Forget the 'Fairness' Doctrine - Net Neutrality is the Future of Censorship

Big Government ^ | July 11th | Seton Motley

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

The Godfather of the Media Marxist movement – Robert McChesney – describes Net Neutrality thusly:

"(T)he ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control."

Meaning eradicate all private sector Web suppliers – and have the government commandeer control of the Internet so as to then be the sole Service Provider (ISP).

That ain’t good.

Because not today, not tomorrow, but soon – all radio and television will be on the Internet.

And ask the newspapers and publishers of the world where "print" journalism is headed.

All things news, media and communications will in the not-too-distant future be delivered solely on the Web.

Thusly is Net Neutrality your one-day-soon one-stop-shop for censorship.

Have a radio talk show host you want to shut up? Net Neutrality.

Have a TV show you don’t like? Net Neutrality.

Someone writing something of which you aren’t fond? The Big NN.

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

Seton Motley is doing a fantastic job of keeping up on all this nonsense over at the marxist FCC.

These marxists have much bigger plans than your silly ISPs. Read the details. They all fit.

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

Underneath the hood of net neutrality, this is what you’ll find.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2736502/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2735662/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2733953/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2713730/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2729438/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2711488/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2699462/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2699677/posts

We are in danger.

[musicman]

Help Keep FR The #1
Conservative Site
On The Web

[Talisker]

The government’s Net Neutrality argument is patently garbage, that’s why they need such a reversed and inane title for their power grab.

If they spoke the truth, it would be called: “The Denial of 1st Amendment Rights on the Internet.”

Based on the sophisticated legal penumbra of: “Print is one thing, but Electrons were never known to the Founders.”

[af_vet_rr]

What we need is a truly free market and we wouldn't have to worry about this regardless of your position. The telecoms are all implementing caps that seem "reasonable" to some, but won't be so reasonable a year or two down the road, and they are quite clearly designed to restrict what you do on the internet - the telecoms will even tell you that. They don't want you using Netflix or iTunes, they want you using their crappy and expensive Video on Demand or paying a bundle for the movie channels. They don't want you using Skype, they want you using their crappy (and expensive) VOIP options. The telecoms are giving millions to the critters in Congress and they are doing everything they can to maintain the local monopolies they were given decades ago, and many of them have received millions in taxpayer dollars, such as grants, or they are getting taxbreaks.

They shouldn't be able to dictate what you do on the internet as long as they are granted a monopoly by your local or state government, and they damn sure shouldn't be able to dictate what you do on the internet unless they start paying back those tax breaks and grants.

If they want to dictate what we do or try to impose ridiculous caps to keep us from using Netflix or iTunes, they should have to participate in the open market and lose their government granted monopolies.

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

And that’s a bigger threat to you than marxism?

[af_vet_rr]

And that’s a bigger threat to you than marxism?

If we had a truly free market when it comes to ISPs, a lot of people wouldn't be pressuring the FCC over this matter. While it's only part of the net neutrality argument, people are rightfully concerned that the telecoms are going to try and censor or block the hell out of the internet for their own financial or other gain. We have the liberals at NBC getting together with Comcast - that's not going to turn out well. You can't tell me that some liberal at NBC won't start sniffing around and trying to see if they can shape the internet experience of Comcast customers. What happens if somebody tries to block Free Republic because they think it's inappropriate for children because we bash liberals or talk about guns? We've got all of the major ISPs enacting bandwidth caps because they don't like the fact that many of us are dumping movie channels and VOD for Netflix or iTunes, and they don't even hide the fact that they are doing it for that reason, but it's not a stretch for them to enact other measures to try and control what we do on the internet, and most of us only have one major alternative, and that alternative will play ball and do the same thing.

We've got all of the major telecoms donating to both Democrats and Republicans and working to ensure that Congress doesn't look out for taxpayers when it comes to the internet, or to ensure that their monopolies are protected and most have also donated to Obama. My Senators are both bought off.

If we had a truly free market, we could pick telecoms that aren't going to screw us out of financial or ideological reasons.

[af_vet_rr]

You want something real that's in the here and now, try this on for size.

Law enforcement representatives are planning to endorse a proposed federal law that would require Internet service providers to store logs about their customers for 18 months, CNET has learned.

The National Sheriffs' Association will say it "strongly supports" mandatory data retention during Tuesday's U.S. House of Representatives hearing on the topic.

Michael Brown, sheriff in Bedford County, Va., and a board member and executive committee member of the National Sheriffs' Association, is planning to argue that a new law is necessary because Internet providers do not store customer records long enough.

"The limited data retention time and lack of uniformity among retention from company to company significantly hinders law enforcement's ability to identify predators when they come across child pornography," according to a copy of Brown's remarks. Any stored logs could, however, be used to prosecute any type of crime.

The association's endorsement comes nearly two months after Reps. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the head of the House Judiciary Committee, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) introduced legislation that would force Internet companies to log data about their customers. It says they must store for "at least 18 months the temporarily assigned network addresses the service assigns to each account, unless that address is transmitted by radio communication"--language that amounts to a huge and unusual exception for wireless carriers.

Once again, another "protect the children" piece of legislation that will affect everybody. I do apologize for Lamar Smith doing this - he's from my area.

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

——————Once again, another “protect the children” piece of legislation that will affect everybody.-——————

Negatively affect.

Once again, power is being consolidated at the expense of we the people.

The “large unusual exception” that they’ve built into this law indicates that their usual ‘for the children’ nonsense is just that, nonsense. They’re doing this for power. Nothing more.

The constitution doesn’t permit this kind of action on part of congress. If it matters that much to Smith, he should urge it in Texas. Same with DWS. She should urge it on the state level.