Posted on 04/30/2015 7:08:14 AM PDT by Baynative
UPDATE: The implementation of Barack Obama's takeover of the Internet is less than 45 days away. And as Marsha Blackburn says, if Congress does not take action to stop Barack Obama, the government will "control the Internet" in a little over the month.
Make no mistake, the Internet as you know it will never be the same if we let Barack Obama implement this takeover. You'll pay more for less service and the government will use this draconian ruling as a club to bludgeon Internet freedom, including ultimately your free speech.
And if you think we exaggerate, consider what Rep. Marsha Blackburn says on the matter: "Once the federal government establishes a foothold into managing how Internet service providers run their networks they will essentially be deciding which content goes first, second, third, OR NOT AT ALL."
(Excerpt) Read more at if.inboxfirst.com ...
Do you think the government should not be involved in radio and telephone as well? Those companies are also private but subject to oversight.
“The government is involved in your home phone (if you have one) ... how’s that working for you?”
Not very well at all, they increase the cost of services with all sorts of needless taxes and can’t even manage to use their regulatory power to stop annoyances like predatory switching of service or phone spammers and scammers.
“Have they told you that you have to quit saying some things? ... LOL ...”
Well, they did conspire with the phone companies to be able to tap all our domestic conversations without a warrant, but I suppose that doesn’t bother you, as long as you get your precious Netflix unthrottled.
“AND ... your electricity is under government regulation of one kind or another. Have they cut you off, because you’re a Freeper? ... :-) ...”
Now your arguments have simply ceased to have even a tangential connection to reality.
No, that is just the line of BS that they fed you in order to get you to support the government takeover. Government regulation is, by definition, tampering with the network.
Cutting off your electricity because you are a Freeper is VERY REAL ... IF ... a person maintains that the government will cut off the Freeper forum. They BOTH sound very real — OR — they both sound incredibly STUPID!
Take your pick ... :-) ...
No, they are not equivalent at all. Electricity has nothing to do with political speech. On the other hand, the internet is the greatest development in political speech since the printing press. Also, we have plenty of examples of governments around the world, once they take regulatory control of the internet, using it to silence political speech exactly like we are talking about here. So this is not some hypothetical fantasy, but a very real phenomenon that millions of people in the world live with every day.
The only thing that sounds “incredibly stupid” is your inane fantasy that we should rely on the government’s good will to not do what other governments have done once they gained control over the internet in their country.
It’s government regulated, and if they can “regulate” against the law in one area, they can regulate against the law in any area.
AND ... that’s what “due process” is about anyway. The Judicial system is different and separate from the Executive.
I think government should be limited and defined by the constitution.
Do you think you have a right to fast broadband at a reasonable rate?
“and if they can “regulate” against the law in one area, they can regulate against the law in any area.”
Sure, they can, but here is no history of any government regulating electricity based on politics as you are trying to suppose they could, so it’s just an outlandish scenario you have dreamed up to try to distract from the real issues.
“AND ... that’s what “due process” is about anyway.”
You don’t get any due process with government regulators. I guess you must not have much experience with them, but ask someone who has tangled with the EPA how much due process protected them.
If you’re saying that the government can break the law in one area, then there’s no reason they can’t do it in another area. And “history” won’t hold anyone back ... if ... the “law” won’t or can’t hold them back. “History” has less power than “law”. “History” is absolutely nothing in “power”. All that turns out to be is ... “Well ... that’s the way we ‘used to’ do it!” ... LOL ... and absolutely nothing more!
Once you cross the “ridiculous boundary” (in terms of an “idea”) of outlandish scenario that the law and due process cannot hold back the government in one area ... it can’t hold back the government in ANY area. There is no one area of law that is more powerful than another area of law, when it comes to holding back the government.
And ... government regulators come “under the jurisdiction of the law”. In other words, the regulators are subject to the law that relates to their “regulating” ... and ... to the “law of the land” by way of “due process”. And again ... if “due process” and the law cannot hold the government back in one area ... it can’t hold the government back in ANY AREA.
We’ve already had plenty of examples of regulators being held “in check” — according to the laws. It’s actually nothing new ... :-) ...
“And “history” won’t hold anyone back ...”
You’re missing the point. My reference to history is simply to show that you have no real basis to your musings about the government shutting off people’s electricity because of their political views. Not only is a nonsensical assertion (since the government can’t tell someone’s politics from their electric usage, unlike their internet usage), but nothing like that has ever happened, so it is pure fantasy.
Governments censoring websites based on their political content is not such a fantasy, it is a real thing that actually happens in the real world. So your comparison is laughable on the grounds that you are trying to ridicule fears of a real, common scenario by comparing it to fears of a fantasy you created in your imagination. It is akin to saying “You shouldn’t be afraid of man-eating lions, unless you are also afraid of goblins”.
“We’ve already had plenty of examples of regulators being held “in check” — according to the laws. It’s actually nothing new”
Sounds like you don’t see any problems with the current abuses by government regulators. They must be a-okay, since, otherwise, they would have been checked by the law. Sorry, but I am not a fan of more government, or even the current amount of government we have, so you won’t convince me based on that type of argument. You see, I’m what is called a “conservative”, so I believe the solution to most problems is LESS government, and I have a funny feeling that most of the people on this website feel the same way.
The point is history is irrelevant if the law and due process won’t hold back the government.
And as far as whether current regulation is okay ... If the law is violated go to the judicial system and get due process. If the law is not violated, but the voting electorate thinks that the current law is insufficient, then pass new laws with your legislators, which are sufficient. If your legislators are not working for you, then vote in new legislators who will.
That’s the process. Complaining won’t do any good, but the voting electorate can do whatever they wish with their voting. And if you can’t get the voting electorate to do what “you” want, then you need to sell “your idea” better to the voting electorate, or else, “your idea” won’t carry EVER.
That’s our system. Either “work it” or else, get out and form an island government somewhere.
The bottom line here is — very simply — you have to get the voting electorate to go along with you or you’re GOING NOWHERE at ANYTIME!
“The point is history is irrelevant if the law and due process won’t hold back the government.”
No, you are continuing to miss the point, and trying to conflate two separate arguments now. It’s pretty pointless to try to talk sense to you, you believe that more government regulation is good, and there is no talking you out of it. Well, don’t come complaining to us when that bites you in the behind.
The bottom line in our system is that the voting electorate changes WHATEVER they want changed in our government — EVEN — the U.S. Constitution.
As an old saying goes ... “Just do it!”
“The bottom line in our system is that the voting electorate changes WHATEVER they want changed in our government — EVEN — the U.S. Constitution.”
Funny, none of us voted on your precious “net neutrality”.
if ... “none of us” ... is the voting electorate, there is nothing that can stop you.
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.