free speech

The internet is a monopoly and needs to be regulated as such.  While individual users might see several available ISPs, the backbone is shared by all.  Therefore, government regulators have a legitimate interest in how it functions. 

Net Neutrality is the requirement that all internet traffic get the same priority.  Free speech advocates say that without net neutrality, large telecoms could slow or block traffic from left wing blogs, for example.  On the other side, telecoms argue that they need the ability to give important and low bandwidth internet functions like email and blog surfing priority over bandwidth hogs like peer to peer file sharing and high resolution video. 

This should be a solvable problem.  Free speech advocates and telecom engineers should be able to design a multi tiered  system that gives large files lower priority without regard to content.  Unfortunately, politicians on both sides are blocking a purely technical solution.  Democrats do not trust telecoms to remain content neutral.  Indeed, without vigilant regulation, that is a serious worry.

Conservatives argue against government involvement of any kind.  This ignores the fact that the internet began as and remains a government program.  It demonstrates that government sometimes can, in the words of President Reagan, “be here to help”.  By opposing all regulation, they force free speech advocates to fight any packet priority system at all. 

Republican rigidity on net neutrality harmful to a technological solution to the bandwidth issue.  It also gives the impression that Republicans are more concerned about large telecoms than freedom of speech.  How different things would look if Republicans championed an innovative technological solution with content guarantees.  No longer would the word “intertubes” be a universal code word for old Republican technological ignorance (Senator Stevens described the internet as being like a network of tubes.). 

The Wikipedia article on net neutrality is surprisingly balanced, with links to all sides of the issue.

     The first amendment to the United States Constitution reads;

     Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Ratified 12/15/1791 

     In direct contradiction to that right, here is part of a press release from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services, issued Sep 21, 2009;

Medicare today called on Medicare-contracted health insurance and prescription drug plans to suspend potentially misleading mailings to beneficiaries about health care and insurance reform. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently asked Humana, Inc. to end similar mailings. Humana has agreed to do so.

     The problem started when the huge insurance company Humana, Inc. had the audacity to send an informational letter to its health insurance customers. Humana is the company that manages health plans for Medicare beneficiaries. In the letter, the customers were informed that "millions of seniors and disabled individuals" could lose "important benefits and services" under the reform proposals being considered by Congress. The customers were urged to contact their congressional representatives over their concerns.

      Well, that explains it. We can’t have all the common citizens running around all over the place with actual information. They must accept what they are told by Washington and be happy with it.  

     These are private companies, owned and operated by private American citizens. The federal government has told those companies, operated by those United States citizens, to shut up. Apparently the first amendment doesn’t protect their speech, unless that speech agrees with the government. 

Media Research Center President Brent Bozell asks – “Where is the outrage from the media on this abuse of power? Here we have an orchestrated and deliberate attempt to keep American citizens in the dark, particularly vulnerable seniors. Their very health is at risk, yet all but ABC have chosen to keep their audiences in the dark about this abuse. If they aren't willing to probe and at least question the administration on this blatant offense, what else are they shoving under the rug”?

I can’t believe this is happening here in the Land of the Free. America had better wake up in a hurry.

Read more at http://commonconservativesense.com 

Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: The Cato Institute has been following the Citizens United v. FEC case, in which the Supreme Court is set to rule on whether an organization can use speech about a political candidate in the days leading up to an election. The Federal Election Commission banned Citizen United from showing a film against Hillary Clinton on a pay-per-view basis shortly before the last year’s election.

The so-called Citizens United case offers the Supreme Court a chance to severely curtail the free speech abuses of the Federal Election Commission. If the government can ban broadcasts under federal law, that else can they ban? Books? Commercials? In the following CATO video, campaign finance law and free speech experts discuss the case, and what it means for the future of free speech. The Supreme Court is set to rule on it in the next few weeks. John Samples, Director of the Cato Institute's Center for Representative Government, Institute for Justice Senior Attorney Steve Simpson and George Mason University law professor Allison Hayward weigh in.

Or Free Republic, for that matter?  Well, Linda Sanchez (D) thinks it might be a good idea.

(a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

So, let me see if I understand this.  If I go onto Daily Kos and start accusing the posters of being godless communists bent on destroying the USA, using withering inflammatory insults ("severe" and "hostile"), and I do so in a "repeated" manner, then according to Sanchez I should be thrown in jail.

Of course the intention is to stop 'cyber-bullying' among kids.  But here is a pretty obvious case where the proposed action upon the intention will have significant unintended consequences that threaten everyone's liberty.

H/T: Corner, Volokh

Podcast Show Notes

Another Democrat New Deal problem or Obama tells us about FDR's imaginary housing bail out.

Barack Obama threatens TV stations to get them to stop running NRA ads attacking him. (Hat Tip: Hot Air.)

Missouri Governor Matt Blunt calls Obama out for "police state tactics" (Hat Tip: Sister Toldjah.)

Obama campaign bans signs at a Virginia rally. (Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin.)

Sorry, foreigners, who'd like to vote for Obama, only U.S. citizens can vote UNFORTUNATELY.

First goal of an Obama Presidency: 125,000 more dead unborn children a year.

Obama's snake oil faith tour gets panned in Lynchburg.

What's saving us from Barbarians at the gate? According to Joe Biden, trial lawyers and labor unions.

Sarah Palin stands up for "Under God." (Hat Tip: Wizbang Blog.)

Plus was John McCain right in calling for Chris Cox's resignation? (Hat Tip: Instapundit.)

Plus optional components of bi-partisan meetings held by Democrats: inviting Republicans.

Democrats stole a House vote incorrectly announcing a Republican Amendment failed. (Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin.)

The outrageous attempts of House Democrats to hide what's in a $1 trillion continuing resolution.

Luke Russert makes a rookie mistake.

State Trooper chaplains resign due to rules against praying in Jesus' name. (Hat Tip: News Busters.)

An Islamist sect in England is radicalizing British Muslim youth.

Second Amendment rights excercised in the defense of life and property.

A former abortionist tells all.

Ben and Jerry opts against Breast Milk Ice Cream.

A Pennsylvania diner free to anyone who'll run it.

A woman named Bacon wins a hog calling contest.

Skepticism thwarts robbery.

Music by Exit 417 via the Podsafe Music Network.

Click here to listen, click here to download.

'This is written so anybody can take any part and grow it into monstrosity'
<!-- end deck -->Posted: July 01, 2008
9:05 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
<!-- copyright -->© 2008 WorldNetDaily <!-- end copyright -->

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=68542

[Promoted - There's really no chance that Democrats can bring back the Fairness Doctrine itself...and they know this.  As a result, they're trying to impose it by appealing to populist, anti-business and anti-property sympathies.  You can read more about their current efforts in this article at National Review.

The progressive's "media reform" movement is becoming incredibly well-organized and influential, and it's getting positioned to have a major, game-changing impact on the media landscape.  Their 'fairness doctrine through other means' strategy could tilt the political landscape for generations to come.  This is important. - Jon Henke]

Why are the Democrats against free speech? Why do they want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine? Why are the stalling on an up or down vote on the Broadcaster Freedom Act? And the big question, why aren’t conservatives, republicans, and libertarians up in arms over this and pressuring Congress to act.