Internet Free Speech

[S Carver Orne]

V1YjEP2i1D8

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1966

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality

What at first sounds like a good idea rarely is. What are your thoughts?

[Agent Cay]

I seriously hope this doesn't go through. The Internet is NOT meant to be shepherded into a single-file line of political correctness. People should be smart enough to recognize that with unmonitored freedom of speech comes the risk of invasion or viciousness, and that they consent to this every time they log on.

The Internet is NOT a place for etiquette, nor necessarily a place for recklessness. All its meant to be is a form of communication.

[Tonus]

I think that the concept of Net Neutrality is doomed for two reasons. One is realistic, one is more practical in nature.

1- Influence bought with lobbying dollars. While the government is currently of a socialistic 'no one gets left behind' mindset (which may keep net neutrality alive for a while)the government is always awash in lobbyist dollars and the influence that they peddle. Tight control of data pipes can increase profits dramatically, and that can increase influence peddling equally dramatically. And the lobbying effort by those opposed to NN has been going on for a while, and a lot of money has been dumped into it. The pro-NN argument is being forwarded by people who don't have that kind of money to spend (after all, in some ways what they're asking for is a subsidy).

2- The fact is that those data paths are owned by someone, who paid to install them and/or pays to maintain them and/or support them, and therefore has certain rights in regards to them. Taking those rights away could have a chilling effect on research and development of new networking technologies. Who wants to spend millions of dollars to develop new network technologies, only to be forced to give them away for 'the greater good'? This viewpoint could change depending on the political mood in Washington (see above point re- government mindset). But in the long run I think the more capitalistic ideal will win out.

And that is in part because I believe that the truth is that all data is NOT equal. And the country (and the world) have become dependent on that global network to such a degree that few companies can afford to lose that access, and would be willing to pay to make sure that they have the guarantee that their profit-generating traffic has a higher priority than little Billy's pirated movie and music collection.

[Diniden]

Absolutely ridiculous. This could lead to soooo many mistaken cases where someone is just being st00pid so to say. (wow firefox accepted st00pid...)

Also, actually tracking these cases would be nothing less of a ridiculous endeavor. To prove something like that, you have to gain access to people's private accounts and then database all of the messages sent. That would be a massive massive endeavor and would eat up billions of dollars trying to support those cases.

And as always, it is definitely just another step to letting the government sit down and eat with us at the dinner table.

I think the government should just support moral institutions to fight against that behavior (like churches and support groups) and not try to use the iron rod. Supporting institutions = constitutional. Iron rodding the citizens = idiocy.

[Edmaster]

Government needs to get out of people's lives. This invasion of government interference is absolutely ridiculous.

[Mechwarrior3]

Oi...When will the government stop being full of old people that are afraid of technology they don't understand?

I bet they still believe the internet is just a bunch of tubes.

::facepalm::

[Grunthos]

Age has nothing to do with it... it comes of electing idiots, regardless of age.

[MafiaGuy7]

This is the kind of occasion where I break out the "one in millions" argument. Out of all the users on Myspace and such networks, a death due to cyberbullying has occurred how many times? While they're at it, they might as well just make regular bullying in real life a felony, as well.

[Edmaster]

The government isn't going to stop a kid from picking on another kid. It's something that will happen, because some people are jerks and like to pick on people weaker than them.

Getting adults involved NEVER solves anything. The kid either needs to find a way to ignore the bullying until it eventually stops, or the kid has to stand up for himself and make it stop. Sadly, school and government intervention has actually made it TOUGHER on the poor kids, especially the schools that implemented those stupid "zero tolerance" policies, in which EVERYONE gets in trouble, even if you were just defending yourself or trying to avoid the situation altogether. It's ridiculous and gotten completely out of hand.

Even when I was in school, fights weren't as big a deal as they are now. Usually it was just a detention and that was that, but NOW if you get in a fight I bet you're liable to get suspended or even expelled under these "zero tolerance" policies. It's absurd.

[Grunthos]

It was much simpler when corporal punishment was still allowed in public elementary school. I saw the very end of that era (no pun intended.)

Trust me, that level of adult intervention was effective as hell; the reason involving adults makes it worse nowdays is that the adults aren't allowed to actually intervene, investigate, discover fault, and dispense justice.

For a bully, both kids being punished works in his favor. He doesn't care (he volunteered), and the victim gets victimized twice.

[Ythogtha]

It was much simpler when corporal punishment was still allowed in public elementary school. I saw the very end of that era (no pun intended.)

Trust me, that level of adult intervention was effective as hell; the reason involving adults makes it worse nowdays is that the adults aren't allowed to actually intervene, investigate, discover fault, and dispense justice.

For a bully, both kids being punished works in his favor. He doesn't care (he volunteered), and the victim gets victimized twice.

Agreed.

As much as I find Fox News a complete joke, I would have to agree with them that if everything they are saying about the bill would be true it would be completely unconstitutional. Of course, I'd have to look into it myself before swallowing everything Fox News says.

[S Carver Orne]

I trust Fox News more than any other news network. However, that doesn't mean I completely like it. Fox News leans too far to the right. CNN leans too far to the left. MSNBC just makes shit up. The only certainty one can gather from modern-day media is that selective reporting and biased spin will leave one uncertain.

