I think a common thread that ties together the two issues—net neutrality and spam regulation—is how much the government can interfere with speech when it has a pretty good and reasonable reason for doing so. Nobody likes spam, and nobody wants their internet censored and biased in strange ways. However, from a constitutional standpoint, what does it mean if we allow government to have a say in such issues? And what dangers might this pose down the road in terms of government control of information? I want to explore each of these issues in more detail, but the common theme in my views is that despite the fact that the government has perfectly reasonable reasons for wanting to intervene, it is unwise to let it do so. Additionally, I have come up with a few alternate proposals for addressing these issues without infringing in First Amendment rights.

As for spam – I agree that spam is a big problem. However, I still object to what amounts to government censorship. Even laws which allow the dissemination of political messages but restrict commercial spam are problematic. While most people think of fraudulent spam messages that try to steal people’s money, commercial spam could just as easily be an entrepreneur who is advertising a new business he is starting, or gathering funds for a start-up. In a capitalist society in which people have free speech, why should this be banned?

Now, spam is still a problem that needs to be dealt with. Internet providers and e-mail servers, which are run by private companies, have every right to block or filter spam. The government, however, is getting involved in censorship when it does so. Can’t companies be effective enough in regulating spam without government laws? Technology permits companies to block spam, so the governmental regulations are not necessary. Even if repealing these laws would cause increased spam, and perhaps companies would not succeed in blocking it all, isn’t this inconvenience a small price to pay for preserving our First Amendment rights?

In regard to net neutrality – again, it makes sense that people should have complete access to the web, without their ISP’s interference. Again, however, what gives the government the right to influence how a private company (ISP) delivers information? In order to balance the government’s desire to ensure that ISP business biases do not influence citizen’s access to information and the concern that government should not be involved with how we receive information, I can think of two proposals, though I’m sure there are many more ways to deal with this issue. One idea would be for the government that ISPs make publicly known whether they provide net neutrality, of if they modify internet access in certain ways. That way, citizens at least know what type of service they are getting, though the government is not interfering with the spread of information. Another proposal responds to an idea brought up in the Tribe/Goldstein pieces. If the government deems that the internet is such a vital form of communication in society, and ISPs are so badly distorting access that people are not getting proper access to information, the government can think of creating its own strictly net-neutral ISP. That way it can ensure the neutrality it so highly values, but without infringing upon the rights of the ISPs and citizens. Having government-sponsored internet, of course, opens an entire new can of worms….