Verizon, in About-Face, Lets Abortion Group Send Messages

By Adam Liptak

Saying it had the right to block “controversial or unsavory” text messages, Verizon Wireless rejected a request last week from Naral Pro-Choice America, an abortion rights group, to make Verizon’s mobile network available for a text-message program.

But the company reversed itself Thursday, saying it had made a mistake.

“The decision to not allow text messaging on an important, though sensitive, public policy issue was incorrect, and we have fixed the process that led to this isolated incident,” Jeffrey Nelson, a company spokesman, said in a statement.

“It was an incorrect interpretation of a dusty internal policy,” Nelson said. “That policy, developed before text-messaging protections such as spam filters adequately protected customers from unwanted messages, was designed to ward against communications such as anonymous hate messaging and adult materials sent to children.”

Nelson noted that text messaging was “harnessed by organizations and individuals communicating their diverse opinions about issues and topics” and said Verizon had “great respect for this free flow of ideas.”

Other leading wireless carriers had accepted the Naral program, which allows people to sign up for text messages from Naral by sending a message to a five-digit number known as a short code.

Text messaging is a growing political tool in the United States and a dominant one abroad, and such sign-up programs are used by many political candidates and advocacy groups to send updates to supporters.

But legal experts have said private companies like Verizon probably had the legal right to decide what messages to carry. The laws that forbid common carriers from interfering with voice transmissions on ordinary phone lines do not apply to text messages.

In reversing course Thursday, Verizon did not surrender the power to block messages it deemed inappropriate.

The dispute over the Naral messages was a skirmish in the larger battle over the question of “net neutrality” – the issue of whether carriers or Internet service providers should have a voice in the content they provide to customers.

“This is right at the heart of the problem,” said Susan Crawford, a visiting professor at the University of Michigan law school . “The fact that wireless companies can choose to discriminate is very troubling.”

In initially turning down the program, Verizon, one of the two largest U.S. wireless carriers, told Naral that it did not accept programs from any group “that seeks to promote an agenda or distribute content that, in its discretion, may be seen as controversial or unsavory to any of our users.” Naral provided copies of its communications with Verizon to The New York Times.

Nancy Keenan, Naral’s president, said Verizon’s initial decision interfered with political speech and activism.

“No company should be allowed to censor the message we want to send to people who have asked us to send it to them,” Keenan said. “Regardless of people’s political views, Verizon customers should decide what action to take on their phones. Why does Verizon get to make that choice for them?”

Originally published by The New York Times Media Group.

(c) 2007 International Herald Tribune. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.