Government should stick to the constitution, leave biz alone!

t6.texan2driver

Revise

Flag

Vote Up

163

Vote Down

There are very few things that the constitution actually spells out as duties of the government. Silencing free speech is not one of them. Want jobs, economic growth, and REVENUE? Get out of the way of business owners and watch the economy grow. Want REAL freedom of speech and opportunity? Get government out of the way. This "net neutrality" crap is just one of the many angles from which the liberals/democrats are attacking freedom of speech. They are trying to use "diversity," and "fairness" as the labels for some of their other attacks on the 1st amendment.

Don't let you government muzzle you like Hugo Chavez or the Soviets.

Idea # 229The Open Internet & the Freedom of Speech, fairness doctrine, censorship, dissent, totalitarian, soviet, communist

Comments

spoiledjudi 2 months ago

I agree wholeheartedly....those in Washington have sworn to protect and defend the Constitution....I think maybe first they need to read it....then defend it. They need to stay out of our lives and our pocketbooks!

cvf1 2 months ago

I don't disagree that government should leave business alone, but big business should leave government alone, too. It is my understanding that big business is lobbying Congress to interfere with our use of the Internet. That is an interference with Free Speech. That is why I support Net Neutrality. Kurt F.

christophergirard 2 months ago

Yeah! Corporations Rock!!! FREEDOM!!!! JESUS!!! APPLE PIE!!!! LIBERTY!!!!! CEO's!!!

jmiles 2 months ago

Funny, we didn't hear a lot of rhetoric about Hugo Chavez and Communists when Comcast and AT&T were accepting public subsidies to BUILD their networks in the first place, did we?

Funny how that works.

animatedream 2 months ago

I'm not sure why I keep hearing people say that net neutrality is an attack on free speech. It is a regulation designed to keep the telecoms from interfering with network traffic based on content. That would in turn do a lot to protect free speech.

Destroying net neutrality now could have horrible long term consequences on free speech.

lindajjohnson 2 months ago

I'm a business owner, but the truth is, there is little virtue in commerce with government regulation. Company's goal is profit, at the expense even of liberty.Without government by and for the people we would be still in a feudal system, the rich getting richer preventing the movement of those under them from moving up. Greed does not have heart and does not consider the consequences of excessive profit taking. Just look at our economy today. World wide greed at the expense of the community. When I first got into the real estate business , 36 years ago, we had a saying that usury was ruinous. We had a limit at that time. The greedy bribed congress to remove the regs, to make room for them to scam the bank depositors. Now look where we are. Business is the "the" answer. Virtue is.

voiceinthewilderness

radioads 2 months ago

Thank you lindajjohnson. That is the issue in a nutshell.

erikcorona 1 month ago

Oh, goodness. Do you really understand that Net Neutrality will basically make it so that we are paying for bandwidth as opposed to have ISPs choose and pick which websites we will get to visit? They would legally be allowed to cripple any website they want without net neutrality. Say goodbye to all small startups that can't afford to pay individual extortion fees to every ISP. ATT just wants to fleece you.

danny 4 days ago

You are misinformed. This has nothing to do about the government regulating speech.

I suggest you read the NPRM to understand what regulations that are proposed, the history of the regulations, and understand more background.

Generally speaking, the NPRM is about 6 Principles for companies to live by:
--> Users control content they send and receive
--> Users may run applications and use services of their choice
--> Users may connect legal devices that do not harm the network
--> Users are entitled to competitive marketplace
--> Nondiscrimination
--> Transparency

Some highlights:
1) This has nothing to do about government regulating speech. It is about regulating Internet Service Providers to prevent or limit certain predatory behaviors reminiscent of the original AT&T. Those behaviors are what led to the AT&T antitrust suit.
2) The regulations being proposed were long standing rules with regard to telephone companies and telephone calls. They are now being applied to Internet access.
3) This action is needed because of a) providers blocking or degrading traffic; b) lack of disclosure; and c) provide certainty to users and providers
4) As with the original AT&T, market forces alone are unlikely to ensure that broadband Internet access service providers will discriminate in socially efficient ways. Absent regulation, discrimination will reduce competition and innovation. Providers with market power have incentives and the ability to reduce or fail to increase transmission capacity. Companies also have incentive to degrade competing applications in favor of their own application -- this was one of the issues with AT&T degrading MCI connections.

In sum, these regulations are about requiring the companies who provide Internet access to play nice with consumers and potential competitors. As it is, most Americans have only one choice of broadband provider so we're mostly powerless to let our wallets do the talking. This happens to be a classic case of regulation being proper rather than too much, which occurs too often.

prague_one 3 days ago

You don't understand the first thing about the internet or about political or economic systems. Fantastically ignorant comment. Mind-boggling, really.

Post New Comment

Categories