- then they came for Fox,. . .
- and finally they came for Veritaspac, and nobody was left to object.
- Fortunately we have an escape plan.
- Please send money to help with fuel expense.
We have marshaled excess ad revenue , savings from elderly grandmothers we solicit and the pocket change we get from the Koch brothers and bought this nifty escape vehicle. Not to fret, when they come for us we will continue to blog from Belize or Switzerland, depending on the time of year.
In all seriousness, this is how the bureaucracies seek and obtain control over private efforts. Who believes that the liberal mindset that justifies forcing Christian bakers to make cakes for same-sex weddings would not desire to regulate our content as tantamount to hate speech (as defined by them)?
From CNS: FCC Commissioner: Feds May Come for Drudge
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) member Ajit Pai said over the weekend that he foresees a future in which federal regulators will seek to regulate websites based on political content, using the power of the FCC or Federal Elections Commission (FEC).
Pai, one of two Republicans on the five-member FCC, has been an outspoken critic of net neutrality regulations passed by the agency on Feb. 26. The rules, which are set to take effect on June 12, reclassify Internet providers as utilities and command them not to block or “throttle” online traffic.
However, Pai said it was only the beginning. In the future, he said, “I could easily see this migrating over to the direction of content… What you’re seeing now is an impulse not just to regulate the roads over which traffic goes, but the traffic itself.”
Continuing, he said, “It is conceivable to me to see the government saying, ‘We think the Drudge Report is having a disproportionate effect on our political discourse. . . . and we want to start tamping down on websites like that.’”
In comments to CNSNews.com, Pai also talked about the FCC’s finances, the imposition of taxes on Internet usage, and subsidies for Internet service.
The reclassification of Internet providers as utilities allows the FCC to impose what is known as a “Universal Service Fund” (USF) tax on their revenue.
Ed note: Part of the fee is used to fund Obamaphones. Pai’s response to questions included:
“We should deny funding for some of the things the FCC wants to spend money on. Any funds, for example, to enforce these net neutrality regulations, . . .
The theory and regulatory hook would be that “band width” is (somehow) a public resource because, well, data is transferred via franchised cable line licensed by governments, right of ways are regulated, other forms of transmittal are regulated, towers are regulated, band frequencies are regulated, same for satellite up-links and down-links and all manner of other “hooks” in the process are regulated.
Licenses and fees are therefore required to protect the public interest. Small fry not directly licensed will be made to conform by those who are as the government will require such “self-policing” and they will force compliance because their license is at stake. It would start with some sort of fairness doctrine as of old. We remember those times well, when conservatives could not get the time of day broadcast.
DLH and R Mall
but why is it ok to “come after” MSNBC? 🙂 after public radio?
to be objective, Fox and Rush appear to violate FCC rules > Fox with its’ constant “indirect” fundraising, Rush, well….
O’Reilly actually runs the Bill O’Reilly Store, with all the hawking of his “books” and trinkets. yes, he is his own Producer. Murdoch himself said too many of his people “take liberties”, probably referring all the little personal projects mentioned.
but don’t fret about extremist radio > the Kochs, the Top 1%, Murdochs billions of $$$$, will ensure it a long life.
Net Neutrality is really about no domination of one candidate over another as to venues, point-counterpoint, although that is NI impossible since KOch kids got your way with citizens united !
THe “Fairness Doctrine” of yore, was actually rejected by Obama!
Boys and girls we have a lib admitting it is about censorship — even though ostensibly net neutrality has nothing to do with politics or content as introduced == it is is supposedly about requiring “neutrality”as regards pricing. We were referring to the dangers as precedent for the Web.