"Death to America!"
Posted on 03/13/2015 6:09:33 AM PDT by xzins
Two weeks after passage, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) finally released its landmark “net neutrality” regulations Thursday morning.
Among its many determinations, the FCC stated that broadband providers do not enjoy First Amendment protections because they do not have a right to free speech.
“The rules we adopt today do not curtail broadband providers’ free speech rights,” the commission said on page 268 of its decision, noting that because they merely serve as a means for others to express themselves, broadband providers are not entitled to free speech rights themselves.
“When engaged in broadband Internet access services, broadband providers are not speakers, but rather serve as conduits for the speech of others," the FCC stated.
However, the point is a matter of contention because the decision also says that providers “shall not block lawful content, applications, [or] services.” (page 284).
The commissioners acknowledged that such a problem has not arisen to date, stating, “The record reflects that broadband providers exercise little control over the content which users access on the Internet.”
If broadband providers did exercise such control, the commission suggested, they may have some justification for seeking First Amendment protections.
“Claiming free speech protections under the First Amendment necessarily involves demonstrating status as a speaker,” the decision stated. “Absent speech, such rights do not attach.”
After finding that broadband providers themselves do not have a right to free speech, the FCC said that its new net neutrality rules protect the First Amendment rights of those who use the providers to access the Internet.
“Indeed, rather than burdening free speech, the rules we adopt today ensure that the Internet promotes speech by ensuring a level playing field for a wide variety of speakers who might otherwise be disadvantaged,” the decision continued.
Even if the ruling does constitute a potential violation of Internet providers’ First Amendment rights, a majority of the five commissioners said, there was a compelling governmental interest in doing so.
“Even if they were engaged in speech, the rules we adopt today are tailored to the important government interest in maintaining an open Internet as a platform for expression, among other things,” the decision concluded.
The regulations passed on a 3–2 vote on February 26, with the FCC’s three Democratic commissioners voting in favor of the new net neutrality rules and its two Republican commissioners voting against.
The rules must be approved by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) next, after which they will proceed to a period of congressional review before being published in the Federal Register.
After their publication, they are expected to face judicial scrutiny.
Here's the PRIMARY problem in a nutshell.
The Government running America is "out of control" in the sense that segments of it are being systematically taken over step-by-step. No one seems to want to step in front of the speeding train to try and STOP it. That would take LEADERSHIP.
We've already seen the Government, more or less, take over the healthcare system, now the Internet, and along with the FED they own the big banks, and the BSA is filtering the entire communications system.
America is rapidly being transformed into a TOTALLY GOVERNMENT controlled Country with MANY, MANY NEW RULES & REGULATIONS.
Here's the PRIMARY problem in a nutshell.
The Government running America is "out of control" in the sense that segments of it are being systematically taken over step-by-step. No one seems to want to step in front of the speeding train to try and STOP it. That would take LEADERSHIP.
We've already seen the Government, more or less, take over the healthcare system, now the Internet, and along with the FED they own the big banks, and the NSA is filtering the entire communications system.
America is rapidly being transformed into a TOTALLY GOVERNMENT controlled Country with MANY, MANY NEW RULES & REGULATIONS.
That's true. Video is data.
It's just that TV is an obsolete way to transmit it. Folks are figuring that out in droves. And that creates a problem for today's ISPs, because most of them, at least at the residential level, are also cable TV providers, having started out in that business before the internet.
I have 50-up/50-down from Verizon, but no TV. They keep sending me offers to upgrade to TV. But I think the next piece to go will be the land line telephone. Because, after all, telephony is just transmission of data, too! And it's silly to bucket it out as a separate service.
The FCC, by and large, is Constitutionally unsupportable and most of what they do cannot be supported by the Constitution. The FCC should be abolished. Since a snowball in hell has a better chance than that, states should nullify unconstitutional FCC acts, which this almost certainly will be, and figure out a work-around to FCC control of the internet.
We’ve reached the point where the states are the only enforcer of the Constitution by nullification.
I wish that just ONE state would issue a ruling or legislation explaining why the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is unconstitutional and, therefore, is nullified and rejected, the citizens of that state are not subject to its constraints or penalties.
Once over the legal hurdle, then address the technical hurdle of blocking or working around FCC internet control.
Bump
What do they mean “Not yet?” Since when is there a waiting period for rights? I suppose only illegals get “first amendment rights.”
Already ‘settled law’ with bakeries not allowed to deny queer wedding cake.
FCC = Federal Communications Commission
Communications:
Is that MY mouth, MY pencil, MY postings, MY finger?
They all send a message!
"Death to America!"
Conservatives need to start a new party, you can not clean up the filthy old corrupt rino liberal bucket of fools.
It's getting extremely close to the point that ordinary citizens defend their God given rights by using the 2nd Amendment at their disposal.
Tyrants deserve nothing less than death IMO.
In the ultimate analysis, it is we, the people who interpret the Constitution. Because it is we who are given to determine when a government has exceeded the power authorized it by the Constitution.
And it is we who are expected to rein in the government if necessary.
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.
