If you've been reading the posts here at the Action Network, you're no doubt aware of the looming threat to free speech posed by powerful phone companies. First it was AT&T censoring political speech during the live web cast of a Pearl Jam concert. Next we learned about Verizon's attempt to block text messages from national pro-choice group Naral.

A pattern of abuse has emerged -- and it's time for Congress to determine whether free speech should be protected wherever it happens -- on the Internt, cell phones, everywhere.

This issue became ever more urgent over the weekend, after we found unsettling clauses lurking in the fine print of Verizon and AT&T's customer agreements. These censorship clauses give them the power to boot off the Internet anyone who is critical of the companies.

That's right. If you want “your world delivered,” you better play nice with the phone companies. That means no speaking out of turn against AT&T and Verizon’s slow services, high prices or anti-competitive practices.

Speak out for Net Neutrality and you could find your self on the wrong side of the digital divide.
Losing an Internet connection would hit especially hard those millions
of Americans in markets where the phone company is the only Internet
service in town.

I wrote more about this here. But the point is this: As more and more of our communications occur in digital formats, it’s time
we Americans stood up to safeguard free speech in new media with the passion
that we fight for it in old.

Verizon finally responded via their "Verizon Policy Blog" with the usual non-denial denial. Company flack John 'CZ' Czwartacki wrote: "We’re not aware that this provision has ever been invoked for any reason."

If it's of no use then why isn't the company striking its censorship clauses from it's agreements? I wondered.

So I wrote Czwartacki via their blog, but in keeping with their gatekeeping tendencies Verizon will "moderate" my comment before it's posted. In case I don't make the cut, here's what I asked:

"John. It's become clear that Verizon is a bad steward of free speech. The fact that my comment here will be 'moderated' is yet further evidence of that. My question for you is this: If a phone company can't police what its customers say on a phone call, then why should it be able to police what they say in a text message, an e-mail, a blog or anywhere else? Verizon's terms of service agreements give it ultimate authority over speech on most all of its digital media. Shouldn't free speech -- everywhere -- be protected by law?"

Let's see what Verizon has to say about that, if anything.