Rep. Henry Waxman Wants to Apply Censorship Doctrine to the Internet

Newsbusters ^ | 2/17/09 | Kerry Picket

[Wonder Warthog]

"That’s about hat I figured. Bluff, fold."

Excuse me, but how do you figure that? I've told you both what and where the evidence is. There's plenty of "evidence and analysis" on the threads, as is usual with Free Republic.

You too lazy to do some of your own work??

[Mojave]

I’ve even noticed FreeRepublic threads being indexed on Google with minutes of them being originally posted. It’s a pretty incredible system.

It’s been reported that their algorithms are modified constantly to improve performance and to keep ahead of SEO “gurus” trying to game the results.

[nathanbedford]

Both of you gentlemen seem to think that there is recourse to violence against 21st-century industrialized state.

Are you contemplating acts of terrorism? I put terroristic resistance in a separate category from armed revolution. I asked the question, "when it is revolution honorable?" and I would think that revolution is honorable long before terrorism could be considered honorable. In fact it is difficult to conceive of circumstances in which terrorism could be honorable. If one looks at Nazi Germany, one could argue that the entire population, in effect, supported the regime and therefore acts of terrorism against the populace was the equivalent of legitimate acts of war against the state. I can imagine the same arguments directed against the Stalinist regime.

But on the whole if you're a member of the population trying to protect the population against a tyrant, I do not see how terrorism is an honorable option.

As to the efficacy of armed resistance to the 21st-century state with all the technology available to industrialized society like the United States, a favorable outcome seems unlikely in the extreme unless there is a real lack of will at the top to act remorselessly to preserve the tyranny. I suppose one could Postulate a window in which one is tyrannical enough to take away basic constitutional liberties but not tyrannical enough to kill people to make it stick but such a state of affairs seems quite remote and theoretical.

One must however note that historical example of the Soviet Union and the East Bloc at the time of the fall of the Berlin wall and the disintegration of the Soviet Union. These came at the end of a 70 year history of failure and demoralization. I hope Americans do not have to wait 70 years to see the restoration of their liberties. Moreover, the disintegration of the Soviet Union was not accomplished by conventional armed resistance but by a general collapse. And the breaking away in the East Bloc did not occur by revolution but by massive passive non-cooperation with the government after 50 years of utter mismanagement. East Germany was almost shamed into letting the wall go.

However, can you imagine passive resistance succeeding against Stalin ? Hitler? I cannot even imagine armed conventional revolution prevailing against either one, demonstrating that if the tyrant is ruthless enough, such movements have no hope. Where revolutions have succeeded, such as against the Shah of Iran one could argue that he was not ruthless enough and not possessed of the technology necessary to suppress a whole population.

Normally, for such a revolution to prevail it must be massively supported by the population. So we have another window problem. In order for such a revolution to be a viable necessity in America we must be past the point of recovering the country by democratic means which means that the tyrant has so tightened the screws that mere Democratic will cannot prevail. Prior to that time, one needs no revolution. After that time, revolution can only prevail if the tyrant goes wobbly at the knees.

[Mojave]

You too lazy to do some of your own work??

It's your lie. You prove it.

Bluff, fold, repeat...

[Wonder Warthog]

"It's your lie. You prove it. Bluff, fold, repeat... "

Screw you, bub. I'm not going to lead you around by the nose. The evidence is there, with a sufficient reference that you can access it. If you chose to willfully ignore it, that's not "my" problem.

[paulycy]

We here at FR are already balanced.

The whole premise of FR - linking to articles from all over the net - is balanced. We "shouldn't" have problems with that.

Beyond that it seems to me that we have freedom of association on our side in terms of who we allow to post, as long as anybody cares about the constitution anymore, that is.

[Mojave]

The evidence is there

Bluff, fold, repeat...

[Wonder Warthog]

Is Michelle Malkin enough of an “analyst” to satisfy you, asshole?

http://michellemalkin.com/2005/01/10/cbs-watch-the-google-news-blackout/

Or you can go to “Dogpile” and enter “Google leans left”. As I said, there’s plenty of evidence.

[roses of sharon]

Waxman and his staff are already looking at ways to police content on the web.

WHO IS LOOKING INTO WAXMAN AND HIS STAFF?

[Mojave]

“Update: Okay, Amy Ridenour’s explanation makes sense.”

“In any case, Phil’s e-mail suggests that Google News is responsive to readers’ requests to diversify its news sources.”

You didn’t read your own link. Just as pathetic as I expected.

[SparkyBass]

So spake...

[Dead Corpse]

Read Unintended Consequences. No one is even remotely talking about "terrorizing" our Population.

Honorable? Is it honorable for a Federal Government to completely slip the bounds the Constitution places on it, with no fear of repercussions?

Ask a Branch Davidian how far the Fedgov is already prepared to go and how "honorable" they are.

[gakrak]

Sorry, but the lib meaning of fairness doctrine only relates to talk radio and now being extended to Internet. May God have mercy on us. Amen.

[MortMan]

Your allegation that WW’s statement is a lie, coupled with your refusal to look for the profferred evidence, speaks volumes to your inability to reason. Rather than look at information made accessible (with easy-to-follow instructions, no less), you posit your opinion as fact and demand that the opposing voice appease your lack of data.

Sorry, but the liberal’s favorite mind-trick is weak tea, FRiend.

[gakrak]

I agree, unlike DU which destroyed anyone who posts anything conservative. Amen

[ZeitgeistSurfer]

The shutoff of the Internet will not happen because of Waxman or any of his socialist brethren. Rather it will be in response to a “national emergency”. If you think that a financial “crisis” was one that Rahm Emmanuel said “couldn't be wasted”, just wait until a real crisis is upon us. That will be the end of our freedom and of our country. Count on it.

[Mojave]

You have no evidence.

[MortMan]

That is your opinion. At least I have sense.

[Mojave]

Right, you also have some secret evidence you won’t reveal because, er, uh, something or other...

Bluff and fold. Too.

[MortMan]

When someone gives you a book, do they have to read it out loud to you? (At least those that aren’t all pictures?)