Verizon reversed this policy by 3:00 this afternoon. It's amazing what an online assault and the potential loss of profits can do to a company's position.

Right now Verizon is locked in a painful legal battle with the estate of Bob Marley over whether Verizon will be the exclusive provider of Bob Marley ringtones.

It's amazing that they could be so hypocritical as to censor NARAL pro-choice ringtones while fighting for exclusive control over Ganja Bob.

It's almost like the direct opposite of the censorship (cough) editorial policy at Salon.

Kudos to Bob Marley -- still feeding and clothing underprivileged media executives 26 years after his death.

It's amazing that they could be so hypocritical as to censor NARAL pro-choice TEXT MESSAGING while fighting for exclusive control over Ganja Bob.

is immunity from liability for permitting the NSA to use its systems to spy on Americans in purposeful violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

When I clicked on my e-mail from NARAL to send a msg to Verizon, I got a msg that Verizon backed down. So you can fact check and annotate this story.

We give a fair bit o' money to NARAL PCA each year. Still, they drive me nuts calling, quite literally, three or four times a week asking for more. I wouldn't mind my phone carrier trying to get them to stop.

And all those cell phone wallpapers of semi-nude women doused with soapy water and wearing bikinis are good, wholesome all-American fun?

Oh, right, we're only supposed to objectify women. Silly me.

NARAL sent me and activist update. In 2 hours over 20,00o verizon users called to complain and support NARAL. Verizon has backed down NARAL won! Activism works.

I guess the official at verizon beleive the anit coice rehetoric.

how conservative do you have to be to object to the on-stage mock rape of a 14 year old? is that a typo?

Wasn't Verizon one of the phone companies that complied with Bush's warrantless spy program? I know Qwest was one company that refused, but I believe Verizon agreed, no? If true, that would undermine their whole sense of priorities regarding "controversial" issues.

That's understandable. Until the 19th century, there was no telephone or telegraph.

In high school, my school paper was sued for not printing an Ad from a conservative group in town promoting abstinence. I grew up a liberal town with progressive views. We objected the agenda advertisement. In hindsight we fell right into the hands of the conservative group. They wanted the ad to be rejected, raising more press.

The bigger issue however is when does promoting free speech become a hinderance of free speech? I don't agree with Verizon's actions. The program should be supported and Verizon as a network provider should provide equal access. However there is a slippery slope. Does that mean that Verizon has no power to make informed decisions? While this case is much clearer as it was opt in to NARAL program, what about phone based advertising? Lines do get blurry.