Posted on 10/23/2009 6:13:34 AM PDT by LibertyThug
....We just need to point out that among the many groups supporting net neutrality are the Christian Coalition, the Gun Owners of America, and Brent Bozell's Parents Television Council. All of them are in on the plot! Everyone's a Marxist now!
(Excerpt) Read more at gawker.com ...
I've looked on their site and haven't seen a thing.
The Christian coalition being for it doesn't suprise me because they're for control of content, but GOA?!
Isn’t Gun Owners of America the group that supported Obam and was created just a few months before the election?
Wow! I disagree. I think everyone should go take a look at that site. Some really great comments. My favorite is:
“You say Marxist plot like it’s a bad thing,” and there’s no sarcasm indicator.
What a bunch of clowns. I may just have to get an account over there. Just as a stress relief for when the job hunt is going poorly.
According to their website, they were founded in 1975. Here’s a link to their ‘Net position - somewhat dated - maybe they felt safer, back then, to support neutrality.
http://gunowners.org/4/06-a-free-internet-requires-network-neutrality.htm
Just seems downright scary in these days, tho.
ML/NJ
the concept of net neutrality per-se is not necessarily bad, but obviously the Obamites will treat it as just one more opportunity to clear the playing field
But didn’t they support Obama in the election?
Just got off the phone with with GOA. I urge all members to give them a call and let them know that this outdated story has hit the net. Time for a major PR retraction of this story.
Gun Owners of America
703-321-8585
ping
SPEEDING UP THE GOVERNMENT - Gov 2.0 Summit - See what JenniferPahlka, founder of CODE FOR AMERICA, says at the 10 minute mark. She talks about “getting people elected” working “inside the government” through specific channels. http://thesidetrack.blogspot.com/2009/09/gov-20-summit-speeding-up-government.html
Keep track and take names.
Jennifer Pahlka on facebook - http://www.facebook.com/pahlkadot
No. 124 Neutralism: The Strange Philosophy Behind the Movement for Net Neutrality
Policy Studies > 2009
Info Technology > Internet
Info Technology > Network Neutrality
Telecom > Network Neutrality (See Info Tech)
Written By: James G. Lakely
Published In: Policy Studies > 2009
Publication date: 10/05/2009
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
The election of Barack Obama as president ushered in a new era of regulatory zeal in Washington, with both Congress and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) determined to solve alleged problems with access to and management of the Internet. Advocates of “network neutrality” have the federal government’s ear and seem closer than at times past to achieving their goal of greater government control over the Internet. Their success would change the online experience of every American.
This study examines the philosophy that underlies the movement for network neutrality, which telecom expert Scott Cleland has dubbed “neutralism.” Neutralism stands in striking contrast to the innocuous-sounding Internet “freedom” its advocates call for. Understanding neutralism helps explain why network neutrality would have consequences that are quite the opposite of what its proponents claim. Not all advocates of network neutrality believe in neutralism, and some aren’t even aware that the policy arose from such a strange philosophy. One purpose of this paper is to inform those neutrality advocates of the radical agenda they have unwittingly bought into.
http://www.heartland.org/publications/policy%20studies/article/26061/
“The Internet is a vast,
unplowed field upon which Marxist
ideologues can project their fondest dreams,
undeterred by the failure of Marxism in
practice in the real world. The Internet, then,
is socialism’s last, best chance to stage a
comeback. All the neutralists need to do, is seize the opportunity to change the way we create and exchange information, knowledge and culture.”
No. Not that I am aware of... As a Senator, 0bama got an F- from them on their ratings.
Part 3 introduces “neutralism,” the philosophy behind network
neutrality. Neutralism rejects the idea that private companies ought to own or operate the
infrastructure, software, and content that comprise the Internet in the United States. Neutralists
favor a “digital commons” model where no one should have to pay for access to the Internet or
to consume its content.
Part 4 tells the history of neutralism from its
beginning in the movement for copyright-free
software (“shareware”) to calls for “the
abolition of all forms of private property in
ideas” in The dotCommunist Manifesto.
Major figures in the neutralism movement,
including Richard Stallman, Eben Moglen,
and Lawrence Lessig, are profiled and their
work summarized.
"I am a strong supporter of net neutrality. What you’ve been seeing is some lobbying that says [Internet providers] should be able to be gatekeepers and able to charge different rates to different Web sites ... so you could get much better quality from the Fox News site and you’d be getting rotten service from the mom and pop sites. And that I think destroys one of the best things about the Internet – which is that there is this incredible equality there ... as president I’m going to make sure that is the principle that my FCC commissioners are applying as we move forward."
Since his election, President Obama,2 several influential members of Congress,3 and the majority of commissioners serving on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)4 have pledged their allegiance to network neutrality. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, in his first major speech in office, said he wanted the commission to award itself the power to strictly enforce network neutrality.5 But what does the term mean?
As a veteran freeper, I've become an expert on leftist codespeak, thank you very much.
"Net neutrality" is codespeak if I've ever seen or heard it. We can always assume any phrase coined by the left means exactly the opposite of what it says.
Kinda like "planned withdrawal".....or "affirmative action".
Trust Beck. He's way, way ahead of most mortals in the breadth, scope and analysis of the socialist/communist agenda. If he didn't use some zaniness as a schtick, no one would watch him. He's dumb like a fox.
Leni
Barack Obama, unveiling his “innovation agenda” late last year, pledged, “I will take a backseat to no one in my commitment to network neutrality. Because once providers start to privilege some applications or web sites over others, then the smaller voices get squeezed out, and we all lose.”
“You know who owns your pipes? Your customers. You have no right to set up a tollbooth.” - Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), September 17, 2007
Sen. Dorgan, naturally, spies an opening for his net neutrality legislation (co-sponsored with Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-ME). Representative Ed Markey has introduced legislation to investigate neutrality as well.
But net neutrality rests upon the fallacy that infrastructure and content companies are naturally at odds; that competition and customer service require political force.
Reject “nut” neutrality, swear allegiance to tollbooths.
Net Neutrality as 21st Century Socialism http://cei.org/node/20558# Wayne Crews is vice president for policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and co-author of What’s Yours Is Mine: Open Access and the Rise of Infrastructure Socialism.
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.