net neutrality protest artifact

Protest Artifact

The rhetorical approaches of the net neutrality movement have been laid out and explained through the clarification of two prominent identities, large and small businesses concerned with the conservation of a neutral Internet in order to ensure a free marketplace, and activist groups concerned with the problems an unprotected Internet would impose on civil liberties. Although the identities seem clearly different, the combined efforts imply that a shared goal mobilized each of them in a cooperative manner, which leads to a conclusion that together they shared a set of standards and values, creating a larger framework for the way the identity behind this movement should defined. This redefinition of the boundaries of identity will facilitate the argument that the participants of this protest operated under one all encompassing collective identity. This newly established concept of identity will then directly influence the analysis of the chosen protest movement artifact, a petition signed and sent directly to the White House, which was only one of many petitions in the larger movement.

The reformation of the movements identity is best applied to the idea that the movements players did not solely operate as defenders of open economic opportunities, or of open information channels, but as defenders of the American identity and principles. Deborah J. Schildkraut published a study in the Journal of Politics, where fundamental traits of what constitutes an American identity in the 21st century are listed. The most applicable trait to this protest movement is the concept of American liberalism, “liberalism, in short, is the image of America that comes most easily to mind when people think about what it means to be American...it stresses minimal government intervention in private life and promotes economic and political freedoms along with equality of opportunity,” (Schildkraut). The larger collective identity of “American” incorporates the concerns of the smaller groups, as well as the obvious fact that the movement is concerned with a domestic issue that would affect the American way of life. This concern over the conservation of all three issues, economic freedom, political freedom, and equality, ties directly into the petition sent to the White House insisting the FCC change that way the Internet is classified under the Telecommunications Act, as well as the petition process as a form of protest.

On January 14, 2014 through the “We the People” platform, an intended service providing citizens with access to creating petitions directed towards the government,  a petition was started requesting, “The Obama administration to: restore net neutrality by directing the FCC to classify Internet providers as ‘common carriers’,” (“Restore Net Neutrality By Directing…”). This particular petition reached a total of 105,572 signatures before being closed. Although the amount of signatures to this petition seems relatively small, the fact that the White House’s website on net neutrality labels the petition as an important event on the 2014 net neutrality timeline, points to how large of a response it actually created in an institute of seeded power, (“Net Neutrality: A Free and Open Internet”). Although the petition was much earlier in the 2014 series of events that eventually led to the FCC ruling to regulate Internet service provider’s power, it stood as a prime example of an American way of using, what is essentially a format to vote, to state their complaints and their goals in an organized referendum.

This smaller scale petition serves as a larger stream of community activism through similar petitions, which compiled the voices of the movement into quantitative packages visible to the entirety of the population. The message of the January 14th petition was usually very similar to other petitions that were set up throughout the entire net neutrality movement, which usually all had to do with the desire to see the FCC take action to ensure an open Internet. Other websites that allow petition creation, like Change.org, hosted equally successful campaigns aimed at high power individuals, one of them being aimed Tom Wheeler the head of the FCC in 2014, that reached 99,863 signatures, (“Tom Wheeler: Save Net Neutrality”).  Other related petitions gained far more attention and signatures from the general population. In 2006 during that first ever mentions of net neutrality more than a million people signed a petition asking for the FCC to ensure an open internet, (Pickard).

The petitions as an act of protest directly coincide with the Identity of the protesters as American. Each petition stated its specific purpose, more often than not they had very similar purposes no matter what time in the net neutrality debate they were introduced. They demanded that the FCC regulate Internet service providers in order to preserve the characteristics of the Internet as they stood at the time. These characteristics of free economic pursuit, and freedom of speech were also the characteristic mentioned earlier that most Americans believed were a basic component of the American Identity.

The rhetorical situation of the petitions involve ethos, pathos and kairos in order to attain their supporters but also spread their message effectively. The ethos of this petition pertains to how the movement and its supporters are made to be trustworthy and the ethics of what is being argued. The entire movement on its own uses the American Identity as a force for ethos because it broadly blankets every citizen with its two principles stated earlier, a liberalism of economic and political rights. The patriotic implications of the movement were imbedded into the petitions in order to draw in as many concerned individuals to sign the petition and at that particular moment join the collective identity. On the other side of things, the ethos of the petitions established an authority for the contributors to the FCC and those who had the power to change legislation. The American Identity through this form of protest was displayed in a form that clearly defined its goals and supported it through the referendum, in a similar fashion to the American democratic system.

Pathos, the emotional persuasive element of the movement, was incorporated by the same principles. The petition, because of the way it was presented and its content, wanted to play on the American identity to get it to work as best as possible. Although the other forms of protest in the movement allowed individuals to share information about net neutrality, in the petition format there was an added element of giving supporters a vote. The other forms of Internet protest may have represented the American Identity as equally as the petitions, but the added emotional tie to the democratic system Americans recognize as an established way to influence issues brought in another element of persuasion to those who created the petitions to employ in their rhetorical tactics.

The interesting ways in which the petitions were hosted online, while also being easily accessible to practically everyone, allowed participants to sign from anywhere at anytime which in this case will be examined as kairos. It was the setting of the petitions, or rather the lack of actual location, that played a crucial part in the participation of the protesters. Through the online platform the petitions worked more on a national level. The geographic freedom was used very effectively, especially when the largest petitions are taken into consideration.