Posted on 09/27/2011 2:20:13 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
And just exactly WHY would the Senate do that? The Feds have been working toward this for 15 years .
Thanks for pointing out that the video no longer worked. Breitbart has it. It’s a Blaze/Naked Emperor News video, so it’ll always be easy to find somewhere.
Redstate has a partial transcript:
========================Sites of one point of view agree to provide links to other sites, so that if you’re reading a conservative magazine, they would provide a link to a liberal site and vice versa, just to make it easy for people to get access to competing views. Or maybe a pop-up on your screen that would show an advertisement or maybe even a quick argument for a competing view. [break] The best would be for this to be done voluntarily, but the word “voluntary” is a little complicated, and sometimes people don’t do what’s best for our society unless Congress holds hearings or unless the public demands it. And the idea would be to have a legal mandate as the last resort, and to make sure it’s as neutral as possible if we have to get there, but to have that as, you know, an ultimate weapon designed to encourage people to do better.=========================
It makes me shudder when he says “voluntary is a little complicated”. This is how totalitarians speak.
Mr. Peabody wrote: -———————Didn’t Chelsea Clinton just take a job with IAC?——————
Thank you sir, that’s a good catch!
http://paidcontent.org/article/419-sec-watch-chelsea-clinton-joins-iac-board/
The nepotism of these people is maddening.
Bttt
In their [the FCC's] opinion, they aren't changing it -- they're merely putting the weight of law behind it to make sure it stays the way it is. Only thing, no one gave them the specific authority to do this.
They claim it's necessary to keep large corporations from controlling access to content that they don't like or approve of.
Their argument: Think of the big media companies and who owns what -- now imagine them controlling not just the content on their own outlets but controlling your access to alternate outlets. Put that way, it sounds perfectly reasonable to have some rules in place.
Which is true. The rules themselves aren't unreasonable...but a government entity can't just step up and CLAIM the authority to enforce whatever rules they want to just because most people find them reasonable. There are procedures to follow that could GRANT them that authority but allowing them to just grab it for themselves isn't the way government is supposed to work.
She’s on the board!?
Tell me this is wrong.
She’s on the board at IAC!
Is she out of school yet?
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.