Pelosi: Anti-Net Neutrality Bill Isn't Going Anywhere

BOSTON - Even as the House voted to repeal federal Internet access rules Friday, top Democratic policymakers called free and open communications a vital part of American democracy.

Speaking at Free Press’s National Conference for Media Reform, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said she was pleased by Democratic opposition to the GOP-backed resolution, which cleared the House Friday afternoon. The resolution would nullify Federal Communications Commission net neutrality regulations that aim to prevent Internet service providers from blocking certain websites.

No expert, but I have the feeling that this is one of those Big Brother Doublespeak things which means, in effect, net neutrality is anything but neutral. That is, the ISPs can give you anything they want - or withhold anything they don’t want - at whatever rate they see fit.

But, like I said, I don’t really pick up all that much unless the government speaks English, which they’re increasingly less and less likely to do, lest the citizens understand what they’re up to.

"...top Democratic policymakers called free and open communications a vital part of American democracy."

The internet is free and open as is. Forcing someone to adopt your way of presenting information is censorship, the opposite of free. Get that old bitch a dictionary and slap her with it.

"Net neutrality" rules are the antithesis of free and open. The problem with leftist rhetoric is that anyone with a choice will go elsewhere. People must be made to listen to and absorb that crap, hence re-education camps and indoctrination centers in marxist and maoist countries.

Hence Bill Ayers', et al, plan to re-educate the majority of Americans after killing off the 25 million or so who just would not do it (patriots and right-minded Americans, you). Left to their own devices (free to choose), most people will not adopt any kind of collectivist mentality, thus removing any power the "elite" collectivists have.

Hmmm...I searched Michelle Malkin’s site for an initial take on it and found this quote:
“FCC Commissioner Michael Copps proclaimed: “Universal access to broadband needs to be seen as a civil right…[though] not many people have talked about it that way.” Opposing the government Internet takeover blueprint, in other words, is tantamount to supporting segregation. Cunning propaganda, that.”
http://michellemalkin.com/2010/12/22/internet-access-is-not-a-civil-right/

Ann Althouse features this quote and video clip of Obama Czar Cass Sunstein:

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.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/05/word-voluntary-is-little-complicated.html

How creepily Orwellian. So, you are right - it’s Doublespeak. Like we can’t click on any link right now to seek competing views? Like we want Dem freaks to pick and choose which links and vids best rebut any Repub opinion they see because we aren’t ‘trying hard enough’?

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.