 |
Comments |
|
 | Monday, October 13, 2008 at 23:22:06 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: John Harris
E-mail: John.Harris00 at gmail.com
Imagine a Tiered Internet, yes, two Internets, on one you get most things, and you pay a cheaper price, on the second you get more things, but you pay for it.
You want to read Blogs from your favorite websites? Well ATT/whoever-the-hell-your-ISP-is, well they want money for that.
Now consider that in respect to your Blog, which is political, and well it's a 3rd Tier; so to read about it, it'll cost you 30USD more (that's on top of what you're paying to access the Internet.) They've just shut you up for good, they don't need to impact your first amendment rights, they just have to price the market out of everyones reach.
Don't believe me?
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/how-would-two-tier-int ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4552138.stm
John. - and yes, I am CCNA/CCNP trained, I'm working towards my CCIE. |
|
| Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 5:27:33 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: Billy Beck
E-mail: wjbiii(at)frontiernet.net
URL: http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php
"I'm familiar with the basics of the Fairness Doctrine, but it's not clear to me how it might be applied to online media (in general) and blogs (in particular). Does anyone know?"
Are you kidding? That's easy.
They'll just make it up as they go along. |
|
| Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 5:50:48 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: Alex Knapp
E-mail: jalexknapp(at)gmail.com
URL: http://www.hereticalideas.com
There is not a chance on Earth that a court would uphold a "fairness doctrine" for blogs. To be honest, I would wager that the courts would not uphold it for broadcast today.
(1) First off, the FCC has no jurisdiction over content promulgated over the internet, so they could not pass any regulations regarding its content. Additionally, Congress has consistently refused to allow the FCC jurisdiction over cable television, and there is no evidence to suggest that this will change anytime soon. If Congress won't give them jurisdiction over cable, the odds of them granting jurisdiction over the internet are virtually nonexistent.
(2) When the courts upheld the fairness doctrine back in the 50s, it was a very narrow ruling, justified solely by the limited number of channels available to to the viewing public. Since then, there has been an explosion of opinion channels, and at this point, I would venture to say that if a new fairness doctrine were attempted, it would be struck down. Free speech jurisprudence has become a great deal broader than it was in the 1950s.
In short, this is pure paranoia, completely unsubstantiated by evidence. |
|
| Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 6:42:21 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: Billy Beck
E-mail: wjbiii(at)frontiernet.net
URL: http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php
"In short, this is pure paranoia, completely unsubstantiated by evidence."
{hah!} You're bloody delusional, and they will do everything they can to prove it. |
|
| Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 7:10:42 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: Alex Knapp
E-mail: jalexknapp(at)gmail.com
URL: http://www.hereticalideas.com
"You're bloody delusional, and they will do everything they can to prove it."
Would you care to provide any actual evidence to support this assertion? |
|
| Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 7:26:32 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: Jeff Montgomery
URL: http://funwithgravity.blogspot.com/
Regarding the Fairness Doctrine, it's good to hear (comment #3) that at least we are legally a long ways from it, and free speech has been applied in a way that makes it more difficult, but since there are few restrictions on what the government can do in the economy, I'm not confident about the future being secure. Both the First Amendment and the interstate Commerce Clause are in the Constitution, and they are in direct conflict with each other.
Regarding a "Tiered Internet" (comment #1), there is nothing sinister about that, any more than there is anything sinister about tiered airline service (i.e. first class/economy class) or tiered housing (cheap shack vs. mansion). It's a market like any other. If a company owns a network, it's their absolute moral right to set the price and terms of use (including blocking anyone/anything they want). In my view this is only discussed because many people think of it as a public right, rather than a paid privilege to use someone else's property, which it actually is.
And if there are issues of public ownership or licensing or other legal restrictions that cloud the issue, they should be removed so the market is 100% laissez-faire for Internet services. |
|
| Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 7:46:09 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: kittie
It's not really paranoia to worry about Obama silencing free speech. It doesn't mean McCain would do it less, but there is no reason to be complacent about Obama.
"(2) I'm not sure that I agree with my last sentence: "Blogs will likely be on the chopping block." The fact is that blogs are substantially dependent on mainstream media. If the government effectively controls those sources of information, then it might not need to enact any controls particular to blogs to effectively silence them."
that is how I think it will be applied to online media. |
|
| Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 7:51:17 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: Alex Knapp
E-mail: jalexknapp(at)gmail.com
URL: http://www.hereticalideas.com
"It's not really paranoia to worry about Obama silencing free speech."
