Law prof: What violent video game decision means for net neutrality

Insightful read:

"Even though today’s opinion is about regulations prohibiting speech rather than regulations requiring speech, it’s likely that the carriers will be able to frame the debate their way: We’d like to speak, to use all of our pipes the way we want to, without restriction. By forcing us to fairly carry speech with which we don’t want to be associated, you’re restricting our free use of our private communications medium."

. . .

"Today’s news is that the absolutist approach of the current Supreme Court to protection of speakers of all kinds – including distributors of speech – signals that the carriers will be likely to find a sympathetic ear there."