Net Neutrality and Free Speech: Issue More Complicated Than You Might Think

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Most of us likely think we understand what the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution actually means. Most of us might be surprised at how complicated the matter has proven to be. It comes as no surprise that there is vociferous debate about what speech is, what a "speaker" is and whose speech is to be protected.

Among the issues jurists and courts have had to wrestle with are "whose" rights of speech are protected. Originally, it was the rather narrow right of political speech, a right possessed by the speaker, that was protected. Over time, though, there have been refinements or travesties, depending on one's point of view.

The classic example is free speech restrictions based on time or place, for example. There is no constitutional fight to "yell fire in a crowded theater," settting off a panic.

Over time, courts have had to grapple with what a "speaker" is. Under the law, a corporation, for example, is a "person." Does a person have the right of free speech?

Over time, the definition of "speech" has widened, and now is a mix of the rights of the speaker and the "rights" of the listener.

To the extent that network neutrality touches off yet another round of debates about how the right of free speech applies, we likely will find serious debate yet again. It's a lot more complicated than most of us might think.