End to end and the First Amendment
If the end to end argument suggests that no lower layer should discriminate against the ones above it, and the First Amendment suggests that no state actor should discriminate against the speech of an individual (except when that speech is illegal), then isn't there an argument that the two are on a continuum?
After all, “speech” at the lowest levels of the protocol stack is pure action — “send this along.” In the US we feel that speech should be protected from state intervention. When we're legislating about communications networks, should we try to enshrine the end-to-end argument in statutory texts? We could see ourselves as extending the idea behind the First Amendment to protect fundamental communications from being interrupted by anyone, including but not limited to state actors.
Or would it be futile to legislate end-to-end? We might end up drafting tech mandates that limit companies in what services they can offer — not a very attractive option.