Private property rights are not absolute, sure. But is regulating media companies going to solve anything? Are there any regulations which both sides could be happy with, or would it just open up a whole new front in the culture wars, of endless, highly-politicized and ham-fisted control over, say, whether or not twitter has a block function or not?
> Private property rights are not absolute, sure. But is regulating media companies going to solve anything?
I am not sure if you were aware, but this article is about ISPs and we currently have laws that already regulate them and make the behavior described in the article as illegal.
So yes we do regulate them. And these laws are called common carrier laws. And those have have existed for decades and uncontroversial, and yes they work.
> Are there any regulations which both sides could be happy with
Both sides are indeed already happy with our existing common carrier laws that apply to ISPs, yes. Common carrier laws are not controversial.
Your point about common-carrier regulations already existing is very well taken.
What's not so clear to me is whether (A) the allegations against the ISP have any merit (the article itself states it has no confirmation), or (B) even if they were true that they would run afoul of the common carrier laws. As far as I understand, these regulations do not prohibit the carriers from selectively promoting (and, ipso facto, selectively suppressing) the content they carry.
Indeed, how could it be otherwise? The capacity of the carrier is always going to be finite, therefore, tough choices are always going to have to be made as to who gets priority access.
Common carrier legislation can happily co-exist with a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign on the shop door.
How about, "no company shall refuse access to essential infrastructure to anyone because they engage in lawful activity." That's what I think the bar should be on this issue and should include banking and internet services.
Sounds good to me, but (as another perceptive commentator wrote) we do already have common carrier laws on the books; don't they pretty much cover what is intended here?
Yes, but I was mostly responding to the "no shirt, no shoes.." portion of the comment, and don't think that common carrier status goes quite far enough in terms of ensuring access. I also think that the status should include banking, and possibly internet hosting providers and services, not just client access.
I think the Telephone company model is fine.
Have you ever had the phone company disconnect your call or cancel your services because they didn't like something you said?
