Rep. Blackburn Introduces Internet Freedom Bill

Center for Individual Freedom ^ | Oct. 28, '09

[T.L.Sink]

The open Internet cannot exist with government regulation. This week, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) introduced H.R. 3942, a bill to block the FCC's "net neutrality" regulations. As Black lamented, "The Internet is the last truly open public marketplace. Its openness is the key to its efficiency and success. Not all public spaces need to be regulated spaces." At present, H.R. 3942 has no cosponsors, but that only means you should call your representatives and urge them to support Internet freedom.

[T.L.Sink]

Obama and his supporters also wish to impose the "fairness doctrine" to, in effect, censor and neutralize conservative talk radio. So far he's nationalized two-thirds of the domestic automobile industry, the largest banks, and intends now to introduce socialized medicine into 20% of our economy via ObamaCare which, incidentally, will also add an unfunded liabilty in the trillions to our national deficit and debt. They don't want to run out of things to regulate and control so now they're focusing on Thought Control. By the way, don't you love those pleasant-sounding Orwellian euphemisms like "net neutrality" and "fairness" that seek to disguise what's clearly a totalitarian agenda?

[exnavy]

Since the One took office Gubmint has taken over approx. 30% of the free market economy. Health care will increase that figure to nearly 50% of private enterprise and wealth control.

These people will not stop.

The goal is to destroy The United States of America.

All patriots have a choice to make; do I risk it all as did the founders, or do I surrender and settle for servitude.

Not much of a choice.

[TennesseeGirl]

She’s (Blackburn) a good one. We’re proud of her.

[nitzy]

I must not understand net neutrality. I have read several articles on the subject and from what I can tell net neutrality says that companies such as Time Warner or Comcast are not allowed to charge me more or block my access to Free Republic because they feel that Free Republic is hate speech or because it takes up too much bandwidth or it is a competitor or any other reason they deem applicable. At the same time they can't charge Free Republic more or prevent them from serving data for any of the same reasons. I don't see what is wrong with that.

What am I missing?

[libstripper]

She’s the best we have from Tennessee. I’m not in her district, but I wish she represented us.

[Freddd]

So have we all contacted our Representatives and urged them to support H.R. 3942.

We can at congress.org

[TLI]

or block my access to Free Republic because they feel that Free Republic is hate speech or because it takes up too much bandwidth or it is a competitor or any other reason they deem applicable.

I think it is supposed to be primarily a bandwidth issue. On your other two issues (competitor or "hate speech") that is very dangerous ground.

If a regulation can be utilized to block not allowing access because of a quoted reason "hate speech" it has the potential to unblock "not allowing" what has now been defined as "hate speech" (not free speech). Then a regulatory agency or NGO can do is simply cite a different "regulation" to block the newly defined “hate speech.”

Presto, "hate speech" control.

The problem is not in banning or controlling it ("hate speech") but in defining it in the first place. The processes or agency that is defining "hate speech" is what has to go.

[T.L.Sink]

TLI, I think you’re right. The whole point is that once we have government control and regulation we’re on the slippery slope. For example, who defines “hate speech?” We already have seen the MSM accuse Rush of this by attributing to him quotes he NEVER even made! It’s just the proverbial elephant trunk under the tent. The Internet is one of the last bastions of the free exchange of speech and ideas. As the old saying goes, “if it ain’t broken, don’t ‘fix’ it!”

[T.L.Sink]

You should be proud of her. I’ve seen many of her TV appearances and she always articulates her conservative positions well.

[nitzy]

I am not understanding your logic. You are saying that if they say you can't do something, then they are more likely to say you can do it later. That would be like oposing a law against murder because it would make it easier for the government to pass a law allowing murder at some future date.

The concept of Net Neutrality is that the providers can charge you a fee based on the size of your pipe but they cannot discriminate what you are pulling down through the pipe or putting into the pipe. That doesn't seem to be either overbearing government regulation or a slippery slope as you describe.

The system that you advocate would seem to me to invite much more regulation as government would necessarily need to get involved to find which types of discrimination are justified and which are not.

It is not only a bandwidth issue. AT&T is currently under scrutiny for not allowing access to Google voice on the iPhone. They are limiting user access to competitor's products. I know this doesn't fit perfectly into the net neutrality box but it is one example of potential abuse. This trend is only going to get worse as communication, media and tech companies merge and form partnerships and alliances.

[T.L.Sink]

I see your point but my contention is that there should be a complete laissez-faire policy with respect to Internet regulation. You mentioned Google and it wasn’t too long ago that China said that if it couldn’t censor and control what Google projected, it would be banned. Google, more interested in profit than freedom of expression, agreed to be state-regulated. I know that’s an extreme situation but it’s really the logical conclusion to any state-control no matter how minimal and subtle it may be at the outset. As a conservative, I’ve seen countless examples of such “laws of unintended consequences” resulting from “good” intentions.