Net Neutrality Still Lives 102
BuhDuh writes "Despite previous reports, and as subsequently discussed here, it appears that Sen. Feinstein's amendment (PDF) did not make it into the approved 'HR1' version of the stimulus bill (PDF). Of course, I cannot aver to having read all 680 pages, but searching for the terms Ms. Feinstein used came up blank, so it looks like we can breathe a collective sigh of relief until someone tries to bury similar proposals in the next wide-ranging, must-pass piece of legislation."
Yeah, but what ELSE is in that turkey? (Score:0, Insightful)
Reid and Pelosi - screwing over the entire US in order to hand out pork.
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Read the bills! (Score:5, Insightful)
Can we please, for the love of God, pass something resembling the Read the Bills [wikipedia.org] act.
Although I don't necessarily agree with its libertarian ideological roots, it's absolutely absurd that a 600 page bill can be proposed and voted on before sufficient time has been given to read over and debate the entire thing.
The 7-day comment also sounds like a good idea, as long as there's a provision for emergency action.
Re:Read the bills! (Score:4, Insightful)
but aren't they unproductive enough as it is?
That's their one saving grace.
Re:Huh? (Score:1, Insightful)
What is it that makes you think liberal Democrats are for anything that will/would do something to address the prevailing attempts to limit the general public's access to information?
They want to ban conservative talk radio. That's nothing more than political censorship and restricting the right to the availability of opposing schools of thought to that which the Democrats endorse. If liberal talk radio had enough listeners it would survive in the market place. However, every attempt liberals have made at having talk radio shows has failed to make money so it has failed.
John Conyers(D-MI) wants to make it illegal for the Federal Government to make research funded with public monies, i.e. tax dollars, which has historically be open to the public at no cost, publicly available at no cost. He wants to force the government to make that information only available through private publishers. In other words he is taking a strictly corporate view of the situation and screwing over his own constituents.
http://techdirt.com/articles/20090212/0335043743.shtml
Conyers is also a shill for the RIAA.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090206/1538503680.shtml
Anyone who thinks the Democrats are out for anything other than power has had their head stuck in the sand for a long, long time. The general publics constitutional rights, and their right to reasonable access to public information the general public has already paid for with their taxes means nothing to the Democrats.
Hell, Obama and Biden locked reporters out of the campaign information loop that didn't report what they wanted the public to hear. So, if Obama did that before he was elected, you really think he's going to change now that he has real power?
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
It would be nice if they remembered occasionally how much of that funding came from ordinary citizens. Especially Obama.
Re:Huh? (Score:1, Insightful)
The required record-keeping alone may be enough to make small stations go with bland programming.
You can try to silence us, but we'll fight you every damned step of the way. I will not tolerate any attempt to stifle freedom of speech. I wonder why you would. Hmmmmm, comrade?
Censoring the internet - Useless, harmful (Score:2, Insightful)
Major lesson the leaders of this once-free country need to learn:
1. Banning X does not stop X, it just changes how X is used.
The biggest reason the internet would be censored & How censoring the internet would not help at all, but hurt:
1. To protect young children from learning about insults/slang, sex, and violence. >
A. Children are going to learn curse words & insults/slang, whether it is at school, at the park, with their friends friends, or just by hearing them on the street.
Censoring the internet is a lazy, retarded, un-premeditated way to try to stop children from learning those things.
Children are going to learn them, unless you lock them in a vault and feed them drugs all of their life. Let them learn the true language of english, but teach them what the words and insults really mean, and why it is bad to say them. Set diciplines for when they use the words. There is really nothing the government can do about it besides: improve the education system and crank out more parenting classes.
B. If you are so afraid your child is going to see a naked body, put your own censors on. There are many programs, a lot of hardware and more to do this yourself, instead of hanging around and waiting for the Government to do it.
If the internet is censored, it is going to do nothing but piss people off, and crank out more hackers. There are still magazines, there is still your TV.
If you manage to keep your child away from sex education, your child is very likely to, because of the urges, do extremely strange and illegal things such as:
Peep at any naked body possible, whether it is the girl next door, his/her parent's bedroom, or even the sleeping cat.
Many rapists and serial killers become the way they are because of their parent's overprotection.
C. Protecting your child from violence in movies and games in modern times actually is very dangerous to their behavior.
First of all, the violence in these movies gives the child a better view of what to expect from the real world. Decreasing trust in people in children in fact keeps them from talking to strangers, or taking the "Free ride" home from school, and things like that.
Second, the child better knows how to defend him/herself, and probably why not to fight, if he has seen a gang violence movie, or played GTA IV.
Sure, some studies show that playing games such as GTA IV in rare cases causes mild violent behavior in children. But what the media doesn't tell you, is that the children also become more suspicious of people, and get into less trouble over time, since they get a better idea what people are capable of.
Yeah, when your kid meets his/her creepy grandpa at first, they will be a bit shy. But when kids at school tell him/her to come out back after school for a free ice cream, your kid is less likely to come home with the police in his/her underwear covered in bruises as the police explain to you how lucky your child is to be alive.
So before you, Diana, go around killing net neutrality trying to censor the internet, maybe you should actually consider what really matters, and what does nothing.
Re:Huh? (Score:1, Insightful)
The only reason to bring back the fairness doctrine is to get rid of conservative talk radio. That's just about the only effect it will have. The fairness doctrine has no place in the information age. There are plenty of channels of communication. There is no reason to put arbitrary controls on them, or even just a few of them.
Re:Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)
Have you ever listened to talk radio? It's not the idiots who have trouble getting listeners.
Re:Huh? (Score:1, Insightful)
The majority of tech companies are also in blue states, and they love net neutrality.
Feinstein especially, who is from Northern California, should remember that and stop supporting Hollywood instead.