What was that? Tires squealing? It must be the sound of Verizon backing away from controvery at 100 miles per hour.

Early this week, Verizon’s mobile division admitted that it had blocked a series of NARAL’s pro-choice text messages to supporters. This morning’s New York Times blew up the story, include this quote from my comrade-in-arms Jed Alpert, who runs a political texting company: “[Blocking messages based on political content] is something we haven’t encountered before, that is very surprising and that we’re concerned about.” (That’s Jed’s understatement of the year.)

Then, just this morning, Verizon reversed its decision, saying “The decision to not allow text messaging on an important, though sensitive, public policy issue was incorrect.”

When I was reading the first Times story this morning on the subway — before the reversal policy hit the news — I was planning a blog post about it. This is a huge new front in the net neutrality wars. It’s a dramatic example of a corporation that controls the medium censoring the message. Sadly, since we have no net neutrality legislation in this country, Verizon was well within its legal rights to do so.

The question is, was Verizon’s quick reversal an act of good faith, or an attempt to head off a public relations debacle that might finally force net neutrality into the legislative arena? I would guess the latter. What big business wants to give up the power to control speech? If so, Verizon’s seemingly progressive reversal actually is part of a regressive strategy — maintain control of 21st century content at all costs.

If this peeves you as much as it peeves me, join the net neutrality fight at SaveTheInternet.com.