The possible loss of net neutrality threatens our First Amendment rights. Powerful forces want to limit the information citizens can access on the internet. This would affect the way the press communicates with the public. The First Amendment freedoms promote equality. When they are violated, corporations, in collusion with government agencies, oppress anyone they wish. This results in uneven access to education and employment, leading to greater income inequality.
The five tenets of the First Amendment explain our rights in relation to the government. Freedom of religion prohibits the government from establishing religion and protects the religious beliefs of all citizens. With just a few exceptions, freedom of speech prohibits the limiting of citizens’ speech and expression both locally and federally. Freedom of the press prohibits the government from restricting speakers’ and writers’ communication regardless of the medium. The First Amendment outlines two other legal privileges: the right to petition government and the right to assemble for protest. The right to petition guarantees citizens communication with the government and elected leaders. The right to assemble allows citizens to engage in peaceful protests, picketing, and group selection.
Repealing net neutrality threatens all of these First Amendment freedoms. Current FCC laws prevent the interference of data flow in a few ways. First, corporations cannot slow down or block traffic they don’t like. Next, they cannot speed up traffic they do like or that pays them extra for the privilege. However, the current vote to repeal net neutrality would drastically change internet access. Corporations would decide audience experience based on business deals, not innovation. A network like this would feel “more like cable TV than the technological Wild West that gave you Napster and Netflix.”
Although this repeal doesn’t directly ban the freedom of speech and press, it would do serious damage. First, it would discourage new startups. Next, it would limit consumer access to specific sites by slowing down or even blocking certain sites regulated by the corporation selling internet access. Service providers like Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, and Telus could then legally control consumer access to sites that the service providers do or do not want consumers to obtain. Therefore, regulated media would directly influence the general population’s thoughts and decisions.
This concept can become reality. We’ve seen service providers break net neutrality laws before. In 2007, Verizon denied service to the pro-choice group NARAL. NARAL had tried to use Verizon to send group text messages to its supporters. Verizon decided that they wouldn’t service programs from groups that promoted “controversial or unsavory” content. The company eventually reversed its decision due to a severe public backlash.
However, Verizon isn’t hiding its intent to censor free speech if the repeal is approved. Granted, a Verizon attorney admitted the current reality to the FCC. Specifically, broadband providers maintain a wide-open communication platform for millions of users. Most people use the internet to convey their own opinions and ideas while freely exploring others. Nevertheless, Verizon and other broadband providers would like to have “editorial discretion.” In other words, they want to feature some content over others at the audience’s expense. Verizon thinks service providers have the right to censor what people access online through their service. The repeal of net neutrality would allow this type of censorship to become the norm.
George Orwell’s 1984 shows how the loss of net neutrality could change a society. A totalitarian government dictates the language “Newspeak” in order to limit certain words. This conditions the public to follow a specific political agenda. The novel suggests that if humans cannot form words such as revolt due to lack of exposure or learning, they can’t revolt. “Newspeak’s” limited lexicon, therefore, molds a more easily controlled society at the hands of its totalitarian government.
Repealing net neutrality will allow service providers to regulate access to certain sites, potentially violating freedom of religion and freedom of speech if the sites are restricted. Corporations could also regulate and prevent citizens from organizing with one another by blocking certain communication platforms as they see fit, thus violating freedom of press as well as the citizen’s right to petition and assembly.
Furthermore, inequality from a loss of freedoms have instigated discrimination and oppression throughout history. An extreme example how powerful interests can shape social order took place in Germany in World War II. After Germany lost World War I, their economy was in critical condition. The government struggled to provide citizens with even the most basic human needs such as food. As a solution to unify the state, the Nazi’s devised a plan. They declared that democracy, pacifism, and internationalism were the three vices of “Jewish Marxism.” They also claimed that Jews were responsible for communism. Thus, the government targeted Jews as communists and traitors.
Mass media and controlled propaganda promoted this ideology. Many Germans believed that Jews were to blame for the war and the country’s turmoil. Hence, the government stratified Germans and Jews. Many Germans treated Jews as undesirable outcasts belonging to the lowest level of society. This ideology soon devolved into the attempted extermination of the Jewish race. The government villainized Jews through the media by propagating exclusionary social ideals. They persuaded citizens to discriminate against Jews by claiming that Germans were a naturally superior race. This historic instance of controlled mass media led to the persecution of an entire culture within German society.
Repealing net neutrality will also broaden the gap between the rich and poor. If legislators enact laws that require higher prices for high-speed internet, wealth will determine usage. Not everyone will be able to afford these expensive packages. Poorer customers will have to settle for slower speeds, thus denying them access to sites requiring more bandwidth. Cyril explains that internet access barriers will prove devastating to working-class communities. This would mean “the difference between employment and poverty, health care and sickness, democratic engagement and exclusion.” Meanwhile, corporations would profit by charging the lower class more for internet access. In turn, the wealth gap between rich and poor would continue to expand.
The First Amendment needs our protection. When civil liberties aren’t honored, inequality quickly becomes discrimination and oppression. The Center for Media Justice notes that “Net Neutrality prevents discrimination. . . . While these companies can pick and choose which cable channels their customers can access, they can’t discriminate against access to content online.” The repeal of net neutrality will violate First Amendment freedoms. This would further the already growing wealth gap between the rich and poor. Locally and nationally, we must fight to protect our First Amendment rights in the Digital Age. Controlled media and marketing can too easily influence the unwary and strip us all of our rights.
***
Deanna Bochicchio moved to Colorado Springs from New York in 2015 for a change of scenery. She works full-time as an animal services officer protecting the welfare of animals all over El Paso County. She’s also pursuing a degree in Biology to further her career. In her free time, she hikes in the mountains with her two German Shepherds. She is learning how to fly and hopes to get a private pilot license soon.
