Verizon refuses to carry activist text messages

This news may hit CNET tomorrow as a New York Times cross-post, but I haven't seen anything about it yet so I wanted to be sure it was reported here.

According to the Times, Verizon, one of the nation's two largest wireless carriers, told NARAL that it would not allow the reproductive rights organization to send text messages through a program using Verizon's mobile network, on the grounds that Verizon has the right to block "controversial or unsavory" text messages.

I am no expert on Net Neutrality, but the idea that a telecom carrier will refuse to carry messages based on content is incredibly scary. Could they decide to broadcast messages sent by the Democratic party, but not Republicans? Christian messages but not Jewish? Everybody has a point of view that could be viewed as "controversial or unsavory" to someone else. I thought that controversy and open dialogue were integral parts of our democratic process. Idealism dies hard even in this day and age.

Apparently the First Amendment does not in itself prohibit such censorship, but we should not accept such an action, which has been likened to the mass censorship of political speech by the Chinese government, no matter whether the carrier agrees with the content or not.

Laws that forbid common carriers from interfering with voice transmission on phone lines do not apply to text messages. It's time to change that law to protect free speech, no matter how it is communicated.

[pweber5]

Verizon...Que Darth Vadar's Theme Song...

When I first read this blog, I misunderstood exactly who these texts would be sent to. Then I read the article, and it's perfectly clear:<br /><br />"The other leading wireless carriers have accepted the program, which allows people to sign up for text messages from Naral by sending a message to a five-digit number known as a short code."<br /><br />I thought maybe they wanted to send a pro-abortion message to all Verizon subscribers, and I would understand Verizon not wanting to be involved. But since it's a subscription-based text program, there is absolutely no reason Verizon should refuse to carry NARAL's text program. I hope someone sues the bejesus out of Verizon and makes every other company scared to try this again. I don't care if Verizon is a private corporation--it's a corporation that provides services to American's, and they have no right to infringe upon our freedom of speech.

[workshopmusic]

commercial speech has no constitutional status

If this is a subscription then it probably falls under commercial speech which is <br />not protected.<br /><br />If commercial speech were protected as free expression then false claims would <br />be legal and the normal challenges between competitor claims in the <br />marketplace would end up in court. Free speech was never intended to cover <br />statements tied to commerce.

[Martt C]

just doesn't make sense...

Hey Amy, you have an interesting point of view? too bad it just doesn?t make much sense!<br /><br />First: a telecom is a business and as such, they have the right to set standards by which their customers must operate within. That pretty much ends the story right there it would seem.<br /><br />Second: Censorship gets unfair treatment in modern America. Try living just one day without censorship - I don?t think you?d like it much. The truth is that deep down everyone (except the anarchist) believes that censorship is a necessary part of civilized life (or do you think that we should allow p*rn on TV on Saturday mornings?). The problem is that people only rise up against censorship when they don?t get THEIR OWN way about something.<br /><br />Third: I wonder if you?d be so hot for the laws to be changed here if the organization was the KKK and they wanted to send out racist text messages. Somehow I don?t think you?d stand for that (and just to clarify my point of view: I would really hope that Verizon would again exercise their right to censor and not allow their service to be used to distribute anything that was racist in nature).<br /><br />And lastly: NARAL... Hmmm, honestly, is there a bigger evil in America today than the cruel and often brutal destruction of a human life through abortion? <br /><br />The reality is that a pro-choice (pro-death?) message is not just another point of view? it?s not equal to a pro-life message. The pro-choice message leads to the death of a totally defenseless human being, and a damaged woman who should have been that child?s mother. The pro-life message might lead to 9 months of discomfort and difficulty, but in the end, no one is dead or emotionally damaged. I?m pretty sure that means life wins over death!<br /><br />I say rock on Verizon for having a spine and doing the right thing! Maybe their simple act of censorship will actually save some lives!<br /><br />peace?

[mcervi]

Public airwaves should equal free speech

A comments on Martt C.'s statement "First: a telecom is a business and as such, they have the right to set standards by which their customers must operate within. That pretty much ends the story right there it would seem."<br /><br />Verizon and the other telecomms are benefitting from the use of the public airwaves and therefore have to meet standards in the services they provide. If the freedom of voice content is protected across the airwaves then text messaging should be too.<br /><br />And I believe censorship is always wrong.

[mfeffer]

A question for Martt

I'm curious: If it's OK for Verizon to ban NARAL's subscription, do you think it would be OK for them to ban a similar program from, say, the National Right to Life Committee?

