Franken says that Net Neutrality is 1st amendment issue

Post Reply New Topic

read this

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0819/watch- ... net-forum/

sign the petition

you do understand the irony of using the 1st amendment of the US states to explain net neutrility?

THE INTERNET DOES NOT BELONG TO THE USA,

therefore doesnt have to follow its rules

I think that the net should be monitered a heck lot more, then there wouldent be so many Paedophiles and online suicide pacts

Actually, it does. It was the US govt that created Arpanet to begin with, so if anyone has the right to claim or control the backbone servers, it would be Uncle Sam.

It was the US govt that opened the Internet to the public. For decades it was accessible only to the US Military and select Academic programs. Its not like air that is just always here and always has been and is naturally accessible to everyone. Its a utility and can be controlled and limited, as you can see governments like China and Iran doing already.

That said, I don't care what the hell Al Franken is going on about, I hope he chokes on his own tongue.

You do understand the irony of your last statement, don't you? If the net doesn't belong to anyone - THEN WHO IS SUPPOSED TO BE MONITORING IT?

Actually, this is completely a U.S. issue, and that has nothing to do with the origins of the internet itself. This is about the service providers within the U.S,. and requiring them to give customers access to all content providers equally, as opposed to limiting or extending bandwidth to a given site based on arbitrary guidelines set by the service provider. Ending net neutrality has the potential for those who own the service providers to restrict access to anything they politically disagree with, and considering that in many, more rural parts of the country there may be as few as 2 or just one service provider, outside of using 3G-4G cell bandwidth, the availability of which is also not universally available.

Within each country, how and whether net neutrality applies differs. China, for instance, completely blocks many western sites. The concept that one's ability to find legal information should not be curtailed or gated by private businesses who are being paid for access to "the internet", is indeed an aspect of Freedom of the Press, which is enforced in the United States by the First Amendment.

oright sorry i didnt understand that this was about net neutrility within the USA and that net neutrility varies from nation to nation

It doesnt have anything to do with pediphiles but it does have everything to do with corperations blocking access to material that does not politically line up with their interests. And if big buisness controlled the US internet then we will have no voice as we dont have much of a voice with cable media. I wish there could be a way to filter out pediphiles and the like but google and verision are not interested in that...they are interested in blocking material like multi-stalking, corperate mobbing and anything that conflicts their interest. Those impoertant issues only have voice on the internet. The corperate food safety bill that passed would have gone unnoticed if it was not for the internet neutrality...it was ignored my other media competely. The problem with this bill is that it favors big ag and punishes organic and local farmers for not operating like big Ag. There was alot of mention on it in the internet, no mention at all about it in any Corperate run media. This is about your right to have your voice heard on issues that are blocked by other media. In the US, the internet is the only form of free press we have...the rest is run by corperations and what they deem important v's what we deem important. This is part of the class war that is going on in our country right now.

As a result in part of the plutocratic tendency in the US since the beginning (one of the Founders famously said that those who own the country ought to run it), the weird Money Equals Speech formula has been endorsed by the courts and by society, something not accepted for example in post-Rene Levesque Quebec. Some might argue that Net Neutrality violates the sacred Money Equals Speech formula - the megaphone must be louder for those with the cash, they say... and not equal to all.

money equals free speech or lack thereof?

Did you know that Google just recently got a government security clearance ? I read that in my local paper. That means 1 they are aligned with goverment while wanting to restrict what ppl see on the net, and 2 they can read classified documents