Telecommunications’ giant Verizon came under fire last week for barring an abortion rights group from operating a text message alert system over Verizon’s network. NARAL Pro-Choice America planned to message subscribers who opted-in for the service – a common setup for many organizations and advertisers. Verizon said it rejected the request on the basis that it has the right to block “controversial or unsavory” content. After a firestorm of controversy in which many of the most vocal critics denounced Verizon for attacking First Amendment rights, the company quickly and sheepishly revoked the NARAL block.
Yet while Verizon’s ban was a poor business decision, there is no strong evidence for the argument that it violated any Constitutional rights. Calling upon First Amendment protection when not merited is a wasteful exercise – there is a time and place invoke that power, and this was not one of them.
Verizon undoubtedly stifled the ability of an organization to transmit its message, as the ban’s critics argued. But there is no indication that the government played any significant role in the matter – and it is protection from government suppressed speech that our Constitution is primarily concerned with.
Verizon, on the other hand, is a private company with the ability to allow or not allow services at its discretion. And unlike with television and land-line phone transmissions, there are no definitive legal precedents specifying whether cell phone airwaves are public or private. A few years down the road, once the initial ‘newness’ boom of cellular devices has faded, this fact will change. Today however, the legal argument for protected free speech over Verizon’s network is shaky at best.
The matter addressed here was really one of customer service contracts and terms of use, not federal law. Why jump straight to invoking Constitutional protection when there are many viable avenues before that point? Verizon users absolutely had the right to complain to the company for denying a commonly requested service. They could have left Verizon for a different cell phone provider. Or NARAL could even have called for a boycott of Verizon because they disagree with the company’s policies. And these are some of the steps they took – sending Verizon thousands of angered texts expressing frustration with the ban.
However, protesting that First Amendment rights have been violated any time censorship occurs is counterproductive. It has also become a dangerous cliché in our society. Government-protected free speech is a very powerful tool that shouldn’t be called on frivolously.
whereIstand Tags
You wrote an interesting post and food for thought.