Professional Soldiers ® - Losing your First Amendment rights and NOT to the govt

Professional Soldiers ® (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/index.php)

- General Discussions (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=46)

- - Losing your First Amendment rights and NOT to the govt (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29951)

Losing your First Amendment rights and NOT to the govt

Franken does an excellent job of laying it out. I've read about this in other places but his op-ed is the clearest, most succinct piece I've read.

LL

Quote:

Net neutrality is foremost free speech issue of our time
By Al Franken, Special to CNN
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Al Franken: Trend of media consolidation will mean end of free and open internet
Mergers such as Comcast-NBC/Universal would control information flow, senator warns
Far from "neutral," gatekeepers could discriminate on political views, who pays more, he says
Franken: This is a bipartisan issue; all have a stake in preserving First Amendment
Editor's note: Sen. Al Franken was elected to the Senate as a member of the DFL (Democratic-Farmer-Labor) Party from Minnesota. He was sworn in July 2009 after a statewide hand recount. Before he joined the Senate, he spent 37 years as a comedy writer, author and radio talk show host.

(CNN) -- If we learned that the government was planning to limit our First Amendment rights, we'd be outraged. After all, our right to be heard is fundamental to our democracy.

Well, our free speech rights are under assault -- not from the government but from corporations seeking to control the flow of information in America.

If that scares you as much as it scares me, then you need to care about net neutrality.

"Net neutrality" sounds arcane, but it's fundamental to free speech. The internet today is an open marketplace. If you have a product, you can sell it. If you have an opinion, you can blog about it. If you have an idea, you can share it with the world.

And no matter who you are -- a corporation selling a new widget, a senator making a political argument or just a Minnesotan sharing a funny cat video -- you have equal access to that marketplace.

An e-mail from your mom comes in just as fast as a bill notification from your bank. You're reading this op-ed online; it'll load just as fast as a blog post criticizing it. That's what we mean by net neutrality.

But telecommunications companies want to be able to set up a special high-speed lane just for the corporations that can pay for it. You won't know why the internet retail behemoth loads faster than the mom-and-pop shop, but after a while you may get frustrated and do all of your shopping at the faster site. Maybe the gatekeepers will discriminate based on who pays them more. Maybe they will discriminate based on whose political point of view conforms to their bottom line.

We don't have to speculate. We can look to the history of the media gatekeepers for examples.

Back in the 1990s, Congress rescinded rules that prevented television networks from owning their own programming. Network executives swore in congressional hearings that they wouldn't give their own programming preferred access to the airwaves. They vowed access to the airwaves would be determined only by the quality of the shows.

I was working at NBC back then, and I didn't buy that line one bit. Sure enough, within a couple of years, NBC was the largest supplier of its own prime-time programming. To take advantage of this new paradigm, Disney bought ABC, Viacom (the parent company of Paramount) bought CBS and NBC merged with Universal.

And since these conglomerates owned both the pipes through which Americans received information (in this case, TV networks) and the information itself (in this case, TV shows), they developed a monopoly over what you could watch.

Today, if you're an independent producer, it's nearly impossible to get a show on the air unless the network owns at least a piece of it.

Now Comcast, the nation's largest cable provider, and NBC/Universal want to merge. This new behemoth would be able to charge other cable carriers more for NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, Bravo and the 35 other cable networks it will own in whole or in part. This means that other carriers won't be able to afford as many choices -- and it means that your cable bill will go up.

Comcast is also the nation's largest home internet service provider. And as more and more of our television is provided through the internet, other internet giants such as Verizon and AT&T will have to look toward merging with CBS/Viacom or ABC/Disney.

We'll end up with a few megacorporations in control of the flow of information -- not just on TV, but now online as well.

From my seat on the Judiciary Committee, I plan to do everything I can to stop these mergers or at least put rigorous restrictions on them. But if this trend toward media consolidation continues, the free and open internet will be a thing of the past unless we write the principle of net neutrality into law right now.

This isn't a liberal or conservative issue. Everyone has a stake in protecting the First Amendment.

And it isn't even strictly a political issue. The internet's freedom and openness has made it a hotbed for innovations that change our lives. It's been an incredible engine of job creation.

The internet was developed at taxpayer expense to benefit the public interest. If we let corporations prioritize some content over others, we'll lose what makes it so valuable to our economy, our democracy and our daily lives.

