« Joe Lieberman's true colors |
Blog Home Page
| You stay classy, Senator Specter (updated) »
December 22, 2010
The sinister forces behind Net Neutrality (updated)
Behind the innocent-sounding name and expressed aims of the FCC's Net Neutrality initiative, voted in by the Commission yesterday by a 3-2 partisan vote, is a very sinister leftist agenda. John Fund of the Wall Street Journal has done excellent work researching the origins of the policy, and what he has found is shocking.
Not having private companies in control means having the government in control. McChesney is pretty specific about what this means:
Net Neutrality clearly is aimed at choking off the free flow of ideas that characterizes the internet, because that is an obstacle to a complete takeover of the media by leftists.
Courts have already ruled that the FCC has no power to regulate the internet, but in a lawless fashion, the FCC ignores the decision.
The GOP controlled House next year must hold hearings exposing these views and cut off all funding of the FCC until it revokes this decision.
Norah Peterson adds:
Regulating the internet may seem as backwards as the book burnings of past centuries, yet the motives behind such attempts to control the flow of ideas and information - as the FCC showed yesterday with the passage of a "net neutrality" rule - are essentially the same. Thomas Sowell has written:
"Intellectuals and their followers have often been overly impressed by the fact that intellectuals tend, on average, to have more knowledge than other individuals in their society. What they have overlooked is that intellectuals have far less knowledge than the total knowledge possessed by the millions of other people whom they disdain and whose decisions they seek to override."
"Intellectuals" feel threatened by the internet because it has become the tool by which the "total knowledge possessed by the millions" and is able to be shared on an international scale. People at an internet café in Macedonia can read your grandmother's cinnamon bread recipe and the whole world can watch as Iranians post YouTube videos of the violence that racked their country following the 2009 elections.
The World Wide Web is truly an unprecedented phenomenon in history -- perhaps even more monumental than the invention of the printing press. Books can be burned, but ideas posted on the internet can remain there indefinitely.
The internet gives a power to the masses which they have never before possessed and, as such, it is an influence that inevitably serves to decentralize the grasp of the intelligentsia worldwide.
David Jeffers adds:
The FCC not only ignored a court decision, it ignores its own purpose statement:
The last time I looked in a dictionary the word independent was defined as "not influenced or controlled by others in matters of opinion or conduct; not subject to another's authority or jurisdiction; autonomous; not influenced by the thought or action of others."
However, in Mr. Fund's WSJ article we read:
What possibly could have required the FCC Chairman to meet personally with the President 11 times? And is the White House willing to release any transcripts or information that was recorded during those meetings. Did the topic of net neutrality come up and if yes, why? I thought independence meant not being influenced by another's opinion or thought?
Are we to believe that Mr. Obama did not express his opinion or thoughts on the issue of net neutrality?