Verizon: net neutrality violates our free speech rights

It'll be good to have someone step up to the plate and take 'personal' responsibility for all the spam and CP that passes through their network. And any voice communications which facilitate crime of any sort, because, y'know, Verizon is a phone company and people do talk through their wires.... Now the execs of Verizon are eligible to face "accessory before and after the fact" charges.

@cr

Zing!

> If they're that eager to give up Common Carrier immunities..

The one argument I've sometimes made about the relative merits of DSL vx. Cable is that the phone companies understand what it means to be a common carrier, while the cable companies don't. Apparently that argument just got shot full of holes. :(

IMO they always were evil; now FIOS has given 'em a taste of the real Monopoly money, they think maybe they can have it all. I''d love to see this rebound to where FIOS gets classed as part of the same taxpayer-funded infrastructure as copper-pair POTS, because it ties into it and can be viewed as a mere extension of it, on pain of losing Common Carrier immunity otherwise. I don't think losing that can pierce the corporate veil -- I think it'll take getting into the fourth box for that -- but losing CC opens up even the predatory golem called a modern corporation to a world of hurt, hurt which CxO and BoD must pay for to shareholders with sacrifices.

So Corporations have the same right of free speach as an actual real live person.

Quoting:So Corporations have the same right of free speach as an actual real live person.

When they want your opinion, they will give it to you.

Quoting:So Corporations have the same right of free speach as an actual real live person.

Not sure if you're being facetious, but yes, according to the Supreme Court, corporations do indeed have first amendment rights.

@jackd2, oh dear, the US really has painted itself ino a corner

Quoting:oh dear, the US really has painted itself ino a corner

Not really, corporations still can't vote. In the end, that's really what counts. The problem is, people have to choose one of two evils.

The corporations don't need to vote -- they've got the big megaphones and own the stump.

Quoting:they've got the big megaphones and own the stump.

If we are that stupid, then we deserve what we get for listening.

Again, the problem is, people have to choose one of two evils. A Republic, if you can keep it.

Eisenhower warned us in his farewell speech and we didn't listen.

Quoting: they've got the big megaphones and own the stump.

That's box one taken.

Quoting: Again, the problem is, people have to choose one of two evils.

With effective corporate sponsorship of candidates now legalized, that's box two taken.

At this point, our best hope for not being driven into box four is box three: maybe making jury-nullification so widespread a meme that no jury can be impaneled if ignorance of it is stipulated during selection. The damage that juries from the Bible Belt could cause would be limited in that nullification can't create laws, it can only disarm them. Then it's a matter of exposing each deranged law to an armed jury.

This never should have happened. A corporation is a vehicle, not a person, because somebody is at the wheel.

> Not really, corporations still can't vote.

When they can buy the votes of those who are elected, does that really matter?

> The problem is, people have to choose one of two evils.

Most states have third party candidates. No one forces anyone to choose the lesser of two evils. Local elections are another matter, of course.

> A corporation is a vehicle, not a person,

The problem is that a corporation is actually (in theory) a group of people. That's why they're treated as people under the law. Of course, they also should be taxed as people, on gross income, not earnings.

Not for the first time, I'd propose a trade. Removal of the corporate income tax in exchange for a company giving up those "rights".

> Most states have third party candidates. No one forces anyone to choose the lesser of two evils.

Actually, the "first-past-the-post" (probably better called "biggest-heap") electoral system effectively makes third parties almost untenable; it applies an enormous pressure to vote "strategically" for or against one of the two leading parties -- in other words, it in effect punishes any voter that votes for a third party, except in rare and exceptional circumstances.

@cr Boxes? I'm not getting the reference.

Quoting:When they can buy the votes of those who are elected, does that really matter?

They buy votes yet we keep electing the same people.

Quoting:Most states have third party candidates.

More candidates yet we don't feel they are good enough or have a chance.

Both fall under "we deserve what we get".

Or, "we have the best government money can buy".

> Actually, the "first-past-the-post" (probably better called "biggest-heap") electoral system effectively makes third parties almost untenable...

I never said it was easy. But if 90% of the voters decided to vote third party, the third party candidate would win.

@BernardSwiss:

Ed Howdershelt wrote: "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."

@cr Ah yes, I've heard that quote before, but failed to make the connection.