No, that is incorrect, you do not need laws to protect "freedom of speech". In fact it is very easy to go from a law that "protects" freedom of speech to one which limits it. E.g. You can say whatever you want as long as...
The net neutrality issue is largely due to government granted monopolies and subsidies during the internet revolution era of the dotcom days. Now you have to content with monoliths and a very high barrier to entry by competition.
Oh the irony of this comment given that the very first amendment to the US constitution is a law protecting "freedom of speech". You know, the one that everyone talks about being so important and necessary for the American way of life.
>the very first amendment to the US constitution is a law protecting "freedom of speech"
The same constitution that is regularly ignored and shit on as part of standard practice?
The constitution doesn't mean anything if the government doesn't follow it.
We also don't need a government to tell us we have free speech on the internet; we have that by default. The only thing governments have the power to do on the internet is damage free speech (which they have done with great consistency).
The net neutrality issue is largely due to government granted monopolies and subsidies during the internet revolution era of the dotcom days. Now you have to content with monoliths and a very high barrier to entry by competition.