Net neutrality may sound like a technical issue, but it's the key to preserving the internet as we know it -- and it's the most important First Amendment issue of our time.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Sen. Al Franken.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/0...ity/index.html

Net neutrality is a trojan horse. It would allow the government to decide net content using the same old saw of "fairness." If people have more of one opinion than another, then government will "balance" the discussion.

Currently, this is what the government is trying to do to radio:

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has announced a new “Chief Diversity Officer,” communications attorney Mark Lloyd.

(Here's what he wants to do):

* Restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations.
* Ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing.
* Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting.
.

This will cause radio stations to play opinion shows that no one will listen to. This will bring down revenues and cause radio stations to close. This is what the net neutrality will do to the internet. It is a solution looking for a problem. I believe that sites like this one (we're veterans - we're dangerous according to DHS Secretary Napolitano) and we will be silenced.

It is a back door assault on the freedom of individuals.

Franken stole the election, or his people did.

He is in office after the counting of thousands of felons' votes along with other shady practices.

Net neutrality is doublespeak for government censorship and propaganda. Herr Goebbels would be proud. What the people listen to stays on the air. What they do not, loses its' advertisers and its' slots.

Wasn't Franken one of the stars of Air America, before it folded due to lack of interest?

TR

100% correct. It was well documented. His opponent either got tired of trying to fight it or ran out of money. BTW, does buffoon have one "F" or two? :eek:

Al Franken has returned to his roots as a comedy writer.

Thus far, the Internet has become an excellent source for information, communication, entertainment and commerce - and - the federal government has remained largely on the sidelines. IMHO, the last thing the Internet needs now is some sort of government intervention. Franken’s piece is reminiscent of at least two of Aesop's Fables -- The Boy Who Cried Wolf and The Wolf in Sheep's Clothing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sigaba (Post 342628)

Al Franken has returned to his roots as a comedy writer.

I've missed 'Columbo'! :D

McConnel put Franken in his 'place' the other day!

Time for a "tin foil hat" reference. Is this an attempt to provide an excuse to pass the "Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act" , giving Obama his internet "kill switch" before the elections? He used the internet to get his messages out and it helped him win the election. Now, the internet seems to be turning on him and his administration. More conservative people are blogging and researching things they failed to check before he ran. Fox News seems to be gaining in popularity over CNN and MSNBC, drowning out the liberal/progressive viewpoints with more conservative viewpoints. His agendas are failing and people are listening to others more than him. What better way to regain control of that media?

Franken should stick to his stand up act.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Utah Bob (Post 342651)

Franken should stick to his stand up act.

I thought he was?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdret1 (Post 342649)

Tin Foil hat? Naw, it is thinking outside the box ;)

Over the past 19 months a lot of Tin Foil Stuff that people scoffed at and said could or would never happen....it's has happened!

The October surprise should be interesting, maybe 20 million new voters through EO.

The morning after elections of 2010, The People will become more despondent and dissatisfied than they were after the 2008 elections, There will be many more Scott Browns, stolen elections and more ground given and sold before our eyes.

Obama Uber Alles

Quote:

Originally Posted by Utah Bob (Post 342651)

Franken should stick to his stand up act.

Oh please no! He was painful to listen to. He's the sorriest comic (standup or otherwise) that I've ever heard. Even Saturday Night Live was funny before he got there. Oops, he was there from the beginning - guess it was never funny after all. :p

Quote:

Net Neutrality I believe is a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet and it is supported by some hardcore socialists, which tells me all I need to know. The SCOTUS shot down the FCC's ability to regulate the Internet, so now they are trying ot make it where they can regulate the ISPs like telecoms.

Obama couldn't pass the Fairness Doctrine itself either, so it wouldn't surprise me if they start trying to bypass the Legislative and pull it off somehow behind the scenes, sort of like how they want to do the same cap-and-trade with giving the EPA the ability to regulate carbon emissions.

BO couldn't get it in legislation so he's going to do it by presidential fiat. He's worse on executive orders than Bush was, and he was one of the worst.

"Don't need no stinking courts."

Speaking of the internet & Freedom of Speech

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/08599200975800

Quote:

The Internet Kill-Switch Debate: Aims of Bill Unclear
By ADAM COHEN Adam Cohen 50 mins ago

Here's an idea: How about creating an Internet kill switch, so the government can shut off the Internet when it decides it is necessary?

