I am not a lawyer, so I pose this question:
Assuming that the COPE bill passes the Senate without provisions for maintaining net neutrality, could an injunction be granted to keep the bill from being enacted until it is found unconstitutional? Could an argument not be made that, without provisions for net neutrality, the bill would violate the First Amendment?
No no, not that part (though a freedom-of-speech argument could be made as well)-- I'm talking about freedom of the press. More below.
In support of the case, first there are court rulings wherein citizen-journalists are afforded the same rights as traditional journalist, such as those kos has pointed out
here and
here. Further, throw in the internet-only or internet-primary media sources that may be impacted by the ruling (Raw Story comes to mind, and dKos could be added to that mix as well), as well as traditional media organizations with an internet presence (such as the New York Times).
Now, my basic argument is that, if this law were to be enacted, the telcos who would get to control the access to content would be able to deny access to internet media outlets-- and not just to citizen-journalists' blogs. I can imagine a capricious or vindictive telco slowing or cutting off access to the Washington Post, even as a form of blackmail ("print something favorable to us or see access to your site disappear"). Such a scenario would seem to be in direct contradiction to "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom... of the press...."
So here's the $64,000 question for all the lawyers and law junkies in the audience: would such a course of action using these arguments be viable, plausible, or even possible?