SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
CNSNews reports:
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) member Ajit Pai said over the weekend that he foresees a future in which federal regulators will seek to regulate websites based on political content, using the power of the FCC or Federal Elections Commission (FEC). He also revealed that his opposition to "net neutrality" regulations had resulted in personal harassment and threats to his family.
Pai, one of two Republicans on the five-member FCC, has been an outspoken critic of net neutrality regulations passed by the agency on Feb. 6. The rules, which are set to take effect on June 12, reclassify Internet providers as utilities and command them not to block or "throttle" online traffic.
However, Pai said it was only the beginning. In the future, he said, "I could easily see this migrating over to the direction of content... What you're seeing now is an impulse not just to regulate the roads over which traffic goes, but the traffic itself."
"Is it unthinkable that some government agency would say the marketplace of ideas is too fraught with dissonance? That everything from the Drudge Report to Fox News... is playing unfairly in the online political speech sandbox? I don't think so," Pai said.
That in contrast to a Department of Defense article here in which the Pentagon's chief spokesman admitted, "When bad things happen, the American people should hear it from us, not as a scoop on the Drudge Report."
The Drudge Report is singled out as an example in both articles, but such changes have the potential to affect all political speech online, some people believe. As for Pai's point of view, is it valid, or is it partisan sour-grapes fearmongering?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by shortscreen on Wednesday May 06 2015, @05:04AM
Not only is this baseless speculation, from a man who is probably butthurt about the Title II decision, it is also a threat that makes no sense.
Let's think about this for a second. What could the big, bad FCC possibly have to gain by trying to censor websites, a move which would be obviously unconstitutional, that almost everyone would find out about and oppose? Seriously, if the feds want to take a website down for whatever reason, they already have countless tools at their disposal. They can steal the server via civil forfeiture, gag everyone with national security letters, plant some kiddy porn, extraordinarily render the author to a "black site" for some waterboarding, etc. You know, the normal executive branch stuff that they already get away with.