Kerry: Internet 'Needs Rules to Be Able to Flourish and Work Properly'

The Weekly Standard ^ | 5/18/2015 | By DANIEL HALPER

[i_robot73]

I have yet to hear a cognizant argument how a treaty, made pursuant the Constitution can OVERRIDE the Constitution.

Given: “Congress shall make NO Law...”
And that: Treaties are encored as Law(s)
Does not equal: Treaties can regulate 1st Amendment

Of course, we are discussing a mental deficiency that equates ‘reproductive health’ as allowing one to KILL a baby in utero; completely 180 both of the terms.

[ohioman]

Well, I do hope I am wrong on this prediction.

[ohioman]

We are all dissidents here! :)

[Grampa Dave]

Time to swift boat this leftist pos, again!

[Grampa Dave]

Time to swift boat this leftist pos, again!

[The Toll]

So make another one.

[Mariner]

" not regulating speech of any kind"

Of course not.

It would be supra-national, UN organizations coming to just determination of what constitutes hate speech, defamation...or even release of Court Proceedings as you have in Canada and Germany today.

Since we have turned over the control knobs of the world-wide internet to the world, we are not likely to have much official say in what does and does not constitute restricted or forbidden speech.

The USA has THE most (l)iberal and protected speech laws AND practice in the world.

And we just turned over the Internet to people who don't care.

And, they could turn either you or I off anytime they damn well please.

[Mariner]

See my previous post, but this is what is at stake:

How would an international tribunal handle such?

http://www.mediaite.com/online/court-rules-that-youtube-cannot-be-forced-to-remove-innocence-of-muslims/

[Rodamala]

fat chance of your fat chance:

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Akkk !

[JimRed]

Rule #1: Thou shalt not speak disparagingly of the regime.