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This discussion has been archived.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: 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
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (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