The Open Internet & the Freedom of Speech




Submitted by

Stage: Active

Feedback Score

185 votes
Voting Disabled

Idea Details

Vote Activity (latest 20 votes)

  1. Upvoted
  2. Upvoted
  3. Upvoted
  4. Downvoted
  5. Upvoted
  6. Upvoted
  7. Downvoted
  8. Upvoted
  9. Upvoted
  10. Upvoted
  11. Upvoted
  12. Upvoted
  13. Downvoted
  14. Downvoted
  15. Downvoted
  16. Upvoted
  17. Downvoted
  18. Downvoted
  19. Upvoted
  20. Upvoted
(latest 20 votes)

Similar Ideas [ 5 ]


  1. Comment

    Free speech! NO to net neutrality!

    (and to think proponents of net neutrality rules claim that is open Internet)

  2. Comment

    Right now there is no such thing as an "open internet". If you keep the Internet Service Providers in the same position they are now, your internet connection will be nothing more than an extended cable television channel, where the only thing you will see, is what your internet company allows you to see...

  3. Comment

    @Dar, you are a moron. Net Neutrality has nothing to do with restricting free speech. IT PROTECTS FREE SPEECH. The only groups trying to "regulate" and "control" free speech on the internet are the ISPs. It has already started. There are already broadband suppliers that filter content they don't agree with, that restrict file transfers based on what their file extension is, and that change your network speed depending on who you are connecting to.


    I just got Poe's Law'd, didn't I.

    I'm sorry Dar. You are not a moron. But just so you know, acting sarcastic like this doesn't help the cause of Net Neutrality. I suggest you stick to supporting arguments with facts. people get confused when you pretend to be against Net Neutrality like this.

  4. Comment

    Free speech seems to be working just fine on the internet, so why get the government involved? If you think government is going to protect you, let me ask this. . . who will protect you from your protector? The internet is a good thing why mess it up with coercive monopolistic rules?

  5. Comment

    @isabelsecret: Turn the caps lock off. It's considered shouting, and it's rude. The whole point of Network Neutrality rules is to preserve freedom of speech for customers -- real people. Corporations aren't people, and the definition of a corporation is trading legal liability for other forms of regulation.

    @Dar: Without Network Neutrality, you won't have freedom of speech. What you have left is only paid speech.

  6. Comment
    isabelsecret ( Idea Submitter )

    takeymctaker----I know it's considered shouting,I AM SHOUTING because I believe very strongly in what I said. Also forgive me but since when did you become the internet etiquette police?? and ummm my point is that NETWORK NEUTRALITY should be for the people to express freely their ideas, dislikes, likes--oh yes free speech they call it--- Anyway if you think I am rude because I typed in all caps that is your problem and also my right to do so if I FEEL LIKE IT. So get over it.

  7. Comment

    The button you're looking for is left of the 'A' key.

  8. Comment

    Without net neutrality, you won't even be able to pay for rights to access certain sites. In other word, the society no longer would be free.

  9. Comment

    Umm, you [the original poster] are being less-than-specific and seem to maybe not understand the issue here.

    Are you saying that ISPs, cable companies and such should NOT BE ALLOWED to regulate speech, flow of information, etc. Or are you saying that the government should not be allowed to regulate whether or not ISPs, cable companies and such can regulate freedom of speech, flow of information, etc.

    Ambiguous statements don't help things, they only muddy the water. Please be more specific on who you think SHOUL / SHOULD NOT be able to regulate what.

    It's already been shown that ISPs will block content they don't agree with (restricting freedom of speech and the free flow of information) or throttle connections to users to whom they sold "unlimited" internet for using new technologies or services the ISP doesn't agree with, regardless of the legitimacy / legality of the uses (gaming, LEGAL torrents, video conferencing, and other high-usage services that are PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE).

    Are you saying that the government should not be able to establish consumer protection rules or to mandate transparency with respect to how the internet is being served to end-users, or that it should not be able to establish a set of guidelines for how to handle grievances, or set minimum standards of conduct, reliability, etc?

    What EXACTLY do you SUPPORT and OPPOSE? I support freedom of speech, and equality, which can really only be a reality if all data packets are treated approximately equally.

    There may be a few LEGITIMATE exceptions where certain information should be given a higher priority and could be charged on a higher scale for (applications requiring real-time, 100% reliability like tele-medicine, emergency response, etc.), but I'd think such things should be a rarity.

    Outside of that, a user should get what a user pays for. If a user pays for unlimited internet, their internet should be unlimited. If there are specific maximums / caps, that should be spelled out CLEARLY, up-front in big bold print.

    If a connection is being consistently used more intensively than the service is is designed or being paid for, certainly the company should have recourse to warn the user, offer an upgrade, or inevitably terminate.

    Mainly, what is being asked for is a certain level of consistency AND transparency with respect to how end-users are being treated. That, and for companies to not be "gatekeepers" or "police". As long as content or transmitted information is LEGAL (or not patently and obviously ILLEGAL), there should be no reason to throttle, restrict or cut of service. But it happens, and that's why people are pissed at companies and asking for some minimum set of standards be put in place, an avenue for grievances, a transparent way to make queries of companies or inspect on some basic level their data practices (if they're constantly throttling back people's connections and consistently not providing the level of service contracted for, essentially defrauding the end-user).

    The idea is not and has never been for the "government to run the internet" or have some kind of Big Brotherly "sole control" over it. The idea, as far as I'm aware, has only ever been to ensure the free flow of information and a set of consistent rules on how the end-user should be treated in a fair and consistent manner, with businesses behaving well and transparently so people know what they're buying vs. what they're actually receiving as far as services.