It is if you don't have any evidence to substantiate that conclusion. |
|
| Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 8:17:34 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: Billy Beck
E-mail: wjbiii(at)frontiernet.net
URL: http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php
"Would you care to provide any actual evidence to support this assertion?"
Yes. I submit the entire history of the United States government. |
|
| Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 9:20:10 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: Liz Stirling
E-mail: estirling(at)mac.com
Dear Diana,
Via net neutrality laws.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=308354689539729
"Obama, like congressional Democrats, also wants to regulate the Internet, the only other medium in which the right does well, via its influential bloggers.
The means here: something called "network neutrality." Neutrality, if enacted, would give government overseers at the FCC the power to ensure that Internet providers treated equally all the information bits surging across the Web's "pipes" â€" its cables, fiber optics, phone lines and wireless connections.
This measure makes zero economic sense. Broadband providers want to manage more actively â€" and thus profitably â€" those information bits. They'd like to offer, for instance, new superfast delivery for sites or users willing to pay more (not unlike how FedEx speeds delivery of packages for a fee), or other new services such as online video or telephony.
Network neutrality would render all that illegal. But why, then, should broadband investors keep building the Web infrastructure needed to keep pace with surging use? Where's their financial incentive?
Yet if that infrastructure isn't in place soon, the vast amount of data pouring online will begin to slow the Web to a crawl, many experts believe. Needless to say, neutrality also will be a gold mine to telecom lawyers, who'll have their hands full figuring out what constitutes "digital discrimination."
But the biggest potential danger of neutrality is that its concern for equal treatment of bits will extend to sites' content, creating a kind of Fairness Doctrine for the Web, as FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell has warned â€" and as Obama adviser and law professor Cass Sunstein once called for." |
|
| Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 9:22:25 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: Jasmine
E-mail: gandhijasmine(at)hotmail.com
Dear Diane,
I loved that touch "so help me Galt"!!! Copyright it soon because I intend to steal that phrase for my future arguments and writings - I just love it.
warm regards. |
|
| Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 9:42:57 mst
Comment ID: #12
Name: Clint
URL: http://dummyfencing.typepad.com
"It's not really paranoia to worry about Obama silencing free speech."
It is if you don't have any evidence to substantiate that conclusion.
Does this count as evidence:
DENVER -- Sen. Barack Obama's campaign organized its supporters Wednesday night to confront Tribune-owned WGN-AM in Chicago for having a critic of the Illinois Democrat on its air. (Listen to the interview.)
"WGN radio is giving right-wing hatchet man Stanley Kurtz a forum to air his baseless, fear-mongering terrorist smears," Obama's campaign wrote in an e-mail to supporters. "He's currently scheduled to spend a solid two-hour block from 9:00 to 11:00 p.m. pushing lies, distortions, and manipulations about Barack and University of Illinois professor William Ayers."
[...]
Christenson said the Obama campaign was asked to have someone appear on the show and declined the request.
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/08/obama_campa ...
That was one of the two instances where the campaign directed its supporters to "confront" WGN radio while declining to appear on the air to rebut the claims made during the show.
Or this:
Last Tuesday, CBS affiliate Channel 4 TV News in St. Louis reported that some Missouri sheriffs and prosecutors have formed a truth squad to target anyone who engages in misleading ad or statements about Senator Obama.
Here's the transcript of the lede on the CBS story:
"Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign is asking Missouri law enforcement to target anyone who lies or runs a misleading television ad during the presidential campaign."
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/09/missouris_obama_truth_s ...
Or how about this:
Sen. Barack Obama is warning TV stations and asking the Justice Department to intervene in an attempt to block the airing of an ad by a non-profit group that links him to an unrepentant domestic terrorist.
The spot by the American Issues Project questions Obama's ties to William Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground organization who boasted of a series of bomb attacks at the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol four decades ago.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73448 |
|
| Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 10:02:35 mst
Comment ID: #13
Name: John Campbell
E-mail: johnnycamatshaw.ca
"Would you care to provide any actual evidence to support this assertion?"
Yes. I submit the entire history of the United States government.
