<i>All</i> privacy constraints violate free speech. HIPAA? Free speech violation. Banking privacy/secrecy regulations? Free speech violation. Protecting the identity of crime victims? Free speech violation.<p>For that matter, laws against slander? Free speech violation. Laws against false accusation? Free speech violation. Laws against false advertising? Free speech violation. Laws against filing false tax returns? Free speech violation. Laws against perjury? Free speech violation.<p>So, if free speech is your only lens through which you view the legal system, there are a <i>lot</i> of free speech violations that are currently (and correctly) encoded into law. Privacy violations are one major area. So this violates the ISPs free speech, in order to protect their customers' privacy? Sounds perfectly fine (and normal) to me...
The real headline should be that government agencies in the US are too addicted to getting easy data from ISPs via nearly due-processless administrative subpoena (or just by asking) to prosecute their unlawful wiretaps for what they are (e.g. 18 U.S. Code § 2511 federally, various laws at state level), so instead are wasting time and money twiddling around the edges and trying to restrict the selling instead of doing anything that would endanger the collection.
I am not a lawyer but the argument in the lawsuit does not look compelling, insofar as the Register describes it. This seems like a tactic to tie up enforcement while the plaintiffs lobby for more favorable laws in Maine and elsewhere.
the other thread on this subject <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22375269" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22375269</a>
A bit of a clickbaity HN link. Full article headline: "Forcing us to get consent before selling browser histories violates our free speech, US ISPs claim". And subhead: "That ain't the way life should be, Maine responds".