Let me tell you a quick story.

Back in 2008, a video of Tom Cruise talking about Scientology hit the Internet. It was a sensation when it broke, because, frankly, Tom comes off a bit nutty in the video. Also, because Scientology works hard to keep its secrets, and the video was inside information on Scientology, gone viral.

The leaders of the Church of Scientology had a big old hissy fit over the video, and sicced their lawyers on pretty much anyone who would hold still long enough. The notorious Internet pranksters known as 4chan took exception to Scientology’s tactics, and launched one of their infamous raids against Scientology. The raids eventually morphed into a sincere protest group known both as Anonymous, and, somewhat less famously, Project Chanology.

James Agle

I’d say the real question is can we establish that access to information be something as protected as other forms of free speech? Do we have a right to hear free speech as well as a right to speak freely? The flip side of that question is this – can we be said to be speaking freely, if access to what we’re saying online is limited?

Thanks to the protests, and the publicity they brought to the Church of Scientology, the Church is facing a lot of legal trouble, and is having a much harder time keeping their secrets. (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4.)

So, that’s the story. Now, I want you to play a little game of “What If?” with me.

Let’s pretend that Net Neutrality never existed. Let’s pretend that, instead of issuing a billion cease and desist orders when the Tom Cruise video broke, the Church of Scientology instead used its considerable wealth to pay ISPs to make sure you never saw that video. Scientology brokers a deal with, say, Time Warner Cable, Comcast, Charter, and maybe a few other of the Big Boys of cable Internet access to make sure it’s incredibly difficult to access any information about the Church of Scientology except for their official website.

Now how do you find out about the Church’s tax shenanigans? Or about Lisa McPherson’s wrongful death, and the horrors Scientology allegedly inflicts upon its other members? Do you rely on the media to tell you? Because, and I hate to bash my own field, here, but the media wasn’t doing a very good job of getting the word out on those events prior to the publicity sensation that is Project Chanology. In fact, outside of the Internet, the media was kind of late to the party on the Scientology story.

Phillip Toynton

… the corporations who actually provide our content could be controlling what streaming service we use, what news sites we have access to, even what online newspaper we have access to. Instead of looking at the local online version of the newspaper, you could be forced to look at one of the subsidiaries of NBC, or if you wanted to watch something from Hulu, they could stop that and make you watch something from some new site that they will purchase or create.

Okay, forget Scientology. I’m no fan of their “Church,” but maybe you don’t care that much about Scientology. You know about Dell computers, right? They’ve got a pretty good reputation for their computers and service these days, right? Do you remember when that wasn’t the case? This was years ago, now, but you might remember Dell Hell. One man with a blog had a bad experience with his Dell computer, and their (complete lack of) customer service, and took to the Internet. Jeff Jarvis, and the people who congregated at his blog, changed how an entire company did business, just by making themselves heard on the Internet.

Dell was forced to address Jarvis’ concerns in a public forum, was held accountable for their piss-poor computers and service, and were forced to redress Jarvis’ grievances and change how they did business, for the better.

What if, instead, Dell just made sure people never saw that blog?

Kaci Agle

I think it’s wrong for an ISP to favor certain content, selling sister-company content, or even same-company content. It could be worse, too. They could limit the availability of ISP-criticizers by making it painfully slow to load their trouble-making blogs.

What it comes down to, folks, is that democracy is based on the free flow of information. That’s why we have a First Amendment. The Founding Fathers (being newspaper and publication owners, themselves) believed that having an informed citizenry was crucial to the precepts of democracy, and that providing protections to ensure a free flow of information was vital to maintaining an informed citizenry. And, although there’s plenty of mindless entertainment available on the Internet, first, and foremost, the Internet is about providing information. Allowing corporations to have control over what information you see, no matter what the medium, is a bad plan.

That’s why it’s so terribly important that we maintain net neutrality. We can’t allow any corporation to control what kind of information we’re able to receive. Liberals, what if one day, Comcast decides it supports the Tea Party, and you find you can no longer view information about liberal causes over your Internet connection? Tea Partiers, what happens if Comcast decides they support liberals?

Call your Senators and representatives. Get involved. Help protect our right to be informed.

Net Neutrality logo from Wikimedia Commons. All other photos used with permission.