Democrats plan to censor the internet via Stimulus Bill - American Spectator

[Soul Crusher]

Democrat Rep. Henry Waxman: 'Oversight of the Internet is One of His Top Priorities'
Monday, February 16, 2009 | Kristinn

Posted on Monday, February 16, 2009 9:59:38 PM by kristinn

The American Spectator's Prowler column published today has a disturbing report on the plans by the Democratic Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee Henry Waxman to regulate political speech on the Internet.

In addition to details of methods Waxman is considering to rein in conservative talk radio, The Prowler reports on Waxman's desire to use the power of the federal government to investigate and control political content on the Internet.

The article quotes an unnamed committee staffer as saying of Waxman's power grab:

"Does one heavily trafficked Internet site present one side of an issue and not link to sites that present alternative views? These are some of the questions the chairman is thinking about right now, and we are going to have an FCC that will finally have the people in place to answer them."

"Internet radio is becoming a big deal, and we're seeing that some web sites are able to control traffic and information, while other sites that may be of interest or use to citizens get limited traffic because of the way the people search and look for information. We're at very early stages on this, but the chairman has made it clear that oversight of the Internet is one of his top priorities."

"This isn't just about Limbaugh or a local radio host most of us haven't heard about. The FCC and state and local governments also have oversight over the Internet lines and the cable and telecom companies that operate them. We want to get alternative views on radio and TV, but we also want to makes sure those alternative views are read, heard and seen online, which is becoming increasingly video and audio driven. Thanks to the stimulus package, we've established that broadband networks -- the Internet -- are critical, national infrastructure. We think that gives us an opening to look at what runs over that critical infrastructure."

The article reports that Waxman intends to work with Democratic Party President Barack Hussein Obama's nominee to be chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Julius Genachowski, who is awaiting confirmation by the Democrat controlled Senate, to investigate and regulate free speech on the Internet.

_______________________

Thank you Obama voters!

[Hugo Chavez]

Sites like google are known to severely limit search results of political sites they don't like. Myspace did it to Ron Paul. Unless I'm missing something isn't this about saying to various companies that you can't do that?  The same would go the other way around.  You couldn't have a company intentionally limit access to say newsmax, not that I've ever heard of that happening for some reason.

[Soul Crusher]

Sites like google are known to severely limit search results of political sites they don't like. Myspace did it to Ron Paul. Unless I'm missing something isn't this about saying to various companies that you can't do that?  The same would go the other way around.  You couldn't have a company intentionally limit access to say newsmax, not that I've ever heard of that happening for some reason.

I read this as much different.  I read this as forcing sites like DU or Free Republic to change their content.  truly dangerous stuff.

The democrats are the fascists they accuse the GOP of. 

GWB, Newt, Dole, McCain, NEVER proposed censoring the internet and political speech.

This is a clear 1st amendment violatlation.

[Bindare_Dundat]

There are some politicians in the UK that have a hard on for internet censorship as well. It's intention is to protect the children. 

[Soul Crusher]

Sites like google are known to severely limit search results of political sites they don't like. Myspace did it to Ron Paul. Unless I'm missing something isn't this about saying to various companies that you can't do that?  The same would go the other way around.  You couldn't have a company intentionally limit access to say newsmax, not that I've ever heard of that happening for some reason.

The Govt needs to back off and get the hell out of our lives.  Its amazing, women scream and yell about their uterous but have no problem with the govt getting involved in every other area of their lives.

[Bindare_Dundat]

I posted this a while back and it was ignored. I'm ahead of my time. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/technologynews/3965051/Internet-sites-could-be-given-cinema-style-age-ratings-Culture-Secretary-says.html

Internet sites could be given cinema-style age ratings as part of a Government crackdown on offensive and harmful online activity to be launched in the New Year, the Culture Secretary says.

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Andy Burnham says he believes that new standards of decency need to be applied to the web. He is planning to negotiate with Barack Obama’s incoming American administration to draw up new international rules for English language websites.

The Cabinet minister describes the internet as “quite a dangerous place” and says he wants internet-service providers (ISPs) to offer parents “child-safe” web services.

Giving film-style ratings to individual websites is one of the options being considered, he confirms. When asked directly whether age ratings could be introduced, Mr Burnham replies: “Yes, that would be an option. This is an area that is really now coming into full focus.”

ISPs, such as BT, Tiscali, AOL or Sky could also be forced to offer internet services where the only websites accessible are those deemed suitable for children.

Mr Burnham also uses the interview to indicate that he will allocate money raised from the BBC’s commercial activities to fund other public-service broadcasting such as Channel Four. He effectively rules out sharing the BBC licence fee between broadcasters as others have recommended.

His plans to rein in the internet, and censor some websites, are likely to trigger a major row with online advocates who ferociously guard the freedom of the world wide web.

However, Mr Burnham said: “If you look back at the people who created the internet they talked very deliberately about creating a space that Governments couldn’t reachI think we are having to revisit that stuff seriously now..  It’s true across the board in terms of content, harmful content, and copyright. Libel is [also] an emerging issue.

“There is content that should just not be available to be viewed. That is my view. Absolutely categorical. This is not a campaign against free speech, far from it; it is simply there is a wider public interest at stake when it involves harm to other people. We have got to get better at defining where the public interest lies and being clear about it.”

[Soul Crusher]

There are some politicians in the UK that have a hard on for internet censorship as well. It's intention is to protect the children. 

So, who is going to determine what is suitable for my viewing:

Sen Craig?
Obama?

Pelosi?

