The Federal Communications Commission in rebooting the net neutrality rules. Today's announcement by FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler follows a major D.C. Circuit this year, which struck down the existing rules requiring that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) treat all data on the internet equally, while keeping the door open for future FCC action to prevent broadband providers from discriminating against or blocking certain websites or services.
Chairman Wheeler laid out several steps to address the court's ruling, the most important of which are:
- Reclassification: Today's announcement keeps the best solution to the court's decision on the table. That is, it recognizes that the FCC can reclassify broadband services as a "common carrier," under Title II of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which would allow the commission to treat broadband providers like telephone service, where companies can't play favorites among customers or among services provided over the phone. The ACLU has long called for this reclassification of broadband services, and the FCC needs to move forward resolutely to make that a reality. It deserves credit for preserving the option.
- No-Discrimination: Chairman Wheeler urged the FCC to consider new no-discrimination rules to prevent ISPs from favoring some content at others' expense. These would be applied on a case-by-case basis under , which obliges the FCC to promote broadband deployment and competition. (While we support the FCC's quick action to protect broadband consumers, we also urge it to expressly acknowledge that section 706 cannot be used to regulate internet content. We do not believe it can, but there's some concern that it might be misused.)
- No-Blocking: Chairman Wheeler asked the commission to consider a new no-blocking rule so that ISPs can't block or slow down their competitors or controversial content. While the court suggested that a blanket no-discrimination rule can't pass muster under the legal framework presented by the FCC, it gave the FCC more latitude on a no-blocking rule. Today's announcement recognizes that leeway and promises to consider how to prevent blocking and ensure that consumers can access any lawful content or services they desire.
The FCC also decided to preserve the mixed-bag of the January court ruling by not appealing the three-judge D.C. Circuit decision to either the full appeals court or the Supreme Court.
To be clear, the FCC's priority must be reclassification. That's the only solution that reflects today's reality. Modern broadband providers are quintessential common carriers, and the very few options for high-speed broadband in most markets means that consumers can't vote with their feet and discipline provider misbehavior. Reclassification also doesn't raise the specter of unintended consequences, which some have pointed to as a danger if the FCC moves ahead with net neutrality rules without taking that step.
We're encouraged by the FCC's quick action and hope it keeps up. If you agree, take action today to urge the FCC to reclassify broadband providers as common carriers and preserve our free and open internet.
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.