Hacker News Reader

Comment by kingbirdy | Hacker News Reader

Your constitutional protections are protections from the government, not businesses.

This isn't necessarily true. E.g. the fourth amendment applies, according to precedent, to communications service providers in at least some capacity.

In their capacity as agents of the government.

Is the line a bit fuzzy though because most ISPs in the US are government-sanctioned monopolies?

Are you sure?

No, that's why I'm asking...

Not every question on the internet is a thinly veiled attempt to make a statement!

I find this unique trait of the Internet tiresome at times. I’d prefer not to feel like I have to include a disclaimer on a question comment to avoid coming off hostile.

C'mon man, there's no voice-tone in text!

;-)

I meant the bit that most ISPs are government sanctioned monopolies. I thought you were stating that as fact, within your larger question.

Seems unlikely. Almost all of those examples are things you can do without Internet access at all, using phone or snail mail. (The one exception is running an online business, but AFAIK that is not specifically constitutionally protected.)

You can also get Internet access through other means, even if it's less convenient and/or more expensive. There might be a government-sanctioned monopoly on cable, but at least around here, there's also DSL, satellite, cellular data, dial-up, and even third-party fiber. Granted, not every place has all those options, but you'd be hard-pressed to find a place in the US where you can't access at least one.

But in this case they were blocked due to government regulation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com