Barney Frank?


Cong. Foley?

[Soul Crusher]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/technologynews/3965051/Internet-sites-could-be-given-cinema-style-age-ratings-Culture-Secretary-says.html

Internet sites could be given cinema-style age ratings as part of a Government crackdown on offensive and harmful online activity to be launched in the New Year, the Culture Secretary says.

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Andy Burnham says he believes that new standards of decency need to be applied to the web. He is planning to negotiate with Barack Obama’s incoming American administration to draw up new international rules for English language websites.

The Cabinet minister describes the internet as “quite a dangerous place” and says he wants internet-service providers (ISPs) to offer parents “child-safe” web services.

Giving film-style ratings to individual websites is one of the options being considered, he confirms. When asked directly whether age ratings could be introduced, Mr Burnham replies: “Yes, that would be an option. This is an area that is really now coming into full focus.”

ISPs, such as BT, Tiscali, AOL or Sky could also be forced to offer internet services where the only websites accessible are those deemed suitable for children.

Mr Burnham also uses the interview to indicate that he will allocate money raised from the BBC’s commercial activities to fund other public-service broadcasting such as Channel Four. He effectively rules out sharing the BBC licence fee between broadcasters as others have recommended.

His plans to rein in the internet, and censor some websites, are likely to trigger a major row with online advocates who ferociously guard the freedom of the world wide web.

However, Mr Burnham said: “If you look back at the people who created the internet they talked very deliberately about creating a space that Governments couldn’t reachI think we are having to revisit that stuff seriously now..  It’s true across the board in terms of content, harmful content, and copyright. Libel is [also] an emerging issue.

“There is content that should just not be available to be viewed. That is my view. Absolutely categorical. This is not a campaign against free speech, far from it; it is simply there is a wider public interest at stake when it involves harm to other people. We have got to get better at defining where the public interest lies and being clear about it.”

Liberals are the true fascists and tyrants.

time forthe 1776 option real soon folks.

[Soul Crusher]

Truly disturbing.  The left hates freedom and loves tyranny. 

[Bindare_Dundat]

Truly disturbing.  The left hates freedom and loves tyranny. 

It's for your own good. I love you Big Brother. 333386 is out of his mind. I enjoy my rations of choclate, don't taze me bro....auuuughhhh.

[240 is Back]

Newt, Dole, McCain, NEVER proposed censoring the internet and political speech.

actually, we had a big thread here last year about Newt's ideas for limiting political talk on the message boards and the interenet in general.

Newt is smart and very prepared to be prez, but he supports major limitations on political clods like us.

[Hereford]

Sites like google are known to severely limit search results of political sites they don't like. Myspace did it to Ron Paul. Unless I'm missing something isn't this about saying to various companies that you can't do that?  The same would go the other way around.  You couldn't have a company intentionally limit access to say newsmax, not that I've ever heard of that happening for some reason.

In real life, the first amendmant only applies to government-involved situations.

Sites like Google are private companies. They could censor the hell out of things they don't like.

[Hugo Chavez]

if this is for eliminating censorship then I am for that and I haven't seen yet where it's not.  Now it's not unlike these assclowns to open up wicked doors down the road on a foundation constructed with good intentions so I should think about that too.  I just know that I don't like when sites like google limit political voices they don't like.  We have been heading down a road of corporate approved information where content they like gets a pass while content they don't like gets stiffed.  Something is wrong with that imo.  I know people say well, it's their company, they have the right to refuse but where everything we do increasingly is subject to this or that corporate approval it is issue and becoming even greater issue.  Of course you have the right to go live the mountain man existence lol.

[Hugo Chavez]

In real life, the first amendmant only applies to government-involved situations.

Sites like Google are private companies. They could censor the hell out of things they don't like.

I knew someone would say this, I addressed it in the post I just made.

[Hereford]

Good stuff Hugo.

[Hugo Chavez]

Good stuff Hugo.

really?  thanks!

[Soundness]

They want to eliminate bias via media.
Good idea, but nowhere close to being important enough to sacrifice rights of free speech.

What we have as a country is what makes this country great. 

[Soul Crusher]

if this is for eliminating censorship then I am for that and I haven't seen yet where it's not.  Now it's not unlike these assclowns to open up wicked doors down the road on a foundation constructed with good intentions so I should think about that too.  I just know that I don't like when sites like google limit political voices they don't like.  We have been heading down a road of corporate approved information where content they like gets a pass while content they don't like gets stiffed.  Something is wrong with that imo.  I know people say well, it's their company, they have the right to refuse but where everything we do increasingly is subject to this or that corporate approval it is issue and becoming even greater issue.  Of course you have the right to go live the mountain man existence lol.

Great post.  Especially when these people are in bed with the govt and pols and will do their bidding so long as they are immune from these rules.

[Hugo Chavez]

thanks   compliments on my posts are few and far between so I'll take them

[Soul Crusher]

Like I said, i am a libertarian mostly and ardently against all govt / business marriages.  It promtes a soft tyranny that is equally burdensome and controlling.

To me, the first two amendments are the most important to the constitution.  I will be in the streets if they try to abridge free speech or the 2nd amendment in any way.


Obama has grossly miscalculated the meaning and purpose of his election.

[BM OUT]

All of this is stupid.It will be overturned by the courts in a nano second.

[headhuntersix]

Its the fact that they're even talking about it.

[Soul Crusher]

All of this is stupid.It will be overturned by the courts in a nano second.

Oh yeah???  Just like CFR was right???

Also, what is another justice retires?