Has Verizon Forfeited Common Carrier Status? 721
An anonymous reader writes, "Freedom of speech, the future of the Net, you name it. In October, a U.S. vigilante group asked Verizon to cut off Net access to Epifora, a Canadian ISP that hosts a number of (entirely legal) web sites offering support to minor-attracted adults. Shortly thereafter, Verizon gave 30 days notice to Epifora, ending a 5 year relationship. Telecos have traditionally refrained from censoring legal content, arguing that as 'common carriers' it is outside of their scope to make such decisions. Furthermore, they have refrained because if they did so in some cases, they might be legally liable for other cases where they did not exercise censorship. The questions are: has Verizon forfeited their claim to common-carrier status by selectively censoring legal speech that they do not like? And can the net effectively route around censorship if the trunk carriers are allowed to pick and choose whom they allow to connect?"
Re:Has Slashdot been duped? (Score:4, Interesting)
If by "support" they mean support groups like AA where "minor-attracted adults" seek help in not acting on impulses and addictions, then not really; it bears distinguishing between pedophiles and people who recognize that their attractions aren't healthy, even if they feel natural.
If "support" is more like a NAMBLA textbook for seduction, then a euphemism it is.
They should split the business (Score:3, Interesting)
Business 1 is their common carrier business which does not do any censoring etc, but just provides common carrier services.
Business 2: Value added services (hosting etc). This business then does all the censoring etc.
Let me predict the tags (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe itsatrap as well.
Why do we have tags if the same braindead ones are displayed for most of them?
Political Maneuvering (Score:3, Interesting)
I cannot check the article, (slashdotted), and since no link to the sites in question was provided, I am left to trust that the sites were good-natured content, and entirely legal, instead of deciding for myself.
I also wasn't able to find out the name of the vigilante group, as it wasn't included in the summary. For all I know it could be the ACLU.
The discussion should be about the principal of content filtering, not what content was filtered or who requested it. Everyone has websites that they feel only tarnish the internet. Demogaugery like this:
Does not help your position. They are pedophiles, interest/lobbying groups and entirely legal in Canada. Your choice of words turned me off to a subject which I completely agree with the summary on, because it shows the same double standard you are crying about.
Re:Right to Refuse (Score:3, Interesting)
Verizon is (in theory) not responsible for anything put onto their networks because they're a "common carrier." They take all comers who can pay without worrying about the content. Therefore, if kiddie porn is being transmitted through Verizon's lines, it's not Verizon's fault because they have taken absolutely ZERO responsibility for the content.
*Except they just did.*
By taking that step to block someone from their network based solely on the content they were providing, they have opened themselves up for lawsuit. Whether you agree this is "fair" or not, it is a longstanding legal principle. Generally speaking, NOT taking responsibility for something will get you in less trouble than taking some. In a completely random other example, I lived at at apartment complex that refused to salt their walkways in the winter. Why? Because if someone slipped, and they DID salt the sidewalks, then they would be at fault for not salting them well enough. If they did nothing whatsoever, if you slip and fall, blame God, 'cause he's the one who did it.
Same principle. See?
By taking responsibility for SOME content being broadcast through their lines, Verizon may have just made themselves responsible for ALL of it.
And that is the question here.
RE: Okay... (Score:4, Interesting)
"The company's clients host a number of websites and chatboards-- such as Boychat.org and Freespirits.org-- with a pederastic slant."
The article also seems to indicate that they would be legal in the US:
"With its transgressive content, Epifora had faced scrutiny before. After a July, 2001 report in Canada's National Post, MCI-Canada approached the Ontario Provincial Police for an opinion, and inspector Bob Matthews, of the OPP's "Project P" declared the material on Epifora's servers in compliance with the Criminal Code. That says a lot, as Canadian law sets a higher bar than the US and most other countries, making no distinction between, say, photographs of minors having sex, textual descriptions thereof, or even speech "advocating" such acts."
Furthermore, I believe you are missing the point:
Weather or not you agree with what is being said, free speech is protected by law in Canada and in the US. The issue here is weather or not Telcos should be able to censor content by refusing to provide access to their backbone. Verizon is refusing a Canadian ISP access to the backbone because they host a few websites that Verizon doesn't like.
The websites are legal in Canada for sure. Should Verizon be allowed to do this? I don't think so. This is a slippery slope that nobody wants to end up at the bottom of.
Re:Legislation, Corporations, and Censorship (Score:3, Interesting)
Conspiracy Theory (Score:3, Interesting)
What if this is Verizon DELIBERATELY blowing their common carrier status as an end run?
