Posted on 11/16/2017 11:00:11 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
Looking forward to the suit on this. Not sure who will object and how.
Today, political ads paid with foreign money; tomorrow, your website ... slippery slope ....
Well, for starters, the FCC has zero statutory authority to do ANYTHING with the internet. They simply declared they had it during the Obama era.
The operative word here is "paid" and as long as the regulation is limited to paid advertisements, I don't have an issue with it.
Telecommunications Act of 1996
`(a) FINDINGS- The Congress finds the following:
`(1) The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.
`(2) These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops.
`(3) The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.
`(4) The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation.
`(5) Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.
`(b) POLICY- It is the policy of the United States--
`(1) to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;
`(2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;
`(3) to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services;
`(4) to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children's access to objectionable or inappropriate online material; and
`(5) to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.
https://www.fcc.gov/restoring-internet-freedom
“From passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 until 2015, the Internet underwent rapid, and unprecedented, growth. Internet service providers (ISPs) invested approximately $1.5 trillion in building networks, and American consumers enthusiastically responded. The Internet became an ever-increasing part of the American economy, offering new and innovative changes in how we work, learn, and play, receive health care, create and enjoy entertainment, and communicate with one another. During that time, there was bipartisan agreement that the Internet should be free of burdensome regulation so that it could continue to flourish.
Two years ago, the FCC abruptly changed course. On a party-line vote, the FCC applied 1930s-era utility-style regulation (”Title II”) to the Internet. That decision appears to have put at risk online investment and innovation, threatening the very open Internet it purported to preserve. Requiring ISPs to divert resources to comply with unnecessary and broad new regulatory requirements threatens to take away from their ability to make investments that benefit consumers. The lack of clarity around what Title II requires ISPs to do further appears to harm investment and have particularly harmful effects on small ISPs.
Under Chairman Pai’s leadership, the FCC has proposed returning to the longstanding light-touch regulatory framework for the Internet and restoring the market-based policies necessary to preserve the future of Internet Freedom. Specifically, the FCC has proposed to:
Reinstate the “information service” classification of broadband Internet access service first established on a bipartisan basis during the Clinton Administration.
Restore the determination that mobile broadband is not a “commercial mobile service” subject to heavy-handed regulation.
Restore the authority of the nation’s most experienced cop on the privacy beat – the Federal Trade Commission – to police the privacy practices of ISPs.
The FCC also is exploring how best to honor its longstanding commitment to Internet Freedom. Starting in 2004, the FCC promoted four principles for Internet Freedom to ensure that the Internet would remain a place for free and open innovation with minimal regulation. These four “Internet Freedoms” include the freedom to access lawful content, the freedom to use applications, the freedom to attach personal devices to the network, and the freedom to obtain service plan information.
To restore Internet Freedom, the FCC has proposed to examine the utility-style Title II rules to determine whether regulatory intervention in the market is necessary. The FCC has asked for comment on whether to keep, modify, or eliminate these “bright-line rules” adopted in 2015. And the FCC specifically has proposed to eliminate the vague “general Internet conduct standard,” which gives the FCC far-reaching discretion to prohibit any ISP practice that it believes runs afoul of a long and incomplete list of factors. The FCC also proposed to conduct a cost-benefit analysis as a part of its analysis.”
The FCC grabbed and claimed authority to regulate the internet like a telecom of public utility in 2015. You are incorrect.
All you need is servers in foreign countries (Canada, UK, heck Tuvalu if need be). The U.S. could no more legislate against a paid political ad from a third party than they could a full page ad in Le Monde.
I agree that the FCC overstepped it's authority in 2015. All I was pointing out was your statement "the FCC has zero statutory authority to do ANYTHING with the internet" was not accurate.
It does have statutory authority to do SOMETHING with the internet.
I’d like to see a reg where paid posters on sites (with more than, say, 1000 members) get a little asterisk or something next to their screen name that makes them easy to ID. Big fine for company that pays them if they don’t reveal they are paid to post. $100 fine per tweet, half goes to person who rats them out.
Put soros and brock out of business.
yup.
Censoring politics.
>
Nowhere in the report does it have any mention at all of what are the “new disclosure” requirements they agreed on. Stupid “journalists”!!
>
Not to worry, they’re from the govt and here to help us! /do I need it?
Just remember folks, it was the (R)NC *AGAIN*. ‘Small govt’, my @ss.
This is the FEC, not the FCC.
I’m not sure the proposed rule is necessarily bad - it requires that paid political advertising on the internet reveal who is paying - tying the ad to the agenda it is pushing.
But, there are always devils hidden in the details.
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.