I’ve noticed lately that some net neutrality advocates have taken to calling neutrality legislation the “First Amendment of the Internet”. Allow me to point out that the first five words of the First Amendment are “Congress shall make no law ...”
When it comes to our communications systems, our first priority should be to keep Congress out of it. The First Amendment says, when it comes to speech, the government simply does not make the call. It is not a question of debating right and wrong in the hallowed halls; the Constitution says simply, the government has no say.
Let’s keep this in mind when debating the merits of neutrality legislation. Such legislation, like McCain-Feingold, takes a previously-untouchable right and puts it in play. It is astonishing to me that we have laws that define the content and timing of political speech. Under such laws, the government defines what can be said about government.
If the neutrality advocates get their way, the government will attain control of the Internet where it currently has none. It puts the protocols and architecture of the Internet in play. Good intentions aside, our greatest unregulated resource will now become subject to Congress’ ever-compromised concepts of “fairness”.
Let’s put it another way: to give the government authority over the Internet is akin to dictating what stories the New York Times covers, how it is printed and where it is distributed. So long as it’s “fair”, who could object, right?
The genius of our constitution is that it does not define what the law should and should not be. Rather, its fundamental purpose is to define who makes the call. Such a system allows unlimited flexibility when confronting the questions of the day, so long as the power vested by the Constitution is preserved.
Let’s keep the power over the Internet where it belongs: in the hands of those who build it.
------
Update: A reminder of how not to do a constitution.
Comments