The United States government is now planning to partially nationalize private banks. Billy Beck's submission of proof is added to daily. Nothing is off limits to the steamrollers that are our governments unfettered by morality or objective laws. Yikes! To deny our peril is delusional, yet I remain an optimist when Objectivsm and Objectivists exist to remind us what is possible and good. |
|
| Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 12:31:51 mst
Comment ID: #14
Name: Alex Knapp
E-mail: jalexknapp(at)gmail.com
URL: http://www.hereticalideas.com
Clint,
(1) How is organizing people to call in to a call-in radio show a violation of free speech?
My responses to (2) and (3) hinge on this question of you: do you believe that libel and slander laws violate free speech? |
|
| Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 13:50:08 mst
Comment ID: #15
Name: Clint
URL: http://dummyfencing.typepad.com
Alex,
It's not the violation of free speech, it's the suppression. Should the government be in the business of deciding which speech is "correct"?
The point of the Fairness Doctrine wasn't to stop speech, it was to circumvent the 1st Amendment by requiring both sides to be heard. This effectively shuts down debate. Is it better to air an opinion and then be required to give a platform to your opponent or just stop speaking? (Although I look forward to Glenn Reynold's promise to create a foundation that barrages the FCC with complaints should the Democrats bring the FD back.)Should Rush Limbaugh be required to let Rhandi Rhoades take up his airtime to rant or should the market decide which people want to hear. (As an example, and something that I recall being mentioned specifically was the "Conservative talk radio" since Liberal talk radio has been a financial black hole .)
So please, explain to me how Obama's campaign is really the champion of free speech. |
|
| Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 14:01:56 mst
Comment ID: #16
Name: Alex Knapp
E-mail: jalexknapp(at)gmail.com
URL: http://www.hereticalideas.com
Clint,
"Should the government be in the business of deciding which speech is "correct"?"
Nope, it shouldn't be.
"The point of the Fairness Doctrine wasn't to stop speech, it was to circumvent the 1st Amendment by requiring both sides to be heard."
I agree with you completely.
Now, please provide evidence that Obama actually SUPPORTS a Fairness Doctrine, that such a bill would have sufficient votes to survive the House and Senate, and would also survive a court challenge, based on recent history, voting records, and current status of First Amendment jurisprudence. All of these things would have to be true in order for there to be a danger of such a law being passed.
Prove all that, and you might have a case that I should be nervous about an Obama victory with respect to free speech. However, the evidence you provided did not demonstrate any of these things.
Now, I fully recognize that Obama is really just the lesser of two evils here. There are policies of his that do, in fact, pose a danger to liberty (his support for expanding "faith-based initiatives", for example.) But crying "wolf" about threats to liberty does not aid her cause--it hurts it by undermining the credibility of critics. |
|
| Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 14:35:21 mst
Comment ID: #17
Name: Matt
E-mail: amicusaristoteles(at)yahoo.com
URL: http://sleepisthebrotherofdeath.blogspot.com
Alex,
Straight from the jackass's website:
"Encourage Diversity in Media Ownership: Barack Obama believes that the nation’s rules ensuring diversity of media ownership are critical to the public interest. Unfortunately, over the past several years, the Federal Communications Commission has promoted the concept of consolidation over diversity. As president, Obama will encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation’s spectrum."
It's amazing what you can uncover with thirty seconds and a broadband connection, eh? |
|
| Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 14:51:33 mst
Comment ID: #18
Name: Clint
URL: http://dummyfencing.typepad.com
Alex,
While Obama has given speeches about opposing it, his campaign is totally cool with silencing critics. As someone who has no real record to go on, we have to look at behavior. He challenged his IL Senate opponents and had them removed from the ballot. His last opponent in 2004 dropped out due to scandal "uncovered" by the Chicago Tribune (who endorsed Obama) and now his campaign is asking government officials and supporters to silence critics. His campaign claims he's against it, he'd rather:
"That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-and-the-fairness-doctrine/
The question is - media-ownership caps? More Public Broadcasting? Minority ownership or broadcasting and print outlets? How will those be accomplished? Sounds like a bit of redistribution to me. You own too much of the market (your ideas are being distributed too widely), so we'll "fairly compensate you" for the broadcast rights and then sell them to someone else who hasn't had a voice.
That's really only being a bit more clever about a fairness doctrine. Probably too clever for Harry and Nan, hopefully. |
|
| Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 15:42:26 mst
Comment ID: #19
Name: Burgess Laughlin
E-mail: burgesslaughlin(at)macforcego.com
URL: http://www.aristotleadventure.blogspot.com
> "He challenged his IL Senate opponents and had them removed from the ballot."
