Search This Blog

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Americans for Prosperity is warning us that Censorship is coming

As important as all the fights are that we're in right now, perhaps the biggest of all is the fight over whether the government will take over the Internet. That's because as long as the Internet is free, we can use it to communicate, educate, and organize. Tea parties, townhalls, and AFP events would be very difficult to organize if government owned and controlled the Internet and chose to interfere with it. That's what's at stake this week as the Federal Communications Commission decides on Thursday whether to move forward with so-called "net neutrality" regulations.

The net neutrality movement is an outgrowth of the larger so-called media reform project of radical left-wing activists like Robert McChesney who seek to destroy private control of the country's communications systems.

I discussed McChesney and the so-called media reform movement last night on the Glenn Beck show, and you can watch that clip here. I'll be on with Glenn again tonight to discuss net neutrality specifically.

As the Internet Freedom Coalition shows on our Net Neutrality Scare Ticket it has now been nearly 7 years since the November 19, 2002 letter that started the net neutrality scare, without a single significant incident of the kind of egregious behavior by evil phone and cable companies we're told require government intervention. It's a solution in search of a problem.

Net neutrality sounds simple--force phone and cable companies to treat every bit of information the same way--until you realize that modern networks are incredibly complex, with millions of lines of code in every router. Making sure services like VoIP, video conferencing, and telemedicine (not to mention the next great thing that hasn't been invented yet) get priority may be necessary to make the Internet work. But the government is working to do just the opposite.

These networks cost billions of dollars to build and maintain, and if there is uncertainty whether there will be a good return on that investment, private investment will dry up. And then government will step in, spending billions of our tax dollars on a government-owned and controlled Internet.

That's their plan.

The push for a Washington takeover of the Internet is coming from the White House. It includes Susan Crawford, the so-called Internet Czar, who told The Wall Street Journal in April that the $7.2 billion of stimulus money for broadband she is helping spend is a "down payment on future government investments in the Internet." She went on to say: "We should do a better job as a nation of making sure fast, affordable broadband is as ubiquitous as electricity, water, snail mail or any other public utility."

It comes right from the top. President Obama himself said on the campaign trail: "I will take a backseat to no one in my commitment to Net Neutrality."

The FCC will vote Thursday on what it calls a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Net Neutrality. If it passes, it will start a public comment period and I'll be emailing you again with instructions on how to file comments. But for the next couple days, we need to make our case against the FCC even taking that first step down the road to a Washington takeover of the Internet.

Here's what you can do to help: The FCC created a website at www.OpenInternet.gov where you can comment on government regulating the Internet under so-called net neutrality rules. The left has been flooding it with comments. Please take a moment to head over to www.OpenInternet.gov and click on "Join the Discussion" to make your voice heard for keeping the Internet in private hands.

Thanks for all you do.

Phil Kerpen

Director of Policy, Americans for Prosperity
Chairman, The Internet Freedom Coalition

P.S. Wanted to remind you again that you can see me tonight on the Glenn Beck program on FOX News at 5PM and 2AM Eastern, 2PM and 11PM Pacific. You can also contact me any time through Twitter (http://twitter.com/kerpen) or Facebook (http://facebook.com/PhilKerpen).

RADAR SEZ - It will cost you nothing to go to that link and express your opinion. If you love freedom of speech, please post a comment urging that the FCC keep hands off. No censoring our internet. No censorship!!!!

I do not censor comments. Most of my commenters disagree with me. Freedom of speech is a foundation of our nation. The Obama Administration hates freedom of speech. Wake up and fight for your rights before they are gone, please!

~~~

Fiorina: Government has to regulate “wild west” Internet

Stop The ACLU is onto the ACORN scandal...more to come!

http://biggovernment.com/2009/10/21/the-medias-complicity-analysis-of-acorn-coverage/

TARP Report – “We don’t even know where the money went”

Amy Proctor points out that 49 out of 50 states (plus DC) have fewer jobs seven months after the stimulus bill!


3 comments:

WomanHonorThyself said...

Hussein wont rest until he shuts down Conservative, moral values...very scary my friend!

Anonymous said...

About that clip...

I don't get it. What is the problem Glenn Beck has with volunteerism? Is it something to be sneered at? I would think that Christian values would be in line with doing volunteer work, and that it's a good thing for volunteer work to be encouraged, no matter who encourages it.

Would you have the same reaction if it were President Bush encouraging volunteerism? Or would you then see it as the right thing to do, and indicative of conservative values etc.?

Stuff like this makes me wonder if there are any core principles and values left to conservatism at all, or if it's just such a partisan game to them that they must oppose anything at all if it comes from the opposing party (like Obama telling kids to study hard, sheesh).

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

As for net neutrality, here's an introduction to it.

What exactly is it that has Glenn Beck hyperventilating?

And what is it that makes you agree with him?

Think about it, Radar. Sometimes the stuff you're being spoonfed isn't to your benefit - see for example your position on healthcare, where you're arguing in favor of a system that leaves you with the option of bankruptcy or death should you have a major health problem.

Does that strike you as reasonable?

-- creeper