Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The only freedoms that Obama and the left are serious about protecting are related to sexual debauchery and depravity. He is certainly not interested in free speech, as you surely know very well.
What does this proposed regulation have to do with free speech???
This issue is funny. This should be something that conservatives support, but because Obama is telling you the sky is blue, you're gonna oppose it and argue it's green.
Who knows whether it's something to support or not? But it IS something that conservatives think should be put out there for folks to read and know about before a vote is taken.
It's not that we don't believe Obama telling us what color the sky is. We have a problem with him NOT telling us.
Who knows whether it's something to support or not? But it IS something that conservatives think should be put out there for folks to read and know about before a vote is taken.
It's not that we don't believe Obama telling us what color the sky is. We have a problem with him NOT telling us.
What are you talking about?
It was put out there. The comment period was extended to over 4 months. There were over 1 million public comments made to the FCC regarding the proposed regulation.
Those who have a sense of history, and a wider angle of vision on the policy process, may be struck by something else. The FCC's plan, coming at the very time that the Federal Election Commission is looking for ways to regulate political speech on the Internet, the Justice Department is spying on journalists and the National Security Agency (NSA) is intercepting citizens' phone calls and email, would add yet another way in which government could insert itself into the speech business.
Of course, none of the net neutrality advocates are calling for anything like that, but that's always the way with unintended consequences, and it doesn't take much imagination to see how such rules could be misused to that end. It's really a pretty simple recipe: Add a cup of precedent to the right mix of FCC commissioners (it only takes three), and you have all that would be required to quash or chill prospective deals between ISPs and the "wrong kind" of content providers.
And if anyone's response is that we should "just trust Obama" and the Dems to do the right thing here, and not overreach, please, don't bother.
Here is a quote from and article at "The Hill" that discusses that a bit.
I just read your entire article. It said absolutely nothing about anything - I failed to see any "discussion" in it at all.
I posted the proposed regulation earlier in this thread //www.city-data.com/forum/38576411-post54.html. Specifically, how will (or how could) that regulation be used by government to crack down on free speech?
LOL. So Barack Obama is the protector of the freedom of the internet in your view? That's hilarious. It reminds me of his promise to protect everyone's freedom with regards to healthcare.
"If you like your health care plan, you can keep it. Period"
Which he went on to repeat on camera many times. This flat out lie by Obama won him the Politifact Lie of the Year Award in 2013. And of course he made the same promise about keeping your doctor, which turned out to be a lie as well.
And this is just another collectivist power grab. Is it really possible that you do not realize that? Even after the Obamacare lies, which parallel this situation all too closely?
The only freedoms that Obama and the left are serious about protecting are related to sexual debauchery and depravity. He is certainly not interested in free speech, as you surely know very well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713
Here is a quote from and article at "The Hill" that discusses that a bit.
And if anyone's response is that we should "just trust Obama" and the Dems to do the right thing here, and not overreach, please, don't bother.
Again, it's the providers that sought out to change the foundation of the internet and sued the FCC. All data being treated equal is.the current foundation of the internet and providers want to change that. You can bring up ACA all you want but it's two completely separate issues.
The Administration has nothing to do with it. The FCC is an independent regulatory organization. They aren't required to listen to his Majesty on anything because he can only remove members with cause.
Tell that to the conservative groups who waited years for the IRS to approve their tax exempt status while being asked such things as what their religious beliefs were. Tell that to the people shot to death with guns that the Justice Department allowed to be sent to drug cartels. Tell that the relatives of the dead veterans who received no medical care from the VA for months on end. Tell that the non-union GM workers who lost their pensions while the union workers who contributed to the Obama campaign had their pensions protected in the bailout.
Sorry, but it begins to add up. One or two incidents of plausible deniability are reasonable, but this administration has had so many incidents that the "plausible" part has been strained past the breaking point.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