If it is, watch for them doing a lot more of this in the future. Then when they start blocking access to Google (or whateveR) they'll say, look, we're policing our own network now. We're NOT a common carrier.
And thus kill Net Neutrality.
I make no claims as to the correctness of this theory. It's just something that occured to me.
Re:Legislation, Corporations, and Censorship (Score:3, Interesting)
Civil liability? (Score:3, Interesting)
Any lawyers, care to comment??
Re:minor-attracted adult? (Score:5, Interesting)
Attraction to those under the age of the majority. That includes more than prepubescent children.
"it bothers me to see the mainstreaming of pedophilia with terms like this."
Has it occurred to you that it may be a tactic to bash those who can't be shown, or even suspected, of pedophilia at all?
"They talked about 'coming out', and about accepting themselves, and reclaiming terms like 'boy lover'. They were mentally and emotionally setting the stage for the same sort of battle for public acceptance that the gay community has fought and mostly won over the last few decades."
What is the problem with this? So far you've described no criminal behavior at all. Are you advocating keeping people with this condition be as emotionally deprived as possible? How is that a help to society?
"I don't want them to 'come out', I don't want them to have supportive underground communities, and it was saddening to see the entirely appropriate discourse of public acceptance of homosexuality and queer identity perverted like this."
It isn't perverted. Being closeted for them is no different. Plenty have said the same things about gays.
"This is exactly the slippery slope that the right uses to justify non-acceptance of gays, and we need to bring a big heavy boot down on crap like 'minor attracted adult' to demonstrate that we can make moral choices about who we will accept and who we won't."
My moral choice is to accept what everyone's condition is. There is a big difference between accepting a person's condition and accepting their actions. It is child molestation that is the issue and nothing you've described has anything to do with that. You just seemed consumed by hatred and fear of those you don't know.
"The world's a better place because homosexuality has been mainstreamed. It'll be a better place still when pedophilia is absolutely and explicitly denied the same path and the same acceptance. It starts by calling bullshit on terms like 'minor attracted adult'."
I don't agree with any of that. First, homosexuality hasn't been mainstreamed outside progressive areas. Second, pedophilia is a condition that people develop outside their choice, and it's child molestation that has to be prevented. Finally, you have no idea why the term "minor attracted adult" was chosen and you have no basis for declaring that it means "pedophile" (or more accurately "child molester in your usage).
Re:Right to Refuse (Score:3, Interesting)
The right to refuse business is a long-standing tradition, at least in this part of the world. Verizon can generally choose not to do business with whomever they wish, with certain provisions relating to discrimination.
True, but in doing so they lose a group of special privileges allocated to those that are "common carriers" and who just carry the mail and don't know what's in it. For example, common carriers are not prosecuted for transporting drugs, death threats, child pornography, or government secrets, even if the transportation of such things is illegal. When a carrier starts looking at the content and censoring some of it, they have taken responsibility for all the content and are no longer protected from lawsuits or criminal charges with regard to their content. I think you need to look into what a common carrier is and under what restrictions they operate in order to have that status. They have certainly endangered that status and may have opened themselves to huge amounts of legal liability.
Re:Common Carrier? (Score:3, Interesting)
WRONG!
That legal urban legend has been wandering around the net for many years, but it has never actually been true, at least under US law. ISP's have never been common carriers as ISP's (which is part of why the ISP/ILEC wall exists in ILEC-owned ISP's) but they are generally treated as non-publishers of material even when they pick and choose what they allow quite severely.
There is a surviving piece of the CDA and a clause in CAN-SPAM that quite explicitly give ISP's the power to filter content as they please without liability.
Re:The correct answer: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, in my neighborhood there's a more direct argument. There's a phone line coming into my house. That line is owned by Verizon, and no other company can use it, even with my permission. But the clincher is: No other company can legally run another "phone line" to my house, even with my permission. In this neighborhood, Verizon has all the legal power of a government agency in dealings with phone lines. They determine how my phone service works, and if I don't like it, I can just not use my phone line. Or move somewhere outside their legal jurisdiction.
I don't see any significant way that they differ from a government agency.
Re:Legislation, Corporations, and Censorship (Score:2, Interesting)
I was unaware of the use of the similar and related phrases, and also of this Samuel Johnson originating that final phrase, Johnson not being one of the DoI signatories.
Being an Englishman, the only Samuel Johnson I am familiar with is the lexicographer who said "I am willing to love all mankind except an American", and who famously refuted (thus - kick!) the philosophy of Berkeley; but not your Connecticutian namesame who was a staunch proponent of Berkeley.
What a marvelous opportunity for extreme confusion!
FatPhil