Groups want FCC to police hate speech on talk radio, cable news networks

the hill ^ | 6/1/10 | Gautham Nagesh

[I see my hands]

Exactly. It is a in a free society that private property is respected.

[thecabal]

Begging your pardon, but you are dead wrong about Net Neutrality. Perhaps a few years ago, the term meant what you said. But like many other seemingly benign terms, it has been hijacked to mean regulation of Internet content by the government. Look into the organization “Free Press” to get some idea of how they want to use the term as a Trojan horse.

[abb]

Here’s the letter.

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020450549

The second name on the list is Center for Media Justice. Here’s their website.

http://centerformediajustice.org/

Prominent on the front page is their support for the FCC ‘takeover’ of the internet.

Also, the Benton Foundation.

http://www.benton.org/

Prominent on their website is support for a “national broadband plan.”

And Media Alliance.

http://www.media-alliance.org/section.php?id=61

Also for “net neutrality.”

Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.

[PghBaldy]

At the risk of getting the same treatment Rand Paul received, we have had de facto hate speech controls for decades. It is a side effect of the civil rights laws which have been passed during the last several decades.

[WellyP]

HI, FCC! I would like you to know that I HATE the FRAUD Obama is perpetrating on America. He is a lying SOB who must be removed from office. We will have a chance to do just that after the 2010 elections.

[abb]

You are correct. See my documentation at post 43.

[Star Traveler]

All the people who know what Net Neutrality is all about, also know what bits and bytes are, what Internet protocols are, what TCP/IP is about, and what it means in terms of those “protocols”....

If you find someone talking about “Net Neutrality” and they’re not talking in terms of bits and bytes being transferred and not about Internet protocols — but instead — they’re talking about “speech” (as in “human beings”) — then that person doesn’t have a clue as to what Net Neutrality is ... LOL ...

That’s your clue as to the person not knowing what the heck he’s talking about if he doesn’t talk about Net Neutrality in terms of “packets” and “Internet protocols” — but instead — talks about it in terms of “speech” ... :-)

[abb]

I suggest that your benign definition of ‘net neutrality’ has been hijacked by our enemies. All you have to do is see who is pushing for it to know what is taking place.

[freekitty]

Hate speech to them is fake and phoney.

[dforest]

One thing holds true, you can try to shut people up. You can make laws and all, but you cannot control what individuals think.

Any effort in trying that have always failed. The best you can do is eradicate the lives of those that disagree with you.

and then what

[Star Traveler]

You were saying ...

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020450549

No mention of Net Neutrality here... other things, like "hate speech" -- but not net neutrality. Hate Speech is a different item.

---

http://centerformediajustice.org/

They do address "Net Neutrality" ... and they address other things that have nothing to do with "Net Neutrality" (through their entire website).

When they address "Net Neutrality" they are concerned that things are "slowed down" or "blocked" on the Internet -- and that is a concern of "Net Neutrality" in that some bits and bytes are slowed down and/or blocked. That's definitely part of Net Neutrality.

The stance that those who are for Net Neutrality is that your bits and bytes are not blocked and/or slowed down.

Now, that's for "your bits and bytes" and mine, too -- no matter who they belong to. So, yes, they would be concerned about it (i.e. they don't want theirs blocked and neither do I want mine blocked ... :-) ...

BUT, again, that doesn't have anything to do with "hate speech" as that's another matter altogether.

---

http://www.benton.org/

And they do have articles on "Net Neutrality" and in the way I'm talking about. It about allowing all the bits and bytes to travel freely across the Internet, no matter whether it comes from you or the next guy or Free Republic or the Republicans or the Democrats. They all get the same free flow of the bits and bytes on the Internet.

Here's one sample article from them ...

What does Net neutrality have to do with the First Amendment?

---

http://www.media-alliance.org/section.php?id=61

And they've got a section on "Net Neutrality" too ... and it's also about allowing all "bits and bytes" to flow freely and unhampered to all users, no matter who they are. And that is the point to Net Neutrality ...

Here's a sample article from their section on Net Neutrality ...

Net Neutrality 101/FAQ's

---

Through all this, I don't see anyone linking up "Net Neutrality" to the issues of "Hate Speech" or with the "Fairness Doctrine"... "Net Neutrality" is an issue that stands on its own, and it's something that no matter whether you're "in the middle" to the "left" or to the "right" -- all of those don't want anyone interfering with their sending stuff over the Internet. All want the information to be unhampered and not interfered with, slowed down or blocked.

[steveab]

‘A coalition of more than 30 organizations argue in a letter to the FCC that the Internet has made it harder for the public to separate the facts from bigotry masquerading as news.’

Oh please, Oh please help me. I don’t know separate fact from fiction. It hurts if I try to think for myself. So please, Big Government do away with the First Amendment.
(Sic off)

[Star Traveler]

You were saying ...

I suggest that your benign definition of ‘net neutrality’ has been hijacked by our enemies. All you have to do is see who is pushing for it to know what is taking place.

I just looked at those links given in Post #43 ... and I didn't see them "hijacking" the concept of "Net Neutrality" for any other "ideas" -- like "Hate Speech" and/or the "Fairness Doctrine".

I saw three of the fours links going into the issue of Net Neutrality, for sure, but going into it on the very basis that I'm talking about and other advocates for Net Neutrality are talking about.

See my Post #51 ... :-)

[lewislynn]

Star traveler or fellow traveler? Someone needs to come back to earth or find another forum that closer suits your way of thinking.

Sorry but just because YOU don't like what they say doesn't mean YOU also get to choose what is said.

We don't need someone else to be a filter, not you or anyone like you.

You need to get up to speed on what "net neutrality" really means, but I fear you do know.

[Star Traveler]

If I could make out what you were trying to say, I might even be able to comment... but I’m afraid you’ll have to translate here ... LOL ...

[Lorianne]

They do.

[Still Thinking]

A coalition of more than 30 organizations argue in a letter to the FCC that the Internet has made it harder for the public to separate the facts from bigotry masquerading as news.

The internet? Are they sure they're not talking about NPR, SeeBS, ABC, PMSDNC and so on?

[Still Thinking]

The problem is that people are too stupid to separate opinion from facts.

No....the "problem" is that you have access to too many people who may tell you things without them getting to spin it first, or omit it completely and replace with lies fabricated from whole cloth, if necessary.

Or another way to look at it is that people don't like being lied to, aren't real crazy about paying for it, and the competition gives people both the information that lets them know they're being lied to and an alternative. Without it, their delusional thinking goes, ad revenues wouldn't be in the basement, and they wouldn't be having to lay off their best liars, uh, writers.

[Still Thinking]

The groups also charge that cable television programs "masquerading as news" use hate as a profit model.

I agree! I can't stand Chris Matthews.

[keepitreal]

So:

“Obama is incompetent” = hate speech

“BushHitler” = protected free speech