Verizon attack on Internet misguided

[Commentary] Verizon takes the prize for most outrageous claim of a First Amendment right. Its challenge to the 2010 Federal Communications Commission rule that requires an open Internet - effectively preventing the companies that provide online connections from censoring or favoring content - as an abridgement of Verizon's free speech. If Verizon's argument as presented to a federal appeals court holds, then the constitutional guarantee of "free speech" suddenly would include the right to suppress someone else's ability to transmit or receive information.

Verizon's argument, absurd on its face, veers to the bizarre when it tries to compare the role of broadband service provider to that of a newspaper. Verizon suggests in its federal court filing that broadband providers possess "editorial discretion" - and should be free to feature some content over others, or exclude content, just as a newspaper decides what is and is not fit for publication. Such an argument, of course, misses the essence of the Internet, which is to allow the user to act as his or her own editor in deciding what is of interest. Here's the twist: Verizon clearly knows better. Its joint statement with Google about the prospect of open-Internet rules in early 2010 stated: "The minute that anyone, whether from the government or the private sector, starts to control how people access and use the Internet would be the beginning of the end of the 'net as we know it."