LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY shapeshft)

I found this recent article very disturbing in that private communications companies can and apparently have prevented groups they don't agree with from communicating with their members. The end of the article puts the issue this way:

In a sense, the Verizon episode raises questions about what can happen when companies allow corporate ideology to influence the services they provide. What's to stop other telecom companies from censoring materials they deem offensive or simply disagree with?

"This doesn't violate the 1st Amendment because it involves private entities," said Marvin Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "But it certainly violates the spirit of the 1st Amendment."

Now, in this case, Verizon changed its mind, apologized, and let Naral communicate with its pro-choice members, but geez, doing this in the first place sounds extremely heavy-handed and dominionist to me.

I use Verizon for internet and phone, and would hate to think my money might support this kind of behavior. Any thoughts?

[Postscript] Or as Brett suggested, is it more likely that they are bowing to dominionist pressure? Why did they do this in the first place?