[Ythogtha]

I trust Fox News more than any other news network. However, that doesn't mean I completely like it. Fox News leans too far to the right. CNN leans too far to the left. MSNBC just makes shit up. The only certainty one can gather from modern-day media is that selective reporting and biased spin will leave one uncertain.

I agreed, though I trust Fox News the least of the three.

[JägerMeister]

Tell me, is it soon going to be unconstitutional to breathe?

I mean really, if the government wants to stop "hate crimes" on the internet, they'll have to shut it down, which would be completely absurd. It is absolutely pointless to place restrictions and regulations on issues since people will find a way around the system. Freedom of speech is a RIGHT given to us and I'll be damned the day we lose it.

Also, why doesn't my sig work? Maybe I'm just pants on head retarded as Zero Punctuation would put it D:

[Dr. L]

This is all so... insane. Is there any way to stop this? Well... there is... but it would need the right spark... something to make the people collectively realize something is going terribly wrong. But it'll prolly be a few more years of bullshit before that happens. America is a sleeping giant, and we should not be subdued by a retarded headcrab.

[Ythogtha]

If anything it will work just like most programs or bills created by the government, that is to say half-assed

[Dr. L]

The other half needs a swift smack with a board with nails in it.


But knowing them, they'd enjoy it.

[Diniden]

Yeah kinda funny...if the government does slowly strangle the people, I wonder what will happen when the people finally wake up to that...it'd be explosive and a very dangerous time for the country.

Also, I began to realize, if this bill was passed, it would also affect our services and would just give them some incentive to take their servers and business to another country...

hmmm but that's an interesting thought, would we be responsible if the service we were using was located outside our borders :P?

[Ythogtha]

The other half needs a swift smack with a board with nails in it.


But knowing them, they'd enjoy it.

I would.

Anyway, who’s to say the country would wake up? I'd like to think that society is David Carideann and we're all just one asphyxiation induced orgasm away from total collapse.

[Mechwarrior3]

Even if America does collapse on itself or can't get itself out of this stranglehold, I think the rest of the world will know it.

Then our enemies will know that we're weak and vulnerable.

Talk about a party.

[Grunthos]

If anything it will work just like most programs or bills created by the government, that is to say half-assed

On the contrary, I have yet to meet a government program that wasn't liberally over-assed.

[Tonus]

Yeah. Most government programs can be described with the word "ass."

[Ythogtha]

Well, like I've said before pro is good, con is bad. If progress is something good, then what is congress?

[Grunthos]

They should have named it "regress;" far more accurate

[hodge podge]

Wow, I'm appalled at how casually people in our government can propose, get support for, and pass legislation that will, in effect, limit our constitutional rights. I've always wanted to talk to the congressmen and women who try to pass bills such as this one and ask them what the fuck they are thinking. Personally, I cannot conceive any legitimate reason as to why this may be ok, or even necessary. The government has spent far to much time and money crusading about insignificant shit. There are far greater problems that need solving.

What is even more appalling is the fact that people elect dickheads like that, whether for partisan reasons, or ignorance. I cannot believe stuff like this isn't getting more coverage. This is what is important, not Michael Jackson. Its really just to bad people are to stupid and sedentary to do something about this. And it is really a shame that politics is about making a career, making a name, and leaving some sort of mark rather than make a positive change. Our legal system is incredibly fucked up, our public education is unacceptably below par, and our economy is struggling, yet all these assholes can worry about is protecting the feelings of people, regardless of it infringing about our most valuable rights. If something like this gets passed, then more will surely follow.

I think that anyone who can convince someone they don't know over the internet, to kill themselves, should go into politics. That takes a real mastery of words.

[hodge podge]

I agreed, though I trust Fox News the least of the three.

Why is that? Fox always gets a bad rap from people, yet I really haven't seen any evidence supporting it. :/

[Dr. L]

Why is that? Fox always gets a bad rap from people, yet I really haven't seen any evidence supporting it. :/

It likely gets a bad rap from people, because it gets subtle bad raps from CNN, the "trustworthy" news network.


It has conservative leanings, yes, but in these times it serves as a good buffer against the Obama butt-licking from CNN. I used to watch CNN, but I reluctantly turned the station to FOX News, and was surprised about how much it made this peculiar thing called... sense. Now, it's still guilty of bias, but it is at least intelligent bias.

[Ythogtha]

It likely gets a bad rap from people, because it gets subtle bad raps from CNN, the "trustworthy" news network.


It has conservative leanings, yes, but in these times it serves as a good buffer against the Obama butt-licking from CNN. I used to watch CNN, but I reluctantly turned the station to FOX News, and was surprised about how much it made this peculiar thing called... sense. Now, it's still guilty of bias, but it is at least intelligent bias.

Actually, all three news groups have their downfalls. MSNBC is fixated on Limbaugh being the conservative devil (instead of the fake, useless blowhard he really is), CNN has a Twitter boner, and Fox news employs game show hosts as news anchors. I watch all three, but I never fully believe any three, always remembering where their agendas lay.