We still use the internet under net neutrality regulations (aka Obamanet), despite its repeal by the Trump administration in 2017 and an unsuccessful attempt to reimpose them on the federal level by the Biden administration.
The issue persists because regulations equivalent to net neutrality were enacted as state laws by nearly all Democrat-controlled states, effectively imposing it as a nationwide mandate. For example, California passed a harsh net neutrality law, SB-822, in 2018 while the FCC repeal of Obamanet was still enjoined and litigated. This California legislation was challenged by industry groups in 2018, who were joined by the Department of Justice in 2020. This was a half-hearted effort. The plaintiffs brought only claims and arguments based on federal preemption. The court did not grant an injunction, and the litigation continued into the Biden administration, when plaintiffs dropped their case.
Plaintiffs elected not to bring constitutional claims, despite net neutrality laws and regulations breaching at least the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, and the famous Section 230. The industry groups were likely intimidated, and the DOJ was in shambles.
net neutrality regulations and laws do not regulate broadband internet service providers. These laws regulate how citizens access and use the internet from their homes. It is achieved by defining all the ways customers want to obtain content and services over the internet as “broadband internet access,” then prohibiting all services that allow customers to exercise their First and Fourth Amendment rights. The target of the regulations is the citizenry, not industry.
This is how it is done in California’s SB-822, which offers the following definitions (emphasis added):
“Broadband Internet access service” means a mass-market retail service by wire or radio provided to customers in California that provides the capability to transmit data to, and receive data from, all or substantially all Internet endpoints… Broadband Internet access service” also encompasses any service provided to customers in California that provides a functional equivalent of that service or that is used to evade the protections set forth in this title.
[snip]
“Internet service provider” means a business that provides broadband Internet access service to an individual, corporation, government, or other customer in California.
With those definitions in mind, SB-822 states in relevant part that
It shall be unlawful for a fixed Internet service provider, insofar as the provider is engaged in providing fixed broadband Internet access service, to engage in any of the following activities:.
(1) Blocking lawful content, applications, services, or nonharmful devices, subject to reasonable network management. [Author’s note: porn and content causing mental illness are lawful, but most parents want them blocked from access by their kids]
[snip]
(3) Requiring consideration, monetary or otherwise, from an edge provider, including, but not limited to, in exchange for any of the following:
(A) Delivering Internet traffic to, and carrying Internet traffic from, the Internet service provider’s end users.
In a free market, high volume edge providers, such as Google, YouTube, Netflix, Facebook, TikTok, CNN, or their consumers, should pay for the delivery of their content. That’s how all other industries work. Here, everyone else is forced to pay.
Notice the central trick, common to all net neutrality rulings: the capability to exchange data “with substantially all Internet endpoints” is misrepresented as the customer’s consent, intent, or even commitment to exchange data “with substantially all Internet endpoints.” From this point, the violation of rights is claimed as protection.
Importantly, customers do not require “protection” from internet service providers since they can effortlessly switch providers or pursue legal recourse. However, California law explicitly prohibits consumers from waiving any of the “protections” purportedly provided by it (SB-822, paragraph 3104).
Robert McChesney, a co-founder of Free Press—the neo-Marxist group instrumental in pushing Obama’s net neutrality regulations—wrote in 2008: “No one thinks any longer that media reform is an issue to solve ‘after the revolution.’ Everyone understands that without media reform, there will be no revolution.”
Starting in 2010, Obama’s net neutrality represented the media reform they sought. This aligned closely with Big Tech interests, partially explaining the affinity between Big Tech billionaires and revolutionary groups.
This is how net neutrality regulations since 2010 and state-level laws since 2018 violate the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments.
First Amendment Violation
Net neutrality laws and regulations compel internet users to financially support the dissemination of speech they oppose, constituting the especially severe infringement of the First Amendment rights known as compelled speech. Additionally, net neutrality laws and regulations prevent publishers from purchasing network bandwidth and related services to disseminate their content. This is analogous to restricting newspaper publishers’ access to paper and printing presses.
Fourth Amendment Violation
Net neutrality laws and regulations intrude into citizens’ homes, thus breaching the Fourth Amendment. This breach is physical because we access the internet through modem-routers within our homes.
Net neutrality prohibits internet service providers (ISPs) and other businesses from offering content filtering and network security services to interested consumers. While the regulations theoretically allow interference with harmful traffic, ISPs are technically unable to differentiate between harmful and legitimate traffic, rendering network-side security services impossible. Children face severe dangers beyond mere exposure to pornography, and parents are powerless.
Fifth Amendment Violation
Net neutrality laws and regulations involve taking citizens’ ISP fees, thus violating the Fifth Amendment. The ISP fees taken and redistributed through net neutrality are about $240 billion annually. This amount includes mobile and fixed Internet. A fraction of this immense sum funds significant propaganda efforts and amicus appearances supporting net neutrality.
As long as the state net neutrality laws stand (i.e., not pre-empted by the federal government and not struck down by courts), free political debate will be impossible, and far-left tech and media will continue to reign.
The issue is somewhat technical. There is a complete argument against net neutrality (aka open internet, aka Obamanet) regulations, which includes further historical, economic, and legislative context.
Jesus Christ is King
