You've got this so backwards, its not even funny.
First, the Supreme Court did not strike down any bills that Obama wanted to put in place. The US Court of Appeals ruled that the FCC does not currently have legal authority to enforce Net Neutrality. This isn't a ruling on the Constitutional validity of Net Neutrality, it is a legal ruling on what powers the FCC does/does not have.
Second, the purpose of Net Neutrality is NOT to give the Government power to regulate what web content is available to consumers. The purpose is to prevent Internet Service Providers from blocking or throttling legal, non-disruptive web content.
Net Neutrality is not a new concept, introduced by the Obama Administration. It has served as the unwritten law of the Internet since it's inception.
Fundamentally, it is an extension of the non-discrimination policies that apply to other utility industries. For example, the Electric company can price-discriminate by quantity of product use, but not the quality or purpose the product is used for. They must charge the same amount, per unit, for the electricity you consume, regardless of whether it is going to your lights or your television.
Net Neutrality seeks to impose the same regulations on Internet Service Providers. Comcast would be able to price-discriminate according to how much bandwidth/data downloaded you consume; but not charge you differing rates depending on what websites you visit.
There is NO provision in Net Neutrality to allow the Government to censor Free Speech on the Internet. If there was, you wouldn't see so many web content hosts, such as Facebook, Youtube, Google, eBay and others supporting Net Neutrality.
Net Neutrality seeks to defend the free and open exchange of ideas and goods on the Internet as it has been for the past couple decades. It is ISPs who wish to change the way the Internet works, imposing content tiering to cut an illegitimate profit off of the intellectual property of others.
Stop arguing against your own best interests. Net Neutrality is a GOOD THING for the rights of individual consumers. The only people that would be hurt by Net Neutrality are the telecom execs.
EDIT:
No, it isn't. You're buying into Big Media's distortion of the issue. Please, stop listening to Fox News, just for once; and listen to a business that happens to know a thing or two about the Internet.
Ne Neutrality According to Google:
Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet. The Internet has operated according to this neutrality principle since its earliest days... Fundamentally, net neutrality is about equal access to the Internet. In our view, the broadband carriers should not be permitted to use their market power to discriminate against competing applications or content. Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activity online.
—Guide to Net Neutrality for Google Users
EDIT 2:
What Ron Bloom thinks about Chairman Mao and the Free Market has no relevance to this discussion. You are completely distorting the true nature of Net Neutrality.
That said, if you you are really that hell-bent on opposing your own best interests when it comes to the Internet, there's not much anyone can say to convince you otherwise. I only hope that Ostriches like yourself don't wind up ruining the Internet for the rest of us who like it the way it is.