Skip to comments.POWER GRAB: FCC Commissioner Calls for Gov Run Values Test, Control Over Minority Characters
Posted on 12/15/2010 6:22:31 AM PST by Halfmanhalfamazing
POWER GRAB: FCC Commissioner Calls for Gov Run Values Test, Control Over Minority Characters, Programming & Scheduling of TV (full title)
Don’t put any on.................
Well, there goes the television industry. Bye-bye!
It’s about time. Now maybe we’ll see more white guys in the NBA.
I’ve also noticed the lack of Japanese players in the NFL and NASCAR. Maybe we could get more women into pro sports. We could mandate a merger between the Victoria’s Secret football league and the NFL.
Clicking on the site: Not found 404........
Just as long as The Professional Left will declare that they will be fine with President Palin's FCC values tests.
They are using those tv reality shows a training films.
Just put “COPS” on prime time and you’ll meet this guy’s litmus test.
Exactly!! They must not have considered, or do not believe that their rules will ever apply to them adversely if another party is in power.
Either that or they are calculating that a Republican President won't have the balls to change the rules back.
Ask yourself this question: Which Republican President do you think WOULD change the FCC rules back to where they were?
Control Over Minority Characters
Jimmy “J.J.” Walker, be glad your career is long-since over
This is net neutrality.
Yes, I know, Copps never actually uses the phrase in the video. He doesn’t even really talk about the internet.
That. Doesn’t. Matter.
If the federal government wants to control content on TV, and on radio, it’s only a footstep away to get the internet.
When we have dictators in control who are saying openly that they want to dictate, to think that they’ll only dictate TV, and Radio, but the sanctity of the internet shall not be infringed.......... is ludicrous.
Here’s the deal.
I look at Copps and I do not see the FCC commissioner. I see a revolutionary.
Same thing when I look at others who are openly stating that they’ll silence us online, on TV, and elsewhere. Mark Lloyd or Robert McChesney, or Cass Sunstein, or Elena Kagan, or a whole host of others both in and out of government who are tied to this administration are stating it openly.
I don’t see them as a Czar, or a SCOTUS judge, or a professor, or any of their ‘official’ titles.
I take them at their word. If you listen to Copps as the FCC commissioner, you won’t hear him talk about net neutrality. If you listen to him as a revolutionary, you can’t miss it.
I didn’t notice that, thanks for mentioning. Search the phraze ‘power grab’ over at the blaze:
It’s a hard thing to link because it has quotation marks in the URL.
Here is more of what Copps has said recently:
The reason is quite simple: Because he's not talking about net neutrality.
Even if he were to use the words, he would be talking about a bastardization of it. Believe it or not, the telcos like this. They like the issue of net neutrality being confused with other issues. They promote it through their lobbying and through their astroturfing. Confusing pro-freedom net neutrality with pro-censorship fairness doctrine turns people who want freedom against it.
Net neutrality is about freedom of communications, an open, unobstructed Internet. Fairness doctrine is about censorship. Not one FCC proposal, not one congressional bill for net neutrality has EVER included fairness doctrine tenets. Come back to me when one does. Until then, post to me about fairness doctrine only in relation to fairness doctrine, not net neutrality.
—————The reason is quite simple: Because he’s not talking about net neutrality.—————
He is talking about governmental controls over content and using TV as an example. Net Neutrality is a part of the total package. These revolutionaries can’t let us freely speak anywhere. What would be the point of controlling radio and TV without net neutrality? It would be worthless. They have to control it all, otherwise their schemes do not work.
-————Even if he were to use the words, he would be talking about a bastardization of it. ——————
No, he would be talking about the modern version of net neutrality. Very few people even remember the old version of net neutrality.
When these revolutionaries talk about “net neutrality”, what I hear is “the neutrality doctrine”, because that’s what they mean.
I hear what they really mean because I’m listening to them as revolutionaries. Not as the chair of the FCC or this-or-that-czar or whatever.
Nobody who cares about free speech goes out and openly talks about governmental controls on free speech. The two just don’t mix.
And then at the same time, these people who want all these controls are also fighting to keep the internet free and clear. The two just don’t mix. It’s the oxymoron of all oxymorons.
There are two versions of net neutrality, and the one you support died a very quiet death.
