Congress Debating Making U.S. Like China by Creating Internet Blacklist

[EPICVIEW]

So...is this not based in reality, is this baseless?

lets discuss as its spot on the subject here

As Obama Pretends at Its Freedom, His Gov’t Plans Takeover of Internet
Posted by Guest Contributor on Thursday, September 30, 2010, 5:30 AM
-By Warner Todd Huston

In an address to the United Nations on Thursday, Sept. 23, President Obama pledged to preserve a “free and open Internet” and would call out nations that censored content.

In a veiled reference to China and other nations that censor the Internet, Obama said that a civil society fosters open government. “Civil society is the conscience of our communities, and America will always extend our engagement abroad with citizens beyond the halls of government. And we will call out those who suppress ideas and serve as a voice for those who are voiceless.”

“We will promote new tools of communication so people are empowered to connect with one another and, in repressive societies, to do so with security,” Obama said. “We will support a free and open Internet, so individuals have the information to make up their own minds. And it is time to embrace and effectively monitor norms that advance the rights of civil society and guarantee its expansion within and across borders.”

Yet even as Obama stood giving high sounding words to a “free and open Internet” and scolding other nations that have oppressive controls on Internet access for their own citizens, Barack Obama’s own government has itself been quietly making plans to take over the Internet from private companies.

Obama’s Federal Communications Commission Chairman, Julius Genachowski, has been angling to use telephone regulations from the 1930s to try and take over full control of the Internet.

One wonders how Obama can have the gall to claim that he wants a “free and open” Internet when he is trying to take control of it himself? How long would the Internet stay “free and open” once the federal government takes hold of it and begins to decide what will be allowed and not allowed over it’s infrastructure?

As always, Barack Obama talks out of both sides of his mouth claiming all at once that he is for open access, and promoting new technologies and businesses while at the same time making plans for Bi Government to control it all from Washington.

Henry Waxman (D, CA), Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, also seems to be very confused about what is going on with the idea of the FCC grabbing control over the Internet.

On one day this week he wanted to introduce legislation that would put Congress in the driver’s seat on regulation thereby cutting out the FCC from regulating the Internet, but then the very next day he reversed himself 100% and decided it wouldn’t be a good idea. It is a bit hard to understand such a whiplash-inducing move but it has happened nonetheless.

Still, if Congress takes up a consideration of how to handle the Internet this should forestall the FCC’s attempts to forcibly take over the Internet via fiat regulation.

Anyone interested in keeping the government’s hands off the full control of the Internet should pressure Waxman to take up his original position.

Others that can put off the FCC’s power grab are Marsha Blackburn (R, TN) — who has come out in opposition to government control of the Internet — and Rep. Rick Boucher (D, VA), another member of Energy and Commerce Committee.

A good mode of pressure is to cite a new poll that says that the public is not in favor of the government take over of the Internet.

BroadbandforAmerica.com has an interesting report about a survey made by Hart Research Associates that seems to indicate that there is “substantial opposition to government Internet regulation.”

The survey shows that 75 percent oppose government regulation with 55 percent saying that government should not regulate the Internet at all.

In other words, respondents did not want the government saying how business should be conducted on the Internet and were reticent to agree that government should restrict or control Internet providers. Congress should be made aware of these facts.

[Chino]

Oh my god, both of you just shut up.

[Seventh Son]

Because every argument you've made boils down to "THOSE GODDAMN LIBERALS ARE SO EVIL I HATE THEM THEY ALL HATE AMERICA SO MUCH". Trust me bro, you're not the first person to ever be a conservative troll. You act and post in a very similar fashion to ones I've met before, thus I have no choice but to conclude that you are simply a troll.

sigh^... it seems to me that you have no tolerance to allow others to have their views. I'm allowed to worry about where the Lib/Dems are leading us, thats a VERY valid concern within the USA today as every poll is telling us and the state of the country since the Dems took over congress 4 years ago.

sadly you prove my point of how Liberals are intolerant and deal in hypocrisy of saying they are for "freedom for all" but really want to control of all opinions and they will annoint what opinion will be deamed worthy

AND THATS THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD!!!! you are proving my point!!
My concern is valid and very much based on reality.

Responses like this is why I think Epicview is a troll.  He plays the victim, while employing baseless, condescending, and generalizing arguments that he claims to oppose.

baseless? really? Im not playing the victim..just tired of the slaggin

Your previous posts say otherwise.

they do not... you just dont like my views...and want them to be gone..you have been nothing but hostile in reality

Go back and read your post. How are you not playing the victim here?

