President Biden: The Time To Restore Net Neutrality Is Now
Just over four years ago, Donald Trump’s Federal Communications Commission eliminated Without these critical protections, internet service providers, or ISPs, were no longer required to provide equal access to all lawful content on the internet. That means ISPs were free to speed up customer access to information they like — either because they agreed with the content politically, the opinion advanced their corporate interests, or a business partner was paying them to give its content preferential treatment. At the same time, ISPs were likewise free to deliberately slow down customer access to content they didn’t like, or to block it entirely.
Through almost every political lens, getting rid of net neutrality was viewed as a terrible move. It turns out, Americans love a free and open internet. They want to have access to receive and communicate information free of corporate censorship. Even in Trump’s divided states of America, people from every background and political philosophy were united in their desire to bring net neutrality back. According to a 2018 University of Maryland , 82 percent of Republicans, 90 percent of Democrats, and 85 percent of independents favor restoring net neutrality.
Proponents of net neutrality put up a fight. In 2018, the Republican-controlled Senate 52-47, via the Congressional Review Act, to reject the FCC’s elimination of net neutrality protections (the House never got the chance to vote on the CRA). Throughout the nation, governors and state legislatures laws and executive orders seeking to preserve net neutrality in their states. And the ACLU may have permanently harmed several of its staff members by them eating dangerously hot chicken wings while pleading with the federal government to save net neutrality.
With this overwhelming, pro-net neutrality consensus, who exactly were net neutrality’s opponents? The answer was the ISPs, because eliminating net neutrality cleared the way for them to make a lot more money. Unsurprisingly, the FCC’s successful effort to kill net neutrality was led by its chairperson, Ajit Pai, a former Verizon lawyer. Pai was all too pleased to do the bidding of his former (and perhaps future) employers, and Trump was happy to go along because, well, Trump loves giving wealthy companies more money, even when doing so comes at the expense of regular Americans.
Net neutrality advocates always knew that despite strong state-level actions, the only route to fully restoring net neutrality would be through a new president and FCC. Well guess what? As of Jan. 20, we have a new president who cares about the liberty and freedoms of the American people more than corporate profits, and a new vacancy on the FCC after Ajit Pai on Inauguration Day that, when filled, should provide a 3-2 commissioners majority in favor of net neutrality.Â
Rarely are such important victories so ripe for the picking. We can get there, but victory is not yet 100 percent assured. We must remind President Biden that the time to fully restore net neutrality is now, and that he should reject any legislative or administrative compromises that would result in a “net neutrality lite.”
People’s access to a free and open internet should never be compromised. Please help us finish this fight by taking to social media and urging the president () and the acting FCC chair () to restore #NetNeutrality within the Biden administration’s first 100 days. The ACLU will do everything we can as well — except for making another hot sauce video; I still can’t feel my tongue after the last one.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.