My sentiments exactly!
Posted on 09/25/2005 2:29:17 PM PDT by wagglebee
China on Sunday imposed new media restrictions designed to limit the news and other information available to Internet users, sharply restricting the scope of content that can be posted on Web sites.
Hillary Rodham Clinton said IN 1998 during a meeting with reporters said that "we are all going to have to rethink how we deal with" the Internet because of the handling of White House sex scandal stories on Web sites.
Clinton was asked whether she favored curbs on the Internet, after the DRUDGE REPORT made headlines with coverage of her husband's affair with a White House intern. "We are all going to have to rethink how we deal with this, because there are all these competing values ... Without any kind of editing function or gatekeeping function, what does it mean to have the right to defend your reputation?" she said.
Hillary Clinton Continued:
"I don't have any clue about what we're going to do legally, regulatorily, technologically -- I don't have a clue. But I do think we always have to keep competing interests in balance. I'm a big pro-balance person. That's why I love the founders -- checks and balances; accountable power. Anytime an individual or an institution or an invention leaps so far out ahead of that balance and throws a system, whatever it might be -- political, economic, technological --out of balance, you've got a problem, because then it can lead to the oppression people's rights, it can lead to the manipulation of information, it can lead to all kinds of bad outcomes which we have seen historically. So we're going to have to deal with that. And I hope a lot of smart people are going to --"
REPORTER: Sounds like you favor regulation.
MRS. CLINTON: Bill, I don't know what -- that's why I said I don't know what I'm in favor of. And I don't know enough to know what to be in favor of, because I think it's one of those new issues we've got to address. We've got to see whether our existing laws protect people's right of privacy, protect them against defamation. And if they can, how do you do that when you can press a button and you can't take it back. So I think we have to tread carefully.
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." --Hillary Clinton
Somewhere between freedom of the press and freedom of speech (by the way Ms. Clinton, these are covered in the FIRST Amendment to the Constitution--look it up), the right of the people to openly debate current events is undeniable. No matter how Ms. Stalin, I mean, Clinton tries, she'll never be able to get around that one......without appointing 6 or 7 likeminded individuals to the Supreme Court.
Hillary gas a platform to run on in 2008...
Elect Hillary and she'll limit free speech!
Hitlery wants mind-control of the masses, the aphrodisiac of lefties everywhere. This would make a great campaign ad when she runs....
Well, there is one statement I agree with her on.
My sentiments exactly!
The Beast's internet "Rethink" : Get rid of those damn FReepers!
Here, let me fix that.
I'm a big pro-unbalanced person
Imagine UN control of the Internet.
Can't flood the Internet with Clintonistas like the talk shows Hillary? The beast must be stopped.
The Truth will set you free Hillary. Or, in your case maybe not.
The internet has given us the freedom of the press promised in the Constitution, and even Joe Sixpack seems to be able to "Get It" even if he occasionally reaches for his tinfoil hat.
What he hell does that mean? This woman(?) has to many quotes on record to ever run for President!
Where's Craig Livingston, Hiltery?
Who murdered Vince Foster for you and your hillbilly-marxist soulmate?
The "truth" would probably send the Hildabeast to prison for the rest of her life.
And if they can, how do you do that when you can press a button and you can't take it back. So I think we have to tread carefully, until I see what is posted on DU, KOS, MoveOn.org and what cindy $heetHann is saying.
That is the only thing we need to take from this article.
PIAPS is either ignorant of what is meant by "checks and balances" or she is so cynical as to blatantly misrepresent it.
Either way, this is NOT someone who should hold public office.
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.