Oh my god, both of you just shut up.

I'm bored with nothing to do right now, and I want to play around with the troll. Sue me.

[bosk1]

Next one to continue the petty squabbling gets the ban hammer.  Please stick to the topic and arguments related to that.  Arguments about who is supposedly the "victim" or who is the "troll" are irrelevant personal attacks.  Stick to the topic, please.

[hefdaddy42]

EDIT: ninja'd by bosky, post deleted.

[Seventh Son]

In that case, internet censorship is totally lame.

[bosk1]

No, derailing a thread by labeling someone a troll just because you disagree with them is totally lame.

[El Barto]

The problem, EV, is that everybody here agrees that what Obama's Justice Department is proposing sucks ass (well, probably not Bosk).  None of us like it.  You, on the other hand, seem to think that it's exclusive to democrats, as if Dumbass before him never did anything to curtail freedom.  That's absolutely, bat-shit insane.  This is why people aren't agreeing with your point of view.  It's not because they all worship Obama, I don't think anyone here does.  It's because it's hard to take seriously somebody who's opinions are based 100% on blind loyalties and hatreds. 

[Seventh Son]

No, derailing a thread by labeling someone a troll just because you disagree with them is totally lame.

I was trying to return the thread to the discussion of internet censorship, what this topic was originally about. 

[EPICVIEW]

The problem, EV, is that everybody here agrees that what Obama's Justice Department is proposing sucks ass (well, probably not Bosk).  None of us like it.  You, on the other hand, seem to think that it's exclusive to democrats, as if Dumbass before him never did anything to curtail freedom.  That's absolutely, bat-shit insane.  This is why people aren't agreeing with your point of view.  It's not because they all worship Obama, I don't think anyone here does.  It's because it's hard to take seriously somebody who's opinions are based 100% on blind loyalties and hatreds.  

I agree..

I guess Im seeing a pattern with first the Fairness Doctrine and now this Net Neutrality issue, as far as I can tell both have been pushed by the Democrats, as obviously the GOP would not want either, especially the Fairness Doctrine..

would you agree EB?

[Perpetual Change]

I think, for better or worse, there's really no-one to protect the netizens. The fact is, the administration in office is not going to turn away the type of information it's currently getting from invading people's internet activity, regardless of political party.

[El Barto]

The problem, EV, is that everybody here agrees that what Obama's Justice Department is proposing sucks ass (well, probably not Bosk).  None of us like it.  You, on the other hand, seem to think that it's exclusive to democrats, as if Dumbass before him never did anything to curtail freedom.  That's absolutely, bat-shit insane.  This is why people aren't agreeing with your point of view.  It's not because they all worship Obama, I don't think anyone here does.  It's because it's hard to take seriously somebody who's opinions are based 100% on blind loyalties and hatreds.  

I agree..

I guess Im seeing a pattern with first the Fairness Doctrine and now this Net Neutrality issue, as far as I can tell both have been pushed by the Democrats, as obviously the GOP would not want either, especially the Fairness Doctrine..

would you agree EB?

Well, no.  Nobody's pushing for [a reinstatement of] the fairness doctrine.  A few people have said that they thought it was a better idea, but I'm not aware of Obama trying to promote it.  And when did net neutrality come into play here?  For the record, I'm leaning towards supporting it, but it's a damn complicated issue and I can certainly appreciate the opposing point of view.  Regardless, I don't see how Obama supporting net neutrality has anything to do with censorship; quite the contrary, in fact. 

There are plenty of ways that you can point to where Obama is trying to curtail liberty that I wouldn't argue with, but these aren't good examples.  However, the good ones are almost all a continuation of Bush era policies that I suspect you'd feel forced to defend. 

[EPICVIEW]

EB,

isnt "Net Neutrlity" just the spin code for "Goverment take over and censorship" of the Net?

and Yes, Obama is pushing for the Fairness Doctrine, to me they are intrarelated

[El Barto]

White House: Obama Opposes 'Fairness Doctrine' Revival

Published February 18, 2009

| FOXNews.com

President Obama opposes any move to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine, a spokesman told FOXNews.com Wednesday.

The statement is the first definitive stance the administration has taken since an aide told an industry publication last summer that Obama opposes the doctrine -- a long-abolished policy that would require broadcasters to provide opposing viewpoints on controversial issues.

