Verizon Makes An Interesting Call
The New York Times reported yesterday that Verizon 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. ”
In turning down the program, Verizon, one of the nation’s two largest wireless carriers, told Naral that it does not accept programs from any group “that seeks to promote an agenda or distribute content that, in its discretion, may be seen as controversial or unsavory to any of our users.” Naral provided copies of its communications with Verizon to The New York Times.
Considering the fact that I’m stringently pro-life, you would think that I would applaud this decision. And yet I find that it leaves me troubled.
Legally, Verizon should have the right to do this as a private entity. But I have this nagging feeling that in so doing, they set a precedent for other censorship of private messages, and that’s something I don’t like the sound of, because eventually, it will be the messages that matter to me.
NARAL’s program is opt-in only, not text message spam. Users who want to receive updates from them can do so by signing up. This is communication that I’d love to see disappear because it’s for an evil cause. I would not, however, trust a corporate entity like Verizon to make such a decision on who to censor and when. A pro-life update could just as easily be stifled by this rationale.
I view this as comparable to Verizon listening in on my phone calls and deciding whether what I’m saying is appropriate. I recognize that there is a difference in that NARAL’s program targets a large distribution list, but the fact that it’s opt-in rather than opt-out means that only those who have asked for the communication receive it.
This segues into the issue of net neutrality, something I’m an advocate of. The power of the Internet (and telecom networks) lies in the freedom they offer in the exchange of information. Restricted access, multi-level pricing structures, and censorship of private message correspondence by providers is not welcome.
There are of course exceptions. Criminal activity should be dealt with if detected. Some will likely argue that since abortion is a moral evil, it’s legal status as non-criminal is irrelevant and it should be treated for what it is. On a certain level, I agree with this assessment, but I become increasingly convinced that we have to be careful with these legal distinctions. While an immoral law is no law at all, the fact that the government sees abortion as legal means that speech about abortion is legal. In order to protect our own right to speak against abortion, it seems wise to grant that it has legal status while working fervently to change the law, and the thinking that is behind it.
To me, that means these messages should be allowed through.
Lately I’ve been giving more thought to these principles, particularly as I evaluate the legality of our actions as individuals or as a nation in relation to our moral position on various issues. We may, for example, morally and emotionally desire that the Constitution be amended to protect human life from conception. But we must, through an examination of jurisprudence, recognize that amending the Constitution without a grave reason weakens it as a whole and sets a precedent for changing it according to popular ideology. Considering that the founding documents of this nation guarantee the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, the correct action to take is (as Ron Paul has attempted to do in Congress) define “life” as beginning at conception. Then the framework is preserved and only the application and understanding of the law is changed.
There’s an exchange that comes often to mind, and I’ve cited it elsewhere, and it’s the memorable one that takes place between Sir Thomas More and the young William Roper in A Man for All Seasons:
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!
Filed under: Controversy, Interesting Stuff
Criminal activity should be dealt with if detected.
But even in the case of criminal acitivity, it is not prior censorship, but punishment after the fact.
Censorship is not an evil just because it is censorship, this is an American Idea that is not a Catholic one. We have a right to spread truth but not error. If they ban the spreading of evil even at the cost of spreading prolife messages then so be it, it is better that way then to be complicant in evil. Companies have a right and obligation to foster the truth/good.
Furthermore one should not be afraid to weaken the constitution, because it is percieved by those who believe that a ‘right to life’ exists in there, because it has been denied for the past 30 years. The Law that serves the devil is no law to follow. The Man for all seasons great movie/play that it is was written by an agnostic. Beware of natural prudence vs supernatural prudence they are not the same thing at all.
Matt,
I don’t disagree with you that in principle censorship is not the evil this culture makes it out to be. That said, the first amendment protection is, I think, an important one, considering that we DO live in America and not a Catholic Culture. If a competent authority like the Church wants to employ censorship, it’s an entirely different thing than if a money-grubbing corporation or the federal government wants to.
It’s my opinion that precisely because this isn’t a Catholic nation, our best defense against the encroaching evils of modernism and secularism is a strict constitutionalist political philosophy. The Constitution is far from perfect, but it better enshrines and protects liberties and rights compatible with Catholic belief than just about anything being offered by government leaders today.
If you want to argue for a change in government, that’s one thing. But as long as we have the government we’re stuck with, I think safeguarding its principles and founding documents as closely as possible affords us a more ethical way of conducting national affairs.
If we fall pray to constitutional deconstructionism, judicial activism, etc., but ONLY when it suits our purposes, we are reinforcing the ends-justify-the-means philosophies that the liberals want to use to reshape this nation in their own image.
This is why the strongest Catholics in politics and judicial life (guys like justices Scalia and Thomas and others like Pat Buchanan) are constitutionalists. They recognize that hiding behind the provisions built into our government by the founding fathers is the LAST hope we have for preserving any semblance of a pro-life, Christian culture.
It is for this reason that I don’t like Verizon’s move. The freedom of speech is protected here, even if it isn’t a God-given right in Catholic political philosophy. In our case, that makes it a weapon we can use against the forces of cultural perversion. We’re seeing dangerous shifts toward totalitarianism in this country, and it’s coming from the positions of power - corporations and the federal government.
I think that unless we want to wind up in “V for Vendetta” world, we need to be willing to engage in some advocy of rights that would not likely exist absolutely in Catholic monarchy,.
I dunno, I do think private organizations have the right to decide who uses there services for what. this is not against the constitution in any way. I have a bigger problem with a third party saying that they can tell you/ your business what to say/do. If verizon wanted to say that no pro-life text newsletter or whatever can’t use there services, fine they have the right to do so, and we have the right or duty to tell them to go to hell we are using T-mobile, Sprint or whatever, or simply demand that they let us as customers promote what we think is right, but they have the freedom to deny or accept. I think it is a bigger infringment of “free speech” to say what a company can or cannot allow. This is not judical activism this is the right of a company to decide what is in there best interest. If the murdering horde whats to start there own phone company and promote slaughter fine, with the current laws they are allowed to do so. I understand that laws in a country should be consistant, I have always thought that you should act in accord with what you say you believe, that laws should be consistant to what the constitution says is true, but insofar as they fail to acheive God’s law the must be amended.
Matt,
I agree that private institutions have that right. In one sense I’m grateful that Verizon has made this decision. I’m just not entirely sure that it’s a wise policy. I’m looking at this as one part of an aggregated whole, and I’m trying to figure out which way our culture is moving on these issues.
I think the underlying problem is that Verizon’s choice is one that seems not to be based in any ethical or moral concern, but rather in financial expediency. If they had come out and said “We believe that abortion is a moral evil, and for that reason we will not allow the use of our network to propagate this message” I would be all for it.
They aren’t doing that, however. It’s simply controversial, and they’re worried about scaring off customers. It’s a money issue. And while money issues have their place, they don’t lead to good decision making or loyalty to principles in the long term.
A client I work with faces a dilemma not entirely unlike this. They sponsor some “gay pride” activities, but they go out of their way to make sure that no promotion or advertising of this activity takes place. It’s wanting to have your cake and eat it too - to generate goodwill in the homosexual community while simultaneously not doing damage to a family friendly image. Eventually, this dichotomy breaks down.
So I’m with you - Verizon has the right to make this decision, and I think that right should be protected. I think more than anything I’m quetioning their motives for this, and how it ties into a larger picture of a culture increasingly willing to invade privacy for the popular conception of a common good - a perception that changes according to who is in power.