Verizon makes its arguments against the FCC's net neutrality rules -- and they are fraught with danger.
Verizon sees the net as its newspaper and believes it has First Amendment rights to control what goes on the net. This is why Doc Searls has taught me that it is dangerous to see the net as a medium. No, the net is a network and Verizon only offers access to it.
But there's the next argument: Verizon says the net is its private property and so it makes a Fifth Amendment claim that imposing restrictions on its ability to impose restrictions on the net is like confiscating property without compensation.
Danger, danger!
The First Amendment argument is absurd on its face. Does Verizon really want to be responsible for everything distributed on the net, including libel, theft, and other illegal behavior? I doubt it. Verizon is no publisher.
The Fifth Amendment argument is a corner we've painted ourselves into by finding ourself dependent on a public good privately owned. But just as we make restrictions on private property -- I can't build a gas station on my house; I have to give access to public utility workers -- so must we here.
We need a SOPA/PIPA/ACTA-level fight for net neutrality, for not allowing Verizon et al to mess with the net. We need a principle: First, do no harm.http://buzzmachine.com/2011/05/23/a-hippocratic-oath-for-the-internet/ You might want to at least start here, by signing the Declaration of Internet Freedom.