"As the president stated during the campaign, he does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated," White House spokesman Ben LaBolt told FOXNews.com.

That was after both senior adviser David Axelrod and White House press secretary Robert Gibbs left open the door on whether Obama would support reinstating the doctrine.


"I'm going to leave that issue to Julius Genachowski, our new head of the FCC ... and the president to discuss. So I don't have an answer for you now," Axelrod told FOX News Sunday over the weekend when asked about the president's position. 

The debate over the so-called Fairness Doctrine has heated up in recent days as prominent Democratic senators have called for the policies to be reinstated. Conservative talk show hosts, who see the doctrine as an attempt to impose liberal viewpoints on their shows, largely oppose any move to bring it back.

Fueling discussion, a report in the American Spectator this week said aides to Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman, Calif., met last week with staff for the Federal Communications Commission to discuss ways to enact Fairness Doctrine policies. The report said Waxman was also interested in applying those standards to the Internet, which drew ridicule from supporters and opponents of the doctrine.

Both the FCC and Waxman's office denied the report.

The Fairness Doctrine was adopted in 1949 and held that broadcasters were obligated to provide opposing points of views on controversial issues of national importance. It was halted under the Reagan administration. 

I trust you'll accept FOX news as a reliable source?

And no, your take on net neutrality is wrong.  If anything, opposition to net neutrality would open the door for private censorship, which is exactly what most people want to avoid. 


And just because there's a fine example in front of us here, I'll point out the sort of bullshit that makes FOX such a disputable outfit, since you really don't seem to get it. 

That was after both senior adviser David Axelrod and White House press secretary Robert Gibbs left open the door on whether Obama would support reinstating the doctrine.

"I'm going to leave that issue to Julius Genachowski, our new head of the FCC ... and the president to discuss. So I don't have an answer for you now," Axelrod told FOX News Sunday over the weekend when asked about the president's position. 

Do you really not see the problem there?

[EPICVIEW]

^ Thanks EB,

I have no issue with what you used for sourcing...

I dont trust Waxman...Period. 

They seem to waffle to what ever is needed to keep power..

[Progmetty]

If anyone's interested https://demandprogress.org/

[lateralus88]

I'd like to bring up a point Chino made a good while back, before we all took refuge from the original topic due to the passing shitstorm. I normally NEVER show up to this side of the forum, because of the constant bickering, but this topic makes my skin crawl and this comment has been bothering me.

I think his point is nothing should be illegal. Theft, child porn, rape, murder, should have no laws against them. That being said society as a whole would still disagree with those acts. If a man released a video of him having sex in with a 3 year old, and then slitting her throat, someone would definitely kill him with no laws against murder. I know thats a simple explanation, but am I going in the right direction?

There are a couple of things about this that bother me. First off, the step this takes towards Anarchy. I would hope that people here understand what I mean by "anarchy". None of that Sex Pistols punk life style bullshit, but the kind of anarchy where when all is said and done, life works like clockwork. No laws, no authority. Just a Utopian-like society where everything falls together, through vigilante justice or something of the like. That's what this concept Chino has brought up implies. Unfortunately, this is easily the most impossible pipe-dream to be imagined. Mankind does not operate on a level where we could make such a system work. Well okay, maybe some societies could make progress, but in actuality, places such as America could never operate on an ethics and anarchic society. I don't think I need to go much further, I think you all get the point. I mean, it would be nice to live in a Utopian society, but tough luck, that's not how life and the universe coincides.

Secondly, restriction is a very important concept. Especially in the society we live in today. I don't think it could ever be possible for America to move towards absolute freedom where consequences are purely judged by those with separate morals. While freedom is one of the most important parts of being human, restriction keeps our many instincts and negative behavior in check . Taking away those restrictions completely puts far too much faith in the ethics of man, and to be fair, the vast majority in most societies have either differing or very skewed perceptions of ethics and ideology.

That's just my two cents on the topic.

Also internet censorship = bullocks. While taking down the things that are harmful and illegal works for me, censoring things that the government sees fit is absolute bullshit. Just look at Australia. That place sucks.




Oh right, serious point. Um...oh right. By censoring the universes most free source of information and ideas, we censor freedom of press and expression, in at least some sense. I mean, whats to stop the government from taking down every new age hipsters' blog that talks about problems with both establishment and mainstream society?

[EPICVIEW]

Great post Lateralus88... very well said!