UPDATE (June 14, 2016):
Victory! Today the federal Circuit court for the District of Columbia issued a decision upholding the Open Internet Order in full. The court agreed with the ACLU that because internet service providers serve only as a conduit for others to speak online, net neutrality rules do not infringe on ISPs’ constitutional rights. Read the decision .
Original post:
The ACLU did something unusual this week: Along with our friends at EFF and the ACLU of the Nation’s Capital, we filed a legal brief taking the federal government’s side on a First Amendment issue. As longtime defenders of the First Amendment, we almost always find ourselves opposing government actions, not applauding them. You may wonder, what caused this rare meeting of minds that usually find themselves on opposite sides of a courtroom? The answer: net neutrality.
Internet Service Providers have challenged the Federal Communications Commission’s new rules that ensure net neutrality, and our friend-of-the-court brief supports those rules as essential to preserving a free and open Internet.
In a landmark case challenging government censorship online, ACLU v. Reno, the Supreme Court rightly recognized the Internet as “the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed.”But in order for this incredible platform for speech to achieve its true revolutionary promise, we have to be able to access it.
Internet Service Providers are the literal gatekeepers to this world. When you get online and search for particular speech, you should have confidence that the results you see aren’t secretly filtered, altered, or slowed by your ISP because they don’t want you to see that particular speech.
If you go online to figure out which workers’ union you might want to join, you wouldn’t expect that your ISP is hiding access to a telecommunications workers union they’re locked in a political fight with. But, in Canada. You probably wouldn’t guess that your Netflix queue didn’t load because your ISP is Comcast—which held Netflix fiscally hostage until they paid higher fees for access. . Nor would you think that you could be prevented from using FaceTime to call your grandma, just because you use AT&T. Yeah, too.
Without effective neutrality rules, ISPs can and will act as censors of digital information, rather than neutral conduits for the speech they carry over their networks. And you might not even realize it’s happening, because it’s difficult to identify what you’re not being shown.
That’s why we need government action. And earlier this year, the FCC answered the call by issuing the , which sets forth rules that are necessary to prevent invisible content discrimination and protect our online marketplace. For starters, it regulates ISPs as “common carriers”—basically, a utility like the radio spectrum waves. This means they have a duty to transmit our speech whether they like what we say or not. To do that, the order includes bright-line rules forbidding ISPs from blocking access to legal online speech (like the Canadian union’s website),throttling or slowing down data on the basis of its type (like what happened to FaceTime), or prioritizing certain traffic in exchange for payment (as Netflix was forced to do). These rules add up to preserve the expectations we have of our ISPs: that they remain neutral conduits—that is, common carriers—for online speech. They shouldn’t, and now can’t, act as censors instead.
ISPs have challenged the legality of the order in federal court, and some people in the case argue that it actually violates the free speech rights of ISPs. But we’re convinced that the order doesn’t violate the First Amendment—it vindicates it.
That’s true for a few reasons. First, we know that without fair and neutral access to online content, our 21st Century marketplace of ideas lies out of reach. The consequences for our individual rights are simply immense. Can you even wrap your head around an Internet that produces pockmarked results based on secret fiscal alliances? It certainly wouldn’t be the Internet we think of now.
But in contrast, the impact on ISP’s expression is downright minimal. Critically, the FCC’s order doesn’t regulate ISPs when they themselves are speaking. Many ISPs play two roles: providing access to the Internet writ large and hosting their own content. For example, Verizon both provides Internet services and hosts its own speech on its website. The order regulates Verizon and other ISPs only in the role as conduits of information—that is, it requires them to be the neutral carriers of speech they insist that they already are.
In addition, ISPs enjoy certain exclusive rights provided by the government. The ISP market was born and remains anchored on top of existing cable and wireless networks subsidized and auctioned off by the government. And with this massive advantage, a small number of ISPs have dominated the broadband market: only 37 percent% of Americans between two or more broadband providers that offer useable bandwidth (those providing a download speed of 25Mbps or better for you nerds out there). That means it’s a monopolistic market in part created by the government—which has an interest in making sure that its citizens all get to enjoy the digital fruits of that labor. In sum, while the consequences for individual speech and expression are massive, the impacts on ISPs simply aren’t.
Imagine if big companies could control what you do, see, or say on the Internet. The only thing standing between you and that possible future is the FCC’s Open Internet Order. And we filed a brief Monday to make sure it sticks.
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.