I'll quickly answer myself, here:
On the one hand, my classical liberal (aka "libertarian", with a little-l) principles advocate against any statute that does not solely and explicitly enforce the sole valid function of government: protection from coercion. In my own mind, I should be opposed to the very statute I'm bring for consideration.
On the other hand, I am not opposed to temporary "bridge" legislation which acts to transition a governed society toward liberty. I favor so-called "net neutrality" legislation, not because I think any such legislation is proper, other things being equal, but because the government does enact de facto monopolies (or, at least, restricted economic participation) in the public utilities which constitute and provide access to the internet. Should such legislation be valid? Absolutely not. Given the circumstances we actually exist in, is it beneficial toward liberty, as long as it exists only so long as valid? I am inclined to think so.
There are dictates of principle that argue against the legislation I raise for consideration in this thread. I also think there are compelling realities that might temporarily justify it. What do you think?