Net Neutrality and the Pope

The recent reactions to the Pope's speech to German professors and the Senate's debate on Net Neutrality illuminate today's fragile state of free speech.

There is a fundamental assumption made by citizens of free democracies: we are allowed freedom of speech at any time in any application. Limiting access to information by any means--federal regulation or fear--thwarts the fundamental basis of free societies.

Is it a far stretch to compare senate legislation to extremists' activity? Maybe, but both actions work to limit what we say, what we read, in essence, what we believe.

Fundamentalists believe critisim of their faith is prohibited, even in intellectual dialog. The Pope's comments were not critisism, but an invitation to acedemia to debate the contrary existence of peace and violence as believed by some in the Islamic faith. History shows us that many religious premises have been clarified or even abandoned through analysis and debate of opposing views by philosophers, acedemia and followers. Debate is integral to practice. Without debate, organized religion is stagnent, bordering on dictitorial. Fundamentalists demonstrate, "It's our way, or the highway!" Through violent means, they demand belief as they perceive it. Interpretation is prohibited. Opponents of net neutrality support the same premise, only with different methods and motivations.

Opponents of net neutrality don't threaten with fear, but with fees. Their plan provides that we be given access only to information provided by the highest bidder. Tiering usage and fees to content providers limits free access to information on the internet as we know it today. In its simpliest form, regulation impacting control of content diminishes competition, comparison and ultimately trust. Accurate interpretation of data will be impossible. We will no longer be able to judge if the information provided is neutral or complete, knowing we are limited only to content provided by those with the deepest pockets. "It's their way, or the highway." Their means are less violent, but just as threatening.

It is easy to reject extremists' overt dictitorial stance and methods; to determine that they are over-reacting to a comment taken out of context. We know the context. Yet, how are we to make similar conclusions in the future if access to information is limited; if the context of information is skewed by those who pay the highest price for access? Not only will access to information be dimished, so will intellectual debate. We will be relegated to the imposed views of the few, not exposed to the varying views of many.

Unlike the terroists, legislators are not working to limit our freedom to debate, but like the terrorists, their actions limit our capability. Limiting access to information, either through fear or fees, threatens the fundamental principle of democracy: free speech.

This is a grossly, over-simplified discussion of both issues. It's purpose, however, is not to define the issues, but to expose the common threat to free speech. It is obvious extremists are making an illigitimate claim. It is less obvious to discern the actions of our legilators who are working to limit access to information through legitimate channels. "Democracy depends on freedom of speech. Freedom of connection, with any application, to any party, is the fundamental social basis of the Internet, and, now, the society based on it."