Counter argument to holding ISP's liable for content

It's essentially a free speech issue. Someone being cut off from the Internet greatly reduces their communication ability. It's a very bad precedent to set, it's aliken to the government trying to acquire powers to ban someone from writing on paper due to a crime that was committed. It makes no sense it should just be a fine, like a speeding ticket.

In the US you don;t have the "right" to drive a car. it is considered a privilege, in spite of the needs of your business or how far you live from public transportation (if any). Can't say I believe its a good or fair system given many smaller community's lack of any public transportation, but restricting access to a car for drunk driving convictions have been upheld time and time again.

Now the question is what constitutes a privilege and what constitutes an essential utility. The one obvious difference I can think of that is that one needs a license to drive a car. This is not true with access to the net. Question is, can we get the courts to see a data connection as a life sustaining utility )such as water, gas or electricity) to which all citizens have a fundamental right.

If you make harrassing/threatening phone calls to your ex on your home phone, you can be prosecuted. It's happened before and you've offended again. Would it be appropriate to now also remove phone service from your home? (For now, let's ignore that you'd just get out your cell phone AND that the tech exists to restrict the phone to 911 calls AND let's even have you live alone so others aren't affected/at risk.)

because it is considered a basic utility which can be critical in life or death emergencies. You can still be prosecuted and punished for harassing others but I do not believe the law can forbid you from having phone service. Nor could they cut off your electricity, gas, or water services for crimes committed using these resources.

if you don't pay the bills. As for life and death, they won't shutoff your gas in the winter but they will in the spring and they don't come and turn it back on when winter comes around again. Why can't they turn such things off for a crime as well? (Tho I'm having trouble coming up with a crime involving your home's water!)

Could even make a case that not having a car could sometimes be life and death.

BTW--I'm actually not advocating any of this! And haven't heard of it happening--just interesting exploring all the corners.

and even there are checks in place to make sure these utilities are not cut off too hastily. You have to really screw up and not pay for several months before most utilities can be cut off (longer in some states with extra regulation). If you think any of these utilities can be cut off by court order because one has been convicted of a crime I'd like to see an example because I know of not one case where this has happened.

And this exactly is the cruz of the argument about cutting off internet connectivity. Is it a utility or not?

"And this exactly is the cruz of the argument about cutting off internet connectivity. Is it a utility or not?"

That's why I tried to come up with a utility example. I think you placed this in the right context--just going on and looking at utility issues. Thing is, since there ARE situations where utilities CAN be shut off, I think that proves they are not a "right" or life and death as some seem to be saying. We no longer allow people to be put in prison for their debts--I would hope we, therefore, don't allow them to be deprived of "a life sustaining utility" for the same reason!

And, I did say I have never heard of anyone having a utility cut off for a crime. So I don't have any examples. I'm totally NOT advocating that this be done. Just trying to anticipate the arguments.

means it must be free. But the fact that a utility can be turned off for non-payment does not mean that a court has a right to forbid you access to that utility.