I agree to Idea Leave my free speech alone.
Voting Disabled

193 votes

I disagree to Idea Leave my free speech alone.

Rank 16

Idea#226

This idea is active.
The Open Internet & the Freedom of Speech »

Leave my free speech alone.

The government needs to stay out of the internet & let us have our freedom of speech. They are trying to get into our business any way possible.

Submitted by 4 years ago

Comments (9)

  1. Hey, guess what? The government is trying to protect your right of free speech and it is the telecoms that are trying to take it away. If you actually took the time to research you would know this.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  2. Another one who thinks ALL regulation is bad and hence thinks ANYTHING the FCC does is bad regulation. I'd like to see the FCC get this one right after wrecking the radio business with it's deregulation. They seem to be headed in the right direction.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  3. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

    Surely government regulation = more freedom

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  4. Ah, undefined undefined, only governments and criminals can take away free speech. If individuals in telecoms are criminals, then call the police.

    Be a good consumer. Buy good product. Enforce your contracts. The free market works. Depending on the benevolence of the actions of those in government does not.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  5. You are sadly misguided friend. Corporations are planning this to charge you more for a Hulu Gigabyte as opposed to a Gigabyte from one of their financial partners, even though they cost the same on their end. Wake up and smell the Coffee. ATT wants to fleece you.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  6. Indeed government in this case is trying to protect free speech and we need Net Neutrality. By the way under telecommunications laws Net Neutrality is perfectly legit and it is the moral thing to do. Even with the recent tragic decision by The U.S. Supreme Court on Citizen's United which undid democracy (despite it emboldening big cable and phone company ISPs to suggest Net Neutrality violates their free speech which is bogus -- by the way as the Internet is more interactive than radio or TV ever were -- it encourages participation, dissent, and democracy.) The Open Internet encourages free speech on the part of users. We just pay a monthly fee for access and have unlimited equal access to all Internet websites but big ISPs want to be able to change all of that. They dislike the idea of being forced to deliver every email message even messages by consumer rights groups criticizing them etc. The Open Internet threatens their legacy business model where in the past they would co-op and monetize technologies for corporate gain at the expense of the public interest.

    Big ISPs like Comcast want to be able to censor what we write in our emails and publish to the Web. Let's say I write an email about Comcast criticizing them for anti competitive, and anti consumer policies and I happen to be using Comcast's email service to send the message. Comcast wants to be able to reject my message because they think its unfair for them to be forced to deliver a message criticizing them.

    When the U.S. Postal Service delivers letters every day to mailboxes they cannot filter out and decide which letters to deliver and which not to. If I want to send a letter to someone they cannot refuse to deliver my letter because they don't like what I have to say. They don't have a free speech right to do such a thing. If the Post Office cannot prioritize and discriminate against what mail is delivered ISPs cannot either.

    The Information Superhighway analogy comparing Internet to our national highways run by the federal and state governments most of which are free of toll booths is also a good one and represents the need for why we need to maintain Net Neutrality. While I admit I am concerned with language that would mandate ISPs to act as copyright cops and police the Net to ensure it is only being legally used -- only legal uses should be protected but don't want an unnecessary and vague exemption for Hollywood etc. Net Neutrality should apply to Hollywood as well and if someone is misusing Internet before discriminating against that user and taking action proof should and must be furnished this is indeed the case -- the mere allegation of illegal activites should not be sufficient cause to discriminate.

    That is why I signed the Electronic Frontier Foundation's petition to the FCC for Real Net Neutrality!

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  7. @gunlvr48: 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.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  8. The companies opposed to this act are the ones who wants to decide how your business should be viewed by the people, for without this act, they will have power to steer people to websites that either has favorable view of your company or unfavorable view of your company. In order to have the public steered to websites that has favorable opinion of your company, you will have to pay them big sum of money. What is this that is not different from racketeering or protection fees to mobsters?

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  9. The Constitution only protects us with regard to government and that you have no constitutional rights by way of corporations. They do not give you rights and you have no defense under the constitution when a private entity gets in the way of your freedoms.

    The first amendment can ONLY protect your freedom of speech on the Internet by enacting Net Neutrality, butting the FCC between your 1st Amendment rights and the actions of private corporations.

    If you give up a government protection of any kind you have also given up any constitutional protection of those rights.

    Also remember who have you the Internet in the first place...your government ! You bought and paid for it with taxes so it should not become something a private company can "take over".

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed

Vote Activity Show

(latest 20 votes)