![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
osewalrusTwo Rhode Island senators have introduced a bill that would require ISPs to block porn websites and charge users a $20 fee to unlock them.
http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/376840-rhode-island-legislature-considering-bill-to-put-20-fee-on-accessing
There is no doubt that if broadband were a common carrier, this would violate the First Amendment rights of subscribers. See Sable Communications v. FCC. In the common carrier world, the First Amendment rights belong to the end users, and the network is not permitted to interfere.
By contrast, absent common carriage, it is less clear. The Supreme Court permitted the restrictions on adult content in the 1992 Cable Act as consistent with the First Amendment (See Playboy, Inc. v. FCC). So, is this an acceptable regulation of the ISP's "editorial perspective?" ACLU v. Reno is not, necessarily to the contrary.
http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/376840-rhode-island-legislature-considering-bill-to-put-20-fee-on-accessing
There is no doubt that if broadband were a common carrier, this would violate the First Amendment rights of subscribers. See Sable Communications v. FCC. In the common carrier world, the First Amendment rights belong to the end users, and the network is not permitted to interfere.
By contrast, absent common carriage, it is less clear. The Supreme Court permitted the restrictions on adult content in the 1992 Cable Act as consistent with the First Amendment (See Playboy, Inc. v. FCC). So, is this an acceptable regulation of the ISP's "editorial perspective?" ACLU v. Reno is not, necessarily to the contrary.