Did you even listen to what Copps is saying in the two videos I’ve recently linked you to? Did you read the American Thinker article? They appear to realize that Copps is dangerous to our first amendment rights.
And let's not forget how busy his boss [FCC chairman Julius Genachowski] has been of late:
Palin or Christie
‘Nice’ roundup. This stuff is dangerous.
All of this garbage is ultimately going to be fixed on the state level.
I mean, yes, I have a lot of faith in SOME of the new members of congress, but that’s not enough.
The states are our salvation. The solution will not come from DC. At best, some of the new members can hold the line.
There you go, content. Note that was not "net" but "content."
What would be the point of controlling radio and TV without net neutrality?
Let's see, net neutrality is a prohibition on restrictions, a prohibition on unnecessary controls. How does a prohibition on network control fit into the mandate for control of content? You have a serious logical disconnect here. These people were talking about fairness
Very few people even remember the old version of net neutrality. ... There are two versions of net neutrality, and the one you support died a very quiet death.
If nobody remembers net neutrality, if it is dead, then show me the recent FCC net neutrality proposals or the net neutrality bills from Congress that include fairness doctrine provisions.
It's put up or shut up time.
————There you go, content. Note that was not “net” but “content.”-—————
It’s content that scares these revolutionaries. Not the net itself. But they can’t come out on national television and say that. They have to make it about something mundane......... bits and bytes and so forth........ or make it about class warfare and corporations.
The congress rejected net neutrality. Then a judge told them no. But they still insist. Why? It isn’t about bits and bytes, that’s for sure. Net Neutrality is about control. Revolutionaries will crawl over glass to get control.
————Let’s see, net neutrality is a prohibition on restrictions, a prohibition on unnecessary controls.—————
That’s what it used to be. Now it’s an orwellianism.
-———How does a prohibition on network control fit into the mandate for control of content?—————
Read “The Road to Serfdom”. Words like “Liberty” and “freedom” are used just as much in totalitarian societies as they are in societies such as america used to be.
But when the dictators and/or the revolutionaries talk about freedom, it’s usually couched in terms of ‘new freedoms’, and what they really mean is freedom for the dictator.
Net neutrality is new regulations for the dictators. Copps, Obama, Sunstein, and more. They aren’t crawling over glass for bits and bytes.
-—————You have a serious logical disconnect here.—————
No I don’t. I have Copps in his own words. If you didn’t watch the videos, that’s not my problem. I’ve given you two of those videos just today.
Sunstein talks about forcing websites to put “the other side” on it’s pages. I have him in his own words. You’ve seen them repeatedly and even quoted them dismissively.
Elena Kagan is clearly on record in favor of censorship in reference to the citizens united case. Here are her words:
There are so many of these revolutionaries out there talking about different flavors in one form or another of censorship that it’s hard to list them all in one shot.
Listening to revolutionaries and taking them at their word is very logically connected.
————These people were talking about fairness —————
So is 80-95% of net neutrality supporters.
Listen to the marxists at free press. Listen to Copps. Listen to Sunstein. They’re all saying it. Listen to Mark Lloyd who (praised Chavez) wrote some garbage about ‘the structural imbalance of talk radio’.
These people are talking about fairness at the same time they support net neutrality.
Antirepublicrat is the odd one out. These people are all on the same page.
—————If nobody remembers net neutrality, if it is dead, then show me the recent FCC net neutrality proposals or the net neutrality bills from Congress that include fairness doctrine provisions.——————
Our current revolutionary congress have passed bills before they are even written.
Any current proposal in writing is a ruse.
This is the nature of revolutionaries. They don’t care about anything.
Except power. And I repeatedly put up. I put up Sunstein’s words. I put up two videos of Copps clammoring for content controls. I just linked you to Kagan who is on record talking about the redistribution of speech.
None of these things is disconnected.
Would you like me to give you a link to Sharpton’s recent words regarding Limbaugh, the FCC, and a revoked licence?
Don’t think that’s not connected.
Do you know what a “surrogate” is?
I see a lot of talk about fairness doctrine and censorship, none about actual net neturality. As I said, get back to me when a net neutrality bill or policy includes the fairness doctrine.
Put up or shut up.
For the umpteenth time, I put up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.