On what basis did he challenge them? Should they have been removed, under the law? Was the law objective? The mere claim that he challenged the ballot status of an opponent is not proof of attacking freedom of speech.
I have no doubt that Obama, McCain, and their supporters have and will attack freedom of speech--but citing an unexplained ballot challenge is not proof of an unusual threat.
> "As [Obama is] someone who has no real record to go on, we have to look at behavior." [My interpolation, for clarity, I hope.]
Clint, this statement is confusing. What is a "real record" if not a record of behavior in its various forms?
In summary, I am confused about your standards of evidence. |
|
| Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 20:41:09 mst
Comment ID: #20
Name: Alex Knapp
E-mail: jalexknapp(at)gmail.com
URL: http://www.hereticalideas.com
Matt,
What does preventing media consolidation have to do with the Fairness Doctrine? I agree that it's an unjust restriction on economics akin to antitrust laws, but it nothing in what you quoted indicates that he would suppress speech.
Clint,
"He challenged his IL Senate opponents and had them removed from the ballot."
As Burgess says, on what grounds were they removed?
"His last opponent in 2004 dropped out due to scandal "uncovered" by the Chicago Tribune (who endorsed Obama)"
Was the scandal false, or was the Chicago Tribune reporting facts that were relevant to voter decisionmaking?
"and now his campaign is asking government officials and supporters to silence critics."
Do you have additional evidence besides the the examples you provided earlier, which didn't actually demonstrate any suppression of free speech (so long as one accepts the necessity of libel and slander laws)?
"Sounds like a bit of redistribution to me."
Yes, which I don't support. However, there's no actual speech suppression here. There's no censorship, no forcing of media owners to publish speech they don't agree with?
Clint, where's the attack on free speech? |
|
| Wednesday, October 15, 2008 at 0:24:23 mst
Comment ID: #21
Name: Adam Reed
E-mail: adamreedatalumdotmitdotedu
URL: http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/areed2
One one side, fear of what Obama hypothetically might do, with no specific threat and no specific evidence, just arbitrary conjecture.
On the other side, McCain's legislative record; and his promise to appoint more judges like the two who only recently were on the losing side in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. And a continuation of the Bush administration's revival of enforcement of obscenity laws, sponsorship of additional obscenity laws and so on.
On one side: arbitrary, unsubstantiated fears.
On the other: real victims, including the former webmistress of a subscription site with "obscene" short stories doing hard time in Federal prison, for distributing her fiction writings on the Internet.
And those things are supposed to be comparable? |
|
| Wednesday, October 15, 2008 at 19:48:29 mst
Comment ID: #22
Name: kittie
"On one side: arbitrary, unsubstantiated fears."
Do you think that democrat support for the fairness doctrine and the way Obama has handled criticism in his campaign are not reason for concern? The fairness doctrine would really limit what every blogger and individual can think.
Do you not know about these things? You should if you've read the responses to this thread. If you think they're not threats and are only "arbitrary," maybe you have some kind of emotional reaction to Obama that causes you to evade evidence. |
|
| Wednesday, October 15, 2008 at 22:03:55 mst
Comment ID: #23
Name: Adam Reed
E-mail: adamreedatalumdotmitdotedu
URL: http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/areed2
Kittie,
"Handling criticism" by criticising it - which is all that Obama has done - is everyone's prerogative, and an integral part of free speech. Attempting to raise money by means of false claims is fraud, and is not part of free speech, and when one suspects fraud, it is entirely appropriate to ask that it be investigated. The "Fairness Doctrine" is old history; unlike Bush's revival of obscenity laws, under which objectively innocent people are being imprisoned now, its revival remains entirely hypothetical - and the unnamed "democrats" of whom you write do not include Obama, or you would have posted a specific link for reference, wouldn't you have?
The fact remains that McCain crafted McCain-Feingold, never in his life voted against any censorship law, promises to appoint promoters of censorship to the Supreme Court, and also promises, if elected, to continue to put objectively innocent people in prison under "obscenity" laws.
As for your claim that I'm "evading evidence:" you have not linked (nor has anyone else) to anything that would rise above rumors and conjectures to the level of evidence. And as for your psychologizing: lady, get thee a mirror. |
|
|
Post Your Comment |
|
|
|
E-mail Diana Hsieh
Comments
