Verizon Censors Pro-Choice Text Messages

by: Matt Stoller

Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 08:12


Welcome to a non-neutral world.

Saying it had the right to block "controversial or unsavory" text messages, Verizon Wireless has rejected a request from Naral Pro-Choice America, the abortion rights group, to make Verizon's mobile network available for a text-message program.

The other leading wireless carriers have accepted the program, which allows people to sign up for text messages from Naral by sending a message to a five-digit number known as a short code.

Text messaging is a growing political tool in the United States and a dominant one abroad, and such sign-up programs are used by many political candidates and advocacy groups to send updates to supporters.

But legal experts said private companies like Verizon probably have the legal right to decide which messages to carry. The laws that forbid common carriers from interfering with voice transmissions on ordinary phone lines do not apply to text messages.

The dispute over the Naral messages is a skirmish in the larger battle over the question of "net neutrality" - whether carriers or Internet service providers should have a voice in the content they provide to customers.

"This is right at the heart of the problem," said Susan Crawford, a visiting professor at the University of Michigan law school, referring to the treatment of text messages. "The fact that wireless companies can choose to discriminate is very troubling."

In turning down the program, Verizon, one of the nation's two largest wireless carriers, told Naral that it "does not accept issue-oriented (abortion, war, etc.) programs - only basic, general politician-related campaigns (Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, etc.)." Naral provided copies of its communications with Verizon to The New York Times.

Nancy Keenan, Naral's president, said Verizon's decision interfered with political speech and advocacy.

"No company should be allowed to censor the message we want to send to people who have asked us to send it to them," Ms. Keenan said. "Regardless of people's political views, Verizon customers should decide what action to take on their phones. Why does Verizon get to make that choice for them?"

A spokesman for Verizon said the decision turned on the subject matter of the messages and not on Naral's position on abortion. "Our internal policy is in fact neutral on the position," the spokesman, Jeffrey Nelson, said. "It is the topic itself" - abortion - "that has been on our list."

Mr. Nelson suggested that Verizon may be rethinking its position. "As text messaging and multimedia services become more and more mainstream," he said, "we are continuing to review our content standards." The review will be made, he said, "with an eye toward making more information available across ideological and political views."

Naral provided an example of a recent text message that it had sent to supporters: "End Bush's global gag rule against birth control for world's poorest women! Call Congress. (202) 224-3121. Thnx! Naral Text4Choice."...

Timothy Wu, a law professor at Columbia, said it was possible to find analogies to Verizon's decision abroad. "Another entity that controls mass text messages is the Chinese government," Professor Wu said.

This is a direct attack on the right of assembly and the right to free speech.  I know of several companies that sell mass texting services, and none of them will go on the record about carriers because they are afraid of them.  And keep in mind, these telecom companies want retroactive immunity for breaking the law and spying on Americans.

Matt Stoller :: Verizon Censors Pro-Choice Text Messages

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Yet another reason to go to Working Assets & DFA. (0.00 / 0)
Here is a link to DFA, and why they partner with Working Assets. Consumers can also go to Working Assets directly, but I think the DFA Link is yet another way to consolidate netroot power.

http://www.workingas...

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  


Working Assets (0.00 / 0)
Does anyone have any experience with them? I posted on this over at our place this am and one person said that they liked them.

I'm just so pissed about this. Have you guys seen the shit that you can download for screensavers, ringtones and don't get me started on what I've heard about downloadable porn. And they're going to refuse to let me get a a text message I signed up for? Not.


[ Parent ]
ominous indeed (0.00 / 0)
all kinds of filters can be set, blocking all kinds of speech and content.  Yet, I bet porn flys back and forth like no tomorrow.

On the plus side, (0.00 / 0)
I'm glad to see the NYT frontpage the story. The takeaway should be that censorship generates negative press.

While Verizon sucks for this ... (4.00 / 1)
it's also kinda interesting to Nancy Keenan get smacked down ... after all .. I am sure her buddy HoJo is all for Verizon in this instance

UPDATE: Verizon pulls a 180 (4.00 / 2)
Guess they were afraid of how this would effect their anti-neutrality efforts and they have backed down.

Article here:
http://news.yahoo.co...


I Figured That Would Happen (0.00 / 0)
as an earlier article this morning said:

We're reviewing it with an eye towards changing it because it's a dusty old policy meant to protect our customers from unwanted spam," Gerace said.

It was policy of a big company to protect against spam. Policy is policy and does not change ion the blink of an eye. The press and the blogs are all to famous for jumping on things only to have the story fizzle out either due to bad reporting or by the situation being rectified within days. Even the article quoted on this blog mentioned Verizon was looking at the problem and might change the policy but that part was not even mentioned.


[ Parent ]
Thank you Verizon for clarifying the risk (4.00 / 1)
The quotes from Crawford, Wu and Keenan are good.  They highlight the issue correctly.

Verizon's policy says "it does not accept programs from any group 'that seeks to promote an agenda or distribute content that, in its discretion, may be seen as controversial or unsavory to any of our users.'"

Is this "discretion" a power we want to give to oligopolists who control what has become a dominant and powerful mode of communication, and one that has helped expose corruption and mobilize democracy around the world?

The quote from Chris Yoo highlights the weakness of the argument he seems to be making:

"Instead of having the government get in the game of regulating who can carry what, I would get in the game of promoting as many options as possible," said Christopher S. Yoo, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. "You might find text-messaging companies competing on their openness policies."

Yes, Chris, more options are good.  I'll agree with you there.  But this is NOT AT ALL about "regulating who can carry what."  Just the opposite.  It's about ALL citizens having the right to communicate freely to each other, using the dominant modes of communication available to us--in this case, one that relies on public spectrum assets licensed to a small number of private companies.

This exclusive licensing is an act by the federal government that dramatically enhances the First Amendment rights of these companies (and of broadcasters, etc.) at the expense of others who would also like to exercise their rights using this spectrum.  I believe a strong argument can be made that in today's technological environment, the granting of such exclusive licenses is unconstitutional.

Yoo assumes that carriers will compete on their openness policy.  That's an assumption that seems to lack an empirical or even strongly logical basis.  And even if they did, it wouldn't be enough if 50% of cellular users could exercise their First Amendment rights, but the other half couldn't, as determined by "the magic of the marketplace."

I see this as a positive development, including the Times piece. VZ backed down, but the issue and the danger have come into clear focus. First Amendment issues are not a matter to be left to the market, especially one structured as a vertically integrated oligopoly controlled by companies with strong vested interests in political outcomes, pending legislation, etc.

This leads me back to the unlicensed "white space" issue, which is still pending at the FCC.  Broadcasters are mounting a major DC-centric PR assault to stop unlicensed use and I'm concerned that the tech coalition (MSFT, Goog, HP, Intel, Dell and others) will not have the skill or focus to counter it.  Opening up large amounts of high-quality ex-broadcast spectrum (lots more than will be "open" in the 700 MHz auction) to unlicensed use is potentially a major game-changer.  It also presents a fundamentally more First Amendment-friendly approach to spectrum policy, whose time, technologically speaking, may have come. But the parallel question is whether its time has come politically.  I certainly hope so.  If this historic spectrum opportunity is lost, we may never again see a comparable one emerge.  And if the 22 MHz of "open" 700 MHz goes to the dominant carriers, the "open spectrum" cause will be doubly screwed.

A lot is riding on what happens on these two related fronts in the next six months or so.


Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search