Public conversations about the Internet have traditionally focused on First
Amendment issues, such as civility and pornography. The rapid expansion of the
Internet requires us to address ownership issues, which will determine whether the
Internet continues to develop as a democratic medium. In late 2010, the Federal
Communication Commission (FCC) created net neutrality rules for wired broadband
providers, requiring them to provide the same access to all Internet services and
content. The FCC’s net neutrality rules were rejected by federal courts twice because
the FCC had not defined the Internet as a utility, meaning it couldn’t regulate it as
one. Telecommunication companies don’t want any rules governing how they
distribute access to the Internet, so these rulings were to their advantage. However,
citizens and entrepreneurs opposed an unregulated system that would allow
telecommunication companies to create fast lanes and slow lanes on the Internet
based on what profited them most. A record number of comments flooded the FCC,
and the vast majority were in favor of net neutrality. In February 2015, the FCC
reclassified broadband Internet as a Title II utility and voted to approve net neutrality
rules, which were upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals in 2016, enabling the FCC to
enforce open Internet standards on wired and mobile networks. In December 2017,
with Donald Trump’s appointee to chair the FCC leading, the FCC voted to repeal the
2015 net neutrality policy, effective June 2018. Almost half of the country’s states‘
attorneys general are suing to contest the ruling.
Within the bounds set by the Supreme Court, which are well established, the right to
free speech is more important than the right not to be offended. New York Times v.
Sullivan argues this position. Even though L. B. Sullivan felt that the ad defamed him