More Muni Allies Say O'Rielly Public ISP Concerns Off-Base; Others Share Worries

of a municipal broadband network infringing on anyone’s freedom of speech," said Executive Director Deb Socia of the Next Century Cities group of communities including Austin, Baltimore, Boston, Honolulu, Los Angeles and San Francisco. "Local government officials have a Constitutional obligation to uphold free speech." Others we surveyed also couldn't think of an instance of a public ISP infringing on citizens' First Amendment rights. Baller Stokes President Jim Baller, whose law firm represents local interests, told us he disagrees "with most of Commissioner O’Rielly’s arguments." Others agreed with the commissioner. As they are government-run entities, First Amendment curbs on limiting speech "would likely apply to municipally owned broadband networks," emailed American Legislative Exchange Council Communications and Technology Task Force Director Jonathon Hauenschild. "They would likely face lawsuits and find their terms of service heavily questioned by federal courts." Other than sometimes public ISPs in unserved areas, generally, "such services should not be offered by government in competition with private sector providers," ALEC recommends. O'Rielly is rightly "concerned that muni broadband networks could get into the business of censorship by imposing speech codes that prohibit speech deemed 'impermissible' by local governments," emailed Richard Kaplar of The Media Institute. "The First Amendment protects against such censorship at all levels of government." The institute, which Friday said Kaplar advanced to president-CEO (see personals section), is where the commissioner gave his earlier speech opposing muni broadband that drew opposition, prompting his response in Thursday's blog. NCTA and USTelecom declined to comment Friday.