To: antiRepublicrat
So what exactly in there is disagreeable?Who defines "lawful Internet content" and/or "legal devices?"
29 posted on
02/18/2009 11:48:32 AM PST by
Petronski
(For the next few years, Gethsemane will not be marginal. We will know that garden. -- Cdl. Stafford)
To: Petronski
Who defines "lawful Internet content" and/or "legal devices?" The government, of course. But we already have unlawful Internet content and probably illegal devices regardless of net neutrality. I'm sure kiddie porn will stay illegal. All this does is say the ISPs can't ban what is lawful, like TWC getting a contract with MSN and cutting its millions of customers off from Google.
36 posted on
02/18/2009 12:07:18 PM PST by
antiRepublicrat
("I am a firm believer that there are not two sides to every issue..." -- Arianna Huffington)
To: Petronski; All
"...Who defines "lawful Internet content" and/or "legal devices?"..."Ahhhhhh. You DO have a way of cutting to the heart of the matter, Petronski...
Your comment exemplifies what Thomas Sowell refers to when he talks about thinking past stage one.
It is also the reason Phyllis Schlafly is such a powerful intellect. She has made her bones asking those kinds of questions.
82 posted on
02/19/2009 3:39:58 AM PST by
rlmorel
("The Road to Serfdom" by F.A.Hayek - Read it...today.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson