Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Wednesday May 06 2015, @03:56AM   Printer-friendly
from the hands-off-my-interwebs dept.

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?

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 06 2015, @05:51AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 06 2015, @05:51AM (#179400)

    Could you please give references for (2) and (3)? If those are statements made openly as you say, then there should be sources.

    Also, I would hesitate to call anyone in federal government a progressive except maybe Elizabeth Warren.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +5  
       Insightful=4, Disagree=1, Touché=1, Total=6
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0, Insightful) by jmorris on Wednesday May 06 2015, @07:23AM

    by jmorris (4844) on Wednesday May 06 2015, @07:23AM (#179420)

    I normally ignore AC posts but what the heck, I'm a giver tonite.

    Could you please give references for (2) and (3)? If those are statements made openly as you say, then there should be sources.

    For number 2 it is probably sufficient to say two phrases: Hate Speech Legislation and Campaign Finance Law. Both the current and probable next POTUS openly declare their support for 'modifying' the 1st Amendment if required to achieve their goals. But just for extra kaboom lets just throw in the transformation of the University from a place of free and open debate to a series of safe spaces, free from triggering microagressions... such as disagreement with progressive orthodoxy.

    As to item 3, lemme just throw it back at ya. Name one fundamental American principle you believe a Progressive actually supports. Supports as in would abandon an otherwise successful political power grab if they believed it conflicted with one of the principles. And since odds are your own gutless ass is also one, just simplify to name one YOU support. Free Speech? Free Association? RTKBA? Rule of Law? A Republic, not a Democracy? Limited government? States' Rights? Separation of powers? Inalienable Rights?

    Also, I would hesitate to call anyone in federal government a progressive except maybe Elizabeth Warren.

    Why does anyone care what an AC thinks? We do know as incontrovertible fact that a fair number of em call themselves such, speak as such and act as such. After they made socialist, communist, progressive and fascist dirty words by the simple expedient of saying what they stood for (and the rather forceful examples of the related totalitarian philosophies in practice - see WWII) they abandoned all of those terms and adopted 'liberal' which now means (in the U.S.) exactly the opposite of the meaning it historically held. It now equally tainted by public understanding of what the people using the label actually believe, they have abandoned it and reclaimed progressive. See public pronouncements by Democratic Party luminaries such as Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, etc. Good luck with a No True Scotsman defense declaring they aren't really progressives or representative of your Party.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Eristone on Wednesday May 06 2015, @05:43PM

      by Eristone (4775) on Wednesday May 06 2015, @05:43PM (#179600)

      Okay - not an Anonymous Coward posting.

      Can you post a reference where the current president and the current democratic candidate have said they want to modify the 1st amendment? (and you do realize how hard it is to modify amendments, right?) Campaign Finance Law currently is "He who has the most dollars has the loudest voice" - does that sit well with you? Hate Speech legislation - so far, the KKK is still allowed to print and distribute pamphlets and while I despise everything they stand for, I support their right to be able to do so. (That pesky 1st Amendment thing).

      For #3, I support freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Free association - so you aren't closely paying attention to all those guys at the mosque? Rule of Law shouldn't have an asterisk, which it currently does. Limited government is more of a Tea Party specific bit, but it would be nice to have only the government necessary however when people are given free reign to do what they want, inevitably you start having individuals who missed a bunch of chapters about "fellow man", hence the regulations.

      So regarding your rant about representatives of the Democratic Party, the pronouncements found on sites such as TPNN and WND are usually false or so heavily slanted and edited that they resemble the truth in that they use the same alphabet.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday May 06 2015, @07:53PM

        by curunir_wolf (4772) on Wednesday May 06 2015, @07:53PM (#179643)

        Can you post a reference where the current president and the current democratic candidate have said they want to modify the 1st amendment?

        I can. Right here is the news about Obama supporting a Constitutional amendment to limit speech [cnsnews.com]. And here is a story about Hillary Clinton supporting the same thing [wordpress.com].

        --
        I am a crackpot
        • (Score: 1) by Eristone on Wednesday May 06 2015, @08:57PM

          by Eristone (4775) on Wednesday May 06 2015, @08:57PM (#179673)

          Laughing - touche curunir_wolf. Well done, sir. Under the circumstances, though, I would support that particular amendment with regards to corporations and campaign finance - companies aren't people who can vote, so limiting their speech by constitutionally reversing the Citizens United ruling seems right...

          • (Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Saturday May 09 2015, @07:55PM

            by curunir_wolf (4772) on Saturday May 09 2015, @07:55PM (#180850)

            The clear implication of the amendment is that it invalidates the First Amendment restrictions on the government's ability to limit free speech. I can't even send out a Tweeter without spending money for Internet access, and I can't set up a web site without purchasing a domain. EVERY form of speech, with the possible exception of standing on a street corner giving a speech (as long as the police don't try to arrest you for loitering).

            You should also consider the implications of mentioning that it's okay to limit "spending for speech", but not limit "the press". Well, okay, then what is "the press"? If I'm one of the 5 US corporations that controls mainstream media, I'm free to say anything I want. But outside of that cabal, I'm going to have to prove that I'm part of "the press" in order to get the freedom to distribute a message. That implies that the government will be deciding who is a journalist and who is not.

            It's a bad amendment. The response to speech you disagree with is to speak out. There is plenty of money on both sides to promote ideas. The only limitations right now is the government and politicians' ability to limit the expression of those ideas. And that's a good thing.

            --
            I am a crackpot
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday May 06 2015, @07:44PM

      by curunir_wolf (4772) on Wednesday May 06 2015, @07:44PM (#179638)

      For number 2 it is probably sufficient to say two phrases: Hate Speech Legislation and Campaign Finance Law. Both the current and probable next POTUS openly declare their support for 'modifying' the 1st Amendment if required to achieve their goals.

      It's worse than that. They actually tried to modify it already [govtrack.us], and they're planning to re-introduce it this session.

      --
      I am a crackpot