonsense that "money=speech" as per Citizens United and the government cannot restrict what an ISP or other moneyed interest can do to make a lot more of it. In that case, why not slave labor?