“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

It says nothing about private entities such as AT&T limiting use of their private assets, like broadband last mile networks, they lease to customers. Provision (c) of this document is broad for reason that it gives greater discretion to AT&T to apply it. It is far more likely they will enforce in cases such as child exploitation and spammers. Sure, they could cut off a user who dispariges them on a web forum, but is that really a wise business decision? Do you you really think that is going to be a systematic buisness practice. AT&T has done plenty to cut of its nose to spite its face, but its quite a stretch to believe that management go so far to pursue an fatally flawed startegy to quiet disent,. If for some crazy reason it does, the marketplace will cause its more harm than ant lawsuit would.

The purpose of the new ToS is to shore up its ability to terminate subscribers who damage their business though activity abhorant to the general Internet using public, in addition to specifically targetin Intellectual Property “theives”; which is a threat to their next growth engine.

NO! Not when it interferes with other people’s freedom of speech!

That is my point. If every company was allowed to “control” what was said about them, you would have a lot more lawsuits going on against people who “badmouthed” their company!

“AT&T may immediately terminate or suspend all or a portion of your Service, any Member ID, electronic mail address, IP address, Universal Resource Locator or domain name used by you, without notice, for conduct that AT&T believes (a) violates the Acceptable Use Policy; (b) constitutes a violation of any law, regulation or tariff (including, without limitation, copyright and intellectual property laws) or a violation of these TOS, or any applicable policies or guidelines, or (c) tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries.”

Every one seems to be focused on the potential for censorship implied by Provision (c). I doubt AT&T will enforce random acts of free speech that cast it in a negative light, such activity would be difficult to withstand public pressure, regardless of regulation. Rather the clause is intended as a reservation of rights for action against systematic or grander attempts at defemtion facilitated on its own network.

What I thought would really light this board on fire is Provision (b); which which broadly covers violations of law, regulation, or tariff, but ALSO [i]expressly[/i] singles out ‘copyright and intellectual property laws’. . IMHO, this signals the initiation of brave new world with AT&T proactively joining the battle over IP piracy on the side of rights holders. The initial push will be to deter piracy amongst the masses, so you powerusing ssh encryption minded 1337 types, will find a way to get your fix on prerelease content, but Joe Sixpack downloader will be ‘redirected’ to an ‘alternative’: start buying your music, movies, etc… from U-verse or else you will see the dark side of the ToS. However such precedent will start a juggernaught down the slippery slope right at you.

They have owned access for over 100 years and will do so for the next 100 and beyond. He who possesses the most bucket trucks wins!

“Thank you devil’s advocate for informing the idiot However, I do hope the FCC will attempt to do something about this… Until socialized internet access is implemented, the private carriers do need a bit of oversight.”

Thank YOU for showing people what a DUMB FUCK YOU ARE!

This clearly violates the first amendment…otherwise…what if your grocer could sue you for just saying something bad about them?

Forget the fact that they may have had a bad checker give you horrible service or a manager that was a complete ass to you or prices that were outragous.

In the same way, people having their accounts cut off for just badmouthing AT&T will not hold up in a court of law. People have a right to say what they want as long as it is not slander. Simply badmouthing AT&T is not coinsidered slander and therefore would not hold up in a court of law. Period.

If you use for example my backyard for a picnic and you start calling me names I can toss you out of it: your free speech rights doesn’t mean I must accept that you use/occupy my property to damage my name/reputation or that of my 16 year old daughter!

Same goes for AT&T. They have no legal obligation to provide you with the means to do stuff that harms them.
Isn’t america anymore “land of the free/home of the brave” where 2 persons can agree to obay what ever clauses of contracts those 2 partners see fit? If you don’t like it that AT&T says we aren’t interested in providing troublemakers with the means to make trouble, you are free to choose some other ISP where you can vent about AT&T.