Another source of danger to free speech?

This is a discussion on Another source of danger to free speech? within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Now, I maybe crying wolf. But this looks like a threat. Maybe we might be among strange bedfellows , but I think we, as sheepdogs, ...

Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Another source of danger to free speech?

  1. #1
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036

    Another source of danger to free speech?

    Now, I maybe crying wolf.

    But this looks like a threat. Maybe we might be among strange bedfellows , but I think we, as sheepdogs, should work for "net neutrality."


    Roanoke Times Editorial:

    Abuses show need for net neutrality The content of Americans' text messages and Web sites is no business of service providers.

    Imagine if a telephone company tried to tell people what they could discuss over the company's lines. Not a cellphone company, mind you, but an old-fashioned, attached-to-the-wall, phone company.

    It declares certain subjects off limits. Then it restricts whom people can call. Dial the wrong number, say someone on a competitor's lines, and static pollutes the connection.

    No one would tolerate it. Yet that is exactly what telecommunications companies want to be able to do when it comes to cellphones and the Internet.

    The Federal Communications Commission is considering rules that would discourage them. This is not a time for mere discouragement. If the FCC does not create so-called "net neutrality," Congress should.
    More at:
    Abuses show need for net neutrality - Roanoke.com

    Any current coverage of this elswhere?
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member Array packinnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,258
    I've seen it. And I'm completely AGAINST it. For many reasons that can't fit in one post here. All the privacy issues they're touting are a ruse originally developed by the companies that have banded up because they're upstream competitors won't give them what they "deserve". It has nothing to do with free speech or privacy. It's all about stealing money. They want to be able to tell whoever happens to be the biggest/best isp on the block (and consequently the one that shelled out all the time, effort, and MONEY to lay the lines and do the maintenance) to give them their "fair share" when quite frankly, they haven't earned it. All the other issues would fade given enough time as as soon as the orgs doing the "limiting" or trading of info would get one heck of an earfull from the consumers who would stop using their services or limit their use. Don't let the ruse of all the dummies that fall for this thing hook line and sinker.

    The so called "Net Neutrality" movement needs to die and quick. All the issues they claim to be trying to fix, are no better or worse then what they will affectively be destroying if their goal is accomplished. Whatever happened to the concept of private property or the PURSUIT of happiness(not to be construed with the guarantee of happiness which there is NONE).

    Oh and I don't work for an ISP so I don't have any sort of paid bias, but I am a network/systems engineer.

    -Just my .03

    Unfortunately 90% of the folks touting it have no clue and have fallen for it hook line and sinker (up to and including a few congress critters).
    Last edited by packinnova; March 10th, 2008 at 10:12 PM. Reason: .02 more (that makes it $.05 right?)
    "My God David, We're a Civilized society."

    "Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the crap out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
    -The Mist (2007)

  4. #3
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveH View Post
    Now, I maybe crying wolf.

    But this looks like a threat. Maybe we might be among strange bedfellows , but I think we, as sheepdogs, should work for "net neutrality."



    More at:
    Abuses show need for net neutrality - Roanoke.com

    Any current coverage of this elswhere?
    There is no right that a corporation is mandated to conduct any business whatsoever. You personally have a right to free speech but the telephone company, internet service provider or any private owner can stop your service or speech if they do not want your business.

    No shirts, no shoes, no service.

    Verizon Wireless blocked Naral Pro-Choice America from sending text messages to cellphone users who signed up for them. Verizon wanted no messages about abortion or other controversial subjects on its network.

  5. #4
    Member
    Array Cakewalk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    292
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    There is no right that a corporation is mandated to conduct any business whatsoever. You personally have a right to free speech but the telephone company, internet service provider or any private owner can stop your service or speech if they do not want your business.
    Well said SelfDefense. Free speech is one thing but free speech over a paid commercial medium is a whole other story. I'll support anyone's right to free speech if they're also in control of how they deliver their message. I have no grounds to complain if they own the transmitter and the satellite too...

  6. #5
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036

    Question Looks like I stirred up a hornets nest

    I'm confused.

    packinnova seems to be saying that nothing like the abuses are happening.

    SelfDefense is applauding that Verizon wanted no messages about abortion or other controversial subjects on its network.

    Last I looked Gun rights, CC, etc are considered controversial subjects, by some.

    Could my Pro Gun messages be being blocked, if the networks wanted to?
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

  7. #6
    Member
    Array Cakewalk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    292
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveH View Post
    Could my Pro Gun messages be being blocked, if the networks wanted to?
    Yes, it can, and all you can do is be thankful that they haven't. The bottom line is it's their network, you're just using it. For better or for worse, it's a matter of principle.

