Verizon disconnects ‘unsavory’ pro-choice message — temporarily

It probably wasn’t what the company had in mind, but Verizon just helped make the case for net neutrality a little stronger.

Saying it had the right to block “controversial or unsavory” text messages, Verizon Wireless has rejected a request from Naral Pro-Choice America, the abortion rights group, to make Verizon’s mobile network available for a text-message program.

The other leading wireless carriers have accepted the program, which allows people to sign up for text messages from Naral by sending a message to a five-digit number known as a short code.

Text messaging is a growing political tool in the United States and a dominant one abroad, and such sign-up programs are used by many political candidates and advocacy groups to send updates to supporters.

But legal experts said private companies like Verizon probably have the legal right to decide which messages to carry. The laws that forbid common carriers from interfering with voice transmissions on ordinary phone lines do not apply to text messages.

As publius responded, “Don’t know about you, but I’m pretty psyched to hand over control of the Internet to Verizon and Comcast…. In other news, the highway department banned trucks that carry condoms from federal interstate highways. The Post Office banned solicitations from the Democratic National Committee and refuses to deliver them. And the Washington state electric board (based in Redmond) prohibited electricity from being used for Apple and Google products.”

It’s really that bad. It’s exactly why, within a few hours of people finding this story on the front page of the New York Times, Verizon quickly reversed course.

Indeed, it looks like the telecom tried to think of a defense, couldn’t, and folded.

[T]he company reversed course this morning, saying it had made a mistake.

“The decision to not allow text messaging on an important, though sensitive, public policy issue was incorrect, and we have fixed the process that led to this isolated incident,” Jeffrey Nelson, a company spokesman, said in a statement.

“It was an incorrect interpretation of a dusty internal policy,” Mr. Nelson said. “That policy, developed before text messaging protections such as spam filters adequately protected customers from unwanted messages, was designed to ward against communications such as anonymous hate messaging and adult materials sent to children.”

Mr. Nelson noted that text messaging is “harnessed by organizations and individuals communicating their diverse opinions about issues and topics” and said Verizon has “great respect for this free flow of ideas.”

Glad to hear it. Of course, even in its reversal, Verizon did not disclaim its power to block messages it deemed inappropriate, only that it won’t do so in this case.

Stay tuned.

Error code 486- “Comment Blocked by Internet Service Provider”

  • That Verizon even considered banning the messages in the first place, having determined that abortion choice is “controversial or unsavory” should raise a flag for those who let slide condemnation of the Petraeus ad, the elimination of dissent from presidential venues, calls for penalizing the NYT and Newsweek for reporting the news, etc.

    This is the real America coming through. We deceive ourselves thinking America is what those guys in silly wigs outlined 200+ years ago. That’s what America once dreamed of becoming, but what Verizon indicates the real course we are following. Their retraction may be a sign that the lid on democracy’s coffin has not yet closed. but the fact that they banned the messages in the first place is a sure sign that it is closing. Who or what is going to stop it?

  • In other news, the highway department banned trucks that carry condoms from federal interstate highways. The Post Office banned solicitations from the Democratic National Committee and refuses to deliver them. And the Washington state electric board (based in Redmond) prohibited electricity from being used for Apple and Google products.

    The policy sucks but publius is off the mark here. Verizon is a private company, the other agencies he lists are not (something to keep in mind when people gibber about letting the private sector handle everything).

  • The fact that we own the public airwaves hasn’t prevented networks from refusing to take the money from unconservative organizations to run ads, or censor criticism of dear leader’s pet war. Imagine how they’d behave once the net isn’t public.

    What has been more frightening than anything is how willingly these companies handed over their oppo-research. They ought to pay for that to send a message to all the CEOs about circumventing our Constitution, but a little immunity slipped into a bill, and problem solved!

    Keep in mind, when the edit out Sally Field and cut Pearl Jam’s insufficiently Bush ass-kissing songs, they’re on their best behavior.

  • Go read Sidney Blumenthal’s piece today in Salon about the Rather suit and realize that that quote from Sumner Redstone is merely more public than the rest of these pinstriped pimps would like to be. Unfortunately, these guys do this stuff every day, they’ve done it for years, and they do so because they (mostly) do get away with it. The worst thing that ever happened to America was back 130 years ago when the Supreme Court decided corporations were “persons.” It all stems from that.

  • In other news, the highway department banned trucks that carry condoms from federal interstate highways. The Post Office banned solicitations from the Democratic National Committee and refuses to deliver them.

    Not sure how much of a joke it is. My check to Edwards, which I’d dropped off at our local PO *specifically* so it wouldn’t get lost, seems to have disappeared. I’ll wait till my checks are returned at the end of the month before I swing into total paranoia — perhaps something got mixed up at Edwards’ end — but…

  • This is a symptom of a much larger problem. Viacom and Clear Channel (which own monopolies on outdoor advertising in some areas) refused to run anti-war ads. Another billboard company with a monoply refused to run a Democratic ad that criticized a local Republican. The founders did not expect that the outlets which carry speech could be monopolized.

    By monopolizing speech, certain right-wing groups are creating consent. They are now pushing the lie that everybody supported the Iraq war — and they can get away with it because the speech that opposed it was suppressed. Is this a democracy?

  • I’m mortified to see corporate America feeling empowered enough to engage in their own capricious social engineering. It used to be that corporations would flex their social muscle when determining what to sponsor or what media to advertise in. Now they feel that they can use their business apparutus to squlech ideas, voices and opinions they don’t like.

    I blame this new attitude of corporate America on this administration’s flexibility with the rights of this nation’s citizens and the laxness of its corporate oversight. How else could a major corporation thinking they could act like a lunch counter clerk in Selma in the 50’s denying service to people whose skin color they don’t like.

  • By monopolizing speech, certain right-wing groups are creating consent. They are now pushing the lie that everybody supported the Iraq war — and they can get away with it because the speech that opposed it was suppressed. Is this a democracy?

    So long as war continues to be profitable, you can expect this sort of ‘democracy.’

  • Comments are closed.