That may sound absurd, but a lot of people are convinced this is already in the works. How many? Google the words "Internet kill switch" and you will soon find out.

What has them worried is the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, sponsored by independent Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Republican Susan Collins of Maine and Democrat Tom Carper of Delaware. The bill aims to make it easier for the government to respond to Internet-based attacks that threaten national security. (See the top 10 technology bans.)

Online, issues often break down along partisan lines, but liberals and conservatives are both worried that the Lieberman-Collins-Carper bill could turn the President into an Internet overlord. It has been a hot topic on the left-leaning blog Daily Kos, where one poster urged fellow readers to tweet the White House saying, "We DO NOT support the Internet Kill Switch." On the right-leaning Red State blog, a poster recently railed against the bill under the headline "Obama's Orwellian Control of the Internet." A letter to Lieberman, Collins and Carper expressing concern about the effect of the bill on civil liberties was signed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the very liberal National Lawyers Guild - and, on the other end of the spectrum, by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and Liberty Guard, which has sued the Federal Government to stop the new national health care reform from taking effect.

It is not hard to see why everyone is so worried. Imagine a President misusing this particular power: If the people are rising up against an unpopular Administration, the President could cool things down by shutting off a large swath of the Internet. He could target certain geographical regions ("We've heard enough from New York and California for a while"). Or he could single out particular websites. (See TIME's 50 best websites from 2009.)

The government certainly has a record of overusing authority it is given when national security is involved - we saw that, a few years ago, with the Bush Administration's domestic wiretapping program.

The sponsors of the cybersecurity bill insist that their bill would not give the President an Internet kill switch. Senator Lieberman expressly labels this a "myth" on his Senate website. Senator Collins has said it has been "frustrating" to read all the reports of an Internet kill switch. In fact, she has argued, the bill would limit rather than expand the President's power.

So, would the bill actually create an Internet kill switch? No, it does not seem to. But it is hard to say with any precision what it would do - and that is the problem with the bill. (Read about the Pentagon's past cyberwar strategies.)

The President already has broad power under the Communications Act of 1934 to shut down wire communications, which includes the Internet, if he determines that there is a "state or threat of war." When Collins says that the bill would limit the President's power, she means it would impose more restrictions on when he could shut down parts of the Internet than the 1934 act does.(Comment on this story.)

True enough. But critics of the bill point out that it expands the President's power over the Internet in a key respect: the 1934 law only applies when there is war or a threat of war, while the new law would allow the President to act even when there is not a war or a threat of war. "All I can say is it gives him power to act where he wouldn't necessarily have the power to act" under existing law, says Lee Tien, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

The bill authorizes the President to declare cyber emergencies, and what happens next is fairly unclear. He would be able to restrict parts of the Internet that relate to "critical infrastructure," but it is hard to know what exactly falls under the category of critical infrastructure and how far the President could go in closing it down.

"What authority the government would have is not laid out at all in the law," says Michelle Richardson, a lawyer in the Washington office of the ACLU.

The Lieberman-Collins-Carper bill has some built-in protections, including a prohibition on identifying targets based solely on activities protected by the First Amendment. And give the sponsors credit for this: the bill has been changing, and improving, as it has moved through the Senate.

But here is the problem: even lawyers like Tien and Richardson, whose job it is to monitor the bill, say they are not certain what it would do and how far it would go.

The bill may not authorize the creation of a literal Internet kill switch - at least in the sense of authorizing the President to shut down the entire online world. But it would give the government new authority to restrict the Internet during what it considers to be emergencies.

Given how important the Internet has become to freedom of speech, political organizing and daily life, that is not a power that should be handed over lightly, even in the name of national security. We are entitled to know exactly what the government proposes to do - in language clear enough for both lawyers and nonlawyers to understand.

Cohen, a lawyer, is a former TIME writer and a former member of the New York Times editorial board.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Green Light (Post 342812)

Ahhh, you didn't see him at Camp Phoenix with the Dallas Cheerleaders (in Burkas) making fun of Sly Stalone.

According to Al the exchange went sorta like this --
Franken: USO is cool, you should come on a tour with us.
Stalone: To Afghanistan? Isn't that, yo a little dangerous?
Franken: Didn't you used to be Rambo?