The Glade 4.0

Broadband providers aren't "common carriers," court says, and that makes all the difference in a decision certain to shake up the fixed broadband and wireless industries.="

A federal appeals court in Washington on Tuesday struck down the Federal Communications Commission's rules for Net neutrality.

The 2-1 ruling upheld the FCC's right to regulate broadband access, but the court called into question the FCC's authority to impose rules that dictate how broadband providers manage traffic on their networks.

In its decision, the court ruled that, "even though the commission has general authority to regulate in this arena, it may not impose requirements that contravene express statutory mandates. Given that the commission has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers, the Communications Act expressly prohibits the commission from nonetheless regulating them as such. Because the commission has failed to establish that the anti-discrimination and anti-blocking rules do not impose per se common carrier obligations, we vacate those portions of the Open Internet Order."

The case, which Verizon filed against the FCC after it imposed these Open Internet rules in 2011, puts to rest, for at least the time being, a very controversial topic that has been debated in Washington, D.C., for nearly a decade. In plain English, the court rejected Verizon's argument that the FCC had overstepped its authority to regulate broadband access, instead acknowledging that the FCC has general authority to impose regulations on broadband and wireless service providers. But because the services these providers offer are classified differently from traditional telecommunication services, the justices reasoned in their decision that they are not subject to the same statutes, which guide the agency in forming its regulatory policies.

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.

A US court in the state of Virginia ruled on 7 January that anonymous users aren't covered by First Amendment protection of free speech if a review "is based on a false statement".

Joe Hadeed, the owner of Hadeed Carpet Cleaning, which is based in Virginia, told the court that seven Yelp users had left anonymous, negative feedback about his business on the review service.

His lawyers filed against Yelp, demanding that it reveal the names of the posters.

The court agreed and ordered Yelp to comply, deeming that Hadeed had provided enough for it to conclude that the Yelp users might not actually have been customers of his business.

Hadeed had told the court that the bad reviews hadn't matched up with actual customers in his database.

Therein lies the "false statement" logic.

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.

Which means if you leave a negative review on Yelp, and the business owner claims it's false, Yelp has to reveal your identity, opening you up to a lawsuit (that you probably can't afford to defend)...

So you don't have a 4th amendment right to lie?

Libel is illegal already. That's what it is. A published lie that affects a reputation.

You can say whatever you want, just be aware that some speech has consequences.

The loss of Net Neutrality is FAR worse than making people responsible for their statements.

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.

Libel is illegal already. That's what it is. A published lie that affects a reputation. You can say whatever you want, just be aware that some speech has consequences.

Anonymous speech is one thing. Anonymous libel is another.

OK: (Anonymous Hannity Guest:)I believe that gay marriage is a right!

Not OK: (Anonymous Yelper:) Bob's dry cleaning is a ripoff! They totally ruined my best Brooks Brothers suit! It cost me over a thousand dollars to have it replaced! (When said yelper did not have a BB suit nor did they actually patronize Bob's)

Sure, but what if the Yelper really was a customer of Bob's and really did have his suit ruined? Should his anonymity be protected? If so, how do you balance that with Bob's right to protect his reputation against anonymous defamation? What if, instead of ***** about a suit, the Yelper had instead claimed to have seen some things that made him suspect Bob's Dry Cleaning was mobbed up? What if he was an employee posting under a pseudonym to blow the whistle on some kind of illegal or unethical practice? Should we protect anonymity in those cases? If so, what's the principle for differentiating between cases where we want to protect anonymity and cases when we don't?

If you feel strongly enough to leave a negative review about a shitty steak.

Sorry Arafys, but I'm not going to expose private/personal information (even just my real name) to people on a review site. I wouldn't even register for such a place.