[Martt C]

of course...

mfeffer: of course it would be OK for them to not allow messages from the National Right to Life Committee? the company should have the right to limit the use of their service as they deem appropriate.<br /><br />Interesting to note though that it would seem that common decency would suggest that a company would be in favor of the loving and compassionate actions as encouraged by the pro-life organization. It?s not hard to understand why a company might want to shy away from a pro-choice organization?s controversial message that actually promotes the destruction of defenseless human beings.<br /><br />And to mcervi: Since you believe all censorship is wrong, you must be fumin? mad that cnet has a wide range of censorship in place as it pertains to posting in this forum? c'mon, do you really think it?s a better America if you are allowed to say anything, no matter how offensive, to anyone at anytime??<br /><br />I admit that I am not schooled in the details of the American revolution, but it sure seems that you don?t have to dig very deep at all to realize that ?free speech? was never, never, never intended to allow people to say anything to anyone at anytime.

[RobertPE]

You know the only thing I find offensive here.

Is the use of the term pro-life to describe what is obviously a pro-birth position. Find me a "cultural conservative" that is truly pro-life. As for whether they have the right to do it, yes, I'm sure they do. It also should mean we have every right of switching services.<br /><br />Maybe a good time to switch to AT&#38;T and get that iPhone.

[Martt C]

"rock on" recant...

Looks like I'll have to officially remove my "rock on" nod to Verizon. They've changed their mind and are now only too happy to help spread death and destruction NARAL style. <br /><br />Isaiah 5:20 pretty well sums it all up.<br /><br />Have a nice day, ya?ll

[Sun Crest]

Controversy without a mid point?

Reading the many comments here I realize that, in my opinion, although most of you go deepr than others, you still dont craack the core of the situation.<br /><br />1) I agree with both points of view In the whole abortion controversy. <br /><br />Pro life thinkers: I agree, a human life is precious, yet at the same time people in thsi world have only shown what garbage lies within the very core of their beings and that has made me reconsider their right to live (oop... that is censorship). Now, without all of the emo garbage: a child is precious yes, but it (and i emphasize on "it") is only a being without a personality. the only thoughts within that creature, innate thoughts (that one is born with), is recognition that it needs something to survive, and even that is doubtful. You have to understand that if it looks human and looks innocent, it does not mean it is. Nevertheless the rise in abortion proves one thing: women and men are not responsible at all, are making weak minded choices and not taking the precaution in avoiding a mistake. <br /><br />Theres also the problem with raped teenagers. In my opinion abortion would be best, and im taking the basis of your ideology and appying it here). I would rather see a child die in an abortion process than to do the unmerciful act of seeing it starve to death. There are teenagers that can take care of them, but they do not have the resposibility or maternal skills to do so, and asking the parents is ok but they take the risk of not depending on themselves to act. If women are scarred because of the abortion, in truth it was the situation that led them to the abortion that scarred them. <br /><br />Pro Choice: Yes and no. Like i said in one of the past... um ... paragraphs: people are sick. Sometimes they do things they know the reprecutions are (i think i mispelled): have unprotected sex and, dont worry honey, we go to abortion. Sadly, those are the ones that dont suffer anything when they should be the ones dropping on the floor. <br /><br />Its good that you have a solution if the unfortunate happens, a situation that can put your "survival" (we live in a society, we dont need to carry weapons EVERYDAY like in past times, but economy appears with the ugly side of that solution) in jeopardy, hence they make that descicion.<br /><br />In short: Abortions should be legal, yet too many people are inmature and the only reason they execute such a "brilliant" plan is because of their own lack of ability to construct a decent life. All in all, these situations differ from one another, and both judgements are good, yet only one works in a given situation, out of the million that happen each day in the country. You just got to have a duality in mind with these sort of things, for now.<br /><br />2) and thank god #2: Not even an anarchist saves him/herself from law, since they ultimately desire a return to nature, and they HAVE to abide by its laws, no matter their beliefs. What I mean is: yes there are situations in which censorship is taken to a limit that it damages the commitment of the supplier with the client (making a breach of contract), yet there are situations of censorship that are necessary because of what i always discuss: inmaturity of the population. Verizon's decision to censor seems apropiate due to the fact that the lines of communication shouldnt be used by desperation in a "war" by a side that is desperate to win (over-zealousy is not the answer, and i mean BOTH sides; not cool guys). Even more, lines shouldnt be used for something so controvertial, or trying to people be a little more emphatic to their cause, when most dont even want to go there.<br /><br />Once again, in short: censorship wins this battle, the war... yet to be decided.