Common Cause - Holding Power ResponsibleCommon Cause - Holding Power Responsible

Topics
Our Issues
Money in Politics
Election Reform
Media and Democracy
Ethics in Government

Government Accountability
International

Press Center
Research Center
Register to Vote

Sign Up and join the Community - click here

Research

Censorship Online

By Katie Fleming
Posted on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:35:56 AM EST

Comcast recently released new "terms of service" which clearly spell out their intention to censor free speech.  Anything that a reasonable person would consider indecent has the potential of being blocked. 

Conduct and information restrictions

  • post, store, send, transmit, or disseminate any information or material which a reasonable person could deem to be indecent
  • send numerous copies of the same or substantially similar messages, empty messages, or messages which contain no substantive content

The company also stated that their network is not good enough to hold space for all the activity that their customers need, therefore they plan to "delay" access for peer-to-peer applications during the most congested times.

With the Internet out there without protection from the telecoms, these corporations have carved out their spaces and made competition and innovation moot.  Remember, these are the reasons set out there for deregulation in the first place.  Without competition and innovation, there is no reason for the telecoms to improve their networks, even enough to provide their customers with basic access.

Comcast's new terms of service: A recipe for discrimination


Tags: Net Neutrality, free speech, censorship, media reform, media and democracy, in the states, comcast (all tags)


Display:

Censorship Online :: 5 Comments

huh?

You edited down that first bullet point to make Comcast look worse.  Here's the full policy:

"post, store, send, transmit, or disseminate any information or material which a reasonable person could deem to be indecent, pornographic, harassing, threatening, hateful, or intimidating".

I don't have any problem with Comcast blocking hate speech or child pornography.  Or from blocking spammers, which is what they are referring to in the 2nd bullet point.  You are making a mountain out of a molehill, and thereby undermining your own arguments.

The real problem is the peer-to-peer limitations, which are a violation of net neutrality and where you should be focusing your energy.  Please save your ammunition for the REAL fights.

by eventheskyisblue on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:56:31 PM EST


freedom of speech

Thanks for the feedback. Although the P2P limitations are a major problem, free speech is really the issue. Hateful language and child pornography are unforgiveable, but it is not the telecom's duty to police us.

Citizens decide how this country is run via the government. Corporations are not accountable to the people and therefore cannot be allowed to make decisions about what the First Amendment means.

by Katie Fleming on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:08:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]


USE YOUR BRAIN

I think you are being just a bit naïve, eventheskyisblue.

First I want to know who this "reasonable person" is.  My suspicion is that they might consider many things "harassing, threatening or intimidating" that I do not and would prefer to have access to.

I am especially concerned that recently the Simon Weisenthal Center included the website Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth (ae911truth.org) in with a group of terrorist websites. I don't know what your feelings are of the 9/11 Truth movement, but it seems to me that the only ones who might be "harassed, threatened or intimidated" by scientific studies which cast doubt on the government's account of those events, are those with something to hide.

Use your brain to imagine what other subjects might be considered unfit for internet access if the "reasonable person" is the head of a corporation, a fundamentalist church or the GOP.

by zonk on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:56:42 AM EST


Comcast Censorship?

After a day sending out e-mail messages to numerous friends, almost all political, Comcast sent me a message that they had cut off my out-going mail because it appeared my machine had been hijacked and was spilling out spam.  Do Macs even get hijacked like that? I had sent out fewer than one hundred e-mails in the previous six weeks and not one of them to my entire address book.  It two took phone calls to get my outgoing mail functioning.  Like so many other governmental and corporate policies, this intimidating action by Comcast has the effect of dampening the exercise of free speech.  I disagree with eventheskyisblue. This policy by Comcast IS a real fight.

by hebnerhousehold on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:01:35 PM EST


it's hard

i think it's too hard to control all the activity except they use lot of resource.
jordy, designer witch work on acheter kamagra en

by jordy on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 07:04:40 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account just by filling out the form below. It's quick and free.


contact us | volunteer/intern programs | employment opportunities | site map | privacy policy