Verizon Flip Flops on NARAL Text Messaging

  • Thread starter Thread starter PoliSciProf
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PoliSciProf

Guest
The New York Times reported on 9/27/07 that Verizon was not allowing NARAL pro-choice text messaging as a matter of internal policy. The Times on-line issue reported on the same day that Verizon reversed itself and will permit pro-choice text messages (see link below). While I prefer the first decision for moral reasons obvious to most CAF members, in practice I think the reversal was correct for practical reasons. It is much more likely that pro-life messages would be banned than pro-choice positions would be if private new technology companies could make this decision. Advocating “choice” always sounds more morally neutral in our times than arguments from morality or natural law, etc. I would accept permitting NARAL to text message if banning these would mean Pro-Life messages would also be banned as a matter of policy. The Pro-Life side needs to use the new technologies and to do so effectively. This is quite a complicated issue. I am posting a poll and invite your thoughts and comments. Perhaps this thread should be moved to a forum other than secular news and, of course, I trust CAF will do so if appropriate.

nytimes.com/2007/09/27/bu…hp&oref=slogin
 
As long as this is a subscription use only then it should not be banned. OTOH if just one message is sent to someone that did not request it then they should be taken to court. Remember the messages sent can be monitored and probably are for content. There is not expectation of privacy when using a cell phone tower.
 
I believe Verizon has just as much of a right to ban text messages that advocate abortion as they do to ban text messages which advocate racial hatred or any other such thing.

At least Verizon made some attempt to prohibit this sort of abuse of their network before caving to the pressure. Somebody in there is pro-Life. Still, it’s too bad they didn’t go further to take a stand against abortion.
 
PoliSciProf said:
While I prefer the first decision for moral reasons obvious to most CAF members, in practice I think the reversal was correct for practical reasons. It is much more likely that pro-life messages would be banned than pro-choice positions would be if private new technology companies could make this decision. Advocating “choice” always sounds more morally neutral in our times than arguments from morality or natural law, etc. I would accept permitting NARAL to text message if banning these would mean Pro-Life messages would also be banned as a matter of policy.

nytimes.com/2007/09/27/bu…hp&oref=slogin
Click to expand...
I disagree with the bolded phrase above. More people are pro-Life than we ever hear about. And even beyond that, I think the companies CAN in fact make these decisions. It is not a matter of giving equal treatment to the pro-choice and pro-Life activists in a private company. What law says that a company cannot make a moral decision in its policies?

We have to resist letting these issues be framed by culture and current trends in the courts and keep in mind the moral reality. Let’s not get defeatist and give away rights which we have not yet legally lost. A strong-minded pro-Life person (or company) who is convinced of his position and can back it up with reasoned arguments stands an excellent chance of leading many others to see the sense of his position and inspire them to follow him. If he has to challenge some unjust law and fight to correct that law to eventually succeed, so much the better.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top