One of the conveniences of text messaging is that it can be used to coordinate large groups. Cellular phone users can sign up for an organization's text message service simply by texting a "short code" to a certain receiver or by filling out a form on the group's website. From then on, the user will receive bulk texts from the organization.
This feature of cell phones seems rather innocent, but recently it was the center of controversy. Just a few weeks ago, Verizon Wireless, the second largest cellular carrier in the world decided that it would not give NARAL, a pro-choice group, a short code so that it could participate in the program. Verizon had decided not to allow any issue-oriented groups (they give abortion and war as examples of "issues") to use the service. It claimed the right to deny any organization that "may be seen as controversial or unsavory to any of [their] users." Verizon reversed its decision the very day the New York Times ran an article about the situation (both the Times article and the retraction letter are dated 27 September), feeling the beginnings of a political fire-storm from bloggers and activists of all kinds.
Issues like this have the feel of inappropriate censorship, but whether or not there could be any court action against Verizon is questionable. There is no state action, so this case dwells in the convoluted land of neoliberal v. libertarian political philosophy. Should Verizon be forced to carry every political message so that Americans have a chance to hear all political philosophies, or would forcing Verizon to carry such messages be an infringement on the company's free speech rights?
The court could apply the same reasoning as Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC. In that case, the "Fairness Doctrine," which forced broadcasters to present both sides of issues, was upheld in media because of the "scarcity of broadcast frequencies." But one can hardly compare a cellular provider to broadcast media. A closer comparison can be made to the later case Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo. In this decision, the court rejects that "government has an obligation to ensure that a wide variety of views reach the public" and decides that "press responsibility is not mandated by the Constitution and like many other virtues it cannot be legislated." In fact, the court can soon be seen doubting the efficacy of the "Fairness Doctrine" by stating "that the rules, by effectively chilling speech, do not serve the public interest" in FCC v. League of Women Voters of California. The fairness doctrine is the legal embodiment of neoliberal free speech philosophy in broadcast, so it seems safe to say that in Verizon's case, the court would apply a more libertarian perspective as they did in the Miami Herald case.
Telephone companies occupy an interesting place in the world of free speech. Traditionally, they have been neutral, passing no judgment on the calls and messages that pass through their wires and antennas. Verizon's decision to limit the groups that use their messaging service certainly breaks this precedent.
Verizon's choice may not have been in their best interest. None of their customers would have likely noticed if Verizon had allowed an "unsavory" group to message its customers, for the situation was covered in the news only after Verizon refused the service. And, by the quickness of Verizon's reversal on the rule, we can safely assume that they did not decide against NARAL as an actual moral stance. Instead, it seems to be a poorly carried out public relations move.
Verizon's argument that their decision was to defend their customers from "controversial or unsavory" organizations is rather silly. By its very nature, this program can not offend anyone unless they really go out of their way to be offended. They must specifically subscribe to the service, so there is no unwitting "captive audience" to defend.
The question really becomes: does owning a free-speech forum allow control of what is said in the forum? A neoliberal, of course, would claim that it is in the best interest of everyone to force Verizon to foster all types of speech. As NARAL's president, Nancy Keenan put it, "No company should be allowed to censor the message we want to send to people who have asked us to send it to them." In her thinking, forcing speech based companies (like cellular phone providers) to carry all speech is the only way to create the broad, open debate that is necessary for democracy.
However neoliberals like Nancy Keenan put it, the problem at hand - the censorship of speech by a company - was solved within a day by public pressure alone. In other words, the marketplace fixed itself. And, even if Verizon had not reversed its decision, every other cellular carrier was cooperating with NARAL, so there never was any lack of options for the public to receive speech.
In other words, this case is a shining example for libertarian thinkers! However risky the uncontrolled marketplace of ideas seems to neoliberals, it works for the public interest in the end.
Links so you can follow the story yourself:
Times article about Verizon blocking NARAL's messages
Times article about Verizon's reversal.
Letter from NARAL to Verizon
Verizon's retraction letter
Jenny Tong's first post also gave an interesting analysis of this story, though casting a much darker light on Verizon than I think they deserve.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Well done, Zac. I read about this before reading your blog, so it's something that's pretty interesting.
It's an amazing thing when the public can have so much influence on a situation such as this- forcing Verizon to flip their stance.
You inquired, "Should Verizon be forced to carry every political message so that Americans have a chance to hear all political philosophies, or would forcing Verizon to carry such messages be an infringement on the company's free speech rights?"
Phone companies, in addition to every form of mass communication, were invented for just that: to communicate. Most of the communications revolutions were created by the military to carry messages. You'd better believe the military carried messages that some people would take offense to, and messages to with not everyone agreed.
Again, nice blog Zac.
Have a nice Thursday.
I believe that theoretically, if the government were to ever force Verison to allow messages from every political group, a major clause of the first amendment would be in jeapordy. By forcing a decision of selective speech on a company, even if that selection is to include all speech, would be an example of the government overpowering its citizens. Thus, completely going against the first amendment and in a larger picture, the entire purpose of our constitution. As we have stated in class many times, the constitution was developed to rid our country from the possibility of a oppressive style of government. And to give the government the power to choose what is or is not published by any corporation or person for that matter would be a direct infringement of that freedom. It is another example of the types of cases we discussed this past Tuesday in class. As soon as the government interacts with a case involving speech, whether it is to ban the speech, or to force someone to allow a certain opinion to be heard, the government is immediately overstepping the bounds agreed to in the first amendment.
It is quite interesting how public cooperations can shift there train of thought so quickly. Since the general public got upset Verizon knew that it would loose money so it indeed switched its stance to allow such text messages.
I however, do not agree with this idea. I don't think that Verizon should allow these mass messages to be sent out. The mass text began with silly things like "a joke a day" or "golf tip from the pros" I fail to see where "abortion clinics" or "end the war" fit in. It is the a First Amendment right to allow citizens to speak, however is this truly speech. You could say that this is in some way similar to radio broadcasting. Since many younger children have access to cell phones they may be able to receive such information.
Do we really want the children of America to have access to such controversial and somewhat inappropriate information? A line must be drawn somewhere in this matter, mass texts are perfect for the joke of the day or a golf tip from a pro, but they do not seem fit for controversial issues.
Post a Comment