  8. #7
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveH View Post
    I'm confused.

    packinnova seems to be saying that nothing like the abuses are happening.

    SelfDefense is applauding that Verizon wanted no messages about abortion or other controversial subjects on its network.

    Last I looked Gun rights, CC, etc are considered controversial subjects, by some.

    Could my Pro Gun messages be being blocked, if the networks wanted to?
    Yes, your pro gun messages can be blocked exactly the same was that you cannot carry your gun in businesses that provide appropriate signs (in some states.)

    I applauded because Verizon supports their rights to limit content. (And because the banned content mentioned is aligned with my views though I would support their banning pro gun messages, also, if they so chose.)

    As Cakewalk wrote, if you have your own transmitter (though that poses other frequency restrictions that may limit your idea of the right) there is no problem. Expecting a private business to convey your message with no concern for their reputation and customer base has no basis in a capitalistic society.

  9. #8
    Distinguished Member Array mr.stuart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    usa-southeast texas
    Posts
    1,713
    It may be "their" network,but it is "my" money.I may with-hold "my" money from "their"network and give money to the network of my choice.One thing for sure,humans always find a way around things.Big companies will always sell out for the dollar.Many will advertise "free speech on our network".By the way,did prohibition work?Nope!

  10. #9
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by mr.stuart View Post
    Big companies will always sell out for the dollar.
    And small companies will do most anything to become big companies and make big money.

    It is fascinating how the word 'big' became a perjorative in our culture. Big oil, Big pharmaceutical, Big Agriculture... The only thing people don't seem to mind is Big government.

  11. #10
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036

    The arrogance of power

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    The only thing people don't seem to mind is Big government.
    I don't trust Big Government -- albeit I worked most of my life for the government. In fact, I have a lifetime of reasons not to trust Big Government.

    I suspect that word "big" has become a pejorative and uncomplimentary in our culture because many of us equate the word "big" with the arrogance of power that so often accompanies bigness.

    I was talking to a Pro 2A State Delegate awhile back. He was lamenting that he seemed to be falling into the trap of using his power arrogantly.

    Also, I suspect that word "big" became disparaging because many of us have seen that arrogance in the form of a total disregard of our needs and total non-responsiveness to us, as people. BTW -- the "Big" (a.k.a. Mainstream) Media worries me big time and I have no idea how to balance free speech and free press. One of the rays of hope for a full free exchange of ideas has been the Internet and forums, such as this. Now this very exchange might be vulnerable to attack.

    To get this thread back to the 2A concerns, which caused me to start the thread in the first place, I worry whenever I see "Big" whatever in a position to chop away, unrestrained, at any Constitutional Rights -- and I see 2A as the bottom line of all the rest. Any attack on Constitutional Rights worries me, whether it be for temporary safety, short term profit, personal aggrandizement, or to advance one Right at the cost of others, etc.

    Traditionally Attributed to Benjamin Franklin:
    Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
    BTW -- Are these private business leasing public domain band-width, frequencies, or whatever? Or do they now own it outright?
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

  12. #11
    Distinguished Member Array SixBravo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Prescott, AZ
    Posts
    1,692
    I think I'm with SD on this one. If a company wants to do that, then it is their right. You are still a customer on their network.. and their network is their property. Just like a company can prohibit you from carrying on their premesis. If it becomes known that a carrier is limiting the options then people will go elsewhere. Thats how the market works. If all the major networks went this way, then another poster is right, a smaller one would start up advertising that they would allow open comms and *poof* - overnight they would have more customers. The US market is made up of a fickle consumer base.

    It does bother me that a carrier would limit things like that, though. Really my mind isn't made up on the topic, but I'm leaning to one side obviously. Just a few thoughts on it...
    The Gunsite Blog
    ITFT / Quick Kill Review
    "It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon." - Justice Scalia, SCOTUS - DC v Heller - 26 JUN 2008

  13. #12
    Member
    Array Cakewalk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    292
    Quote Originally Posted by mr.stuart View Post
    It may be "their" network,but it is "my" money.I may with-hold "my" money from "their"network and give money to the network of my choice.One thing for sure,humans always find a way around things.Big companies will always sell out for the dollar.Many will advertise "free speech on our network".By the way,did prohibition work?Nope!
    You're comparing apples and oranges. Prohibition was a work of the government, not free enterprise. And yes, you are fully within your right to take your money elsewhere to try to get what you want from another provider, but, it's still within that provider's right to deliver or not deliver whatever service they intend.

    Again, the bottom line here is - if you don't like what's out there, then there's always the option to create your own company with your own rules and equipment and do it yourself. Otherwise, you'll have to pay someone else and hope they'll give you what you want.

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Free Speech vs. Hate Speech Article
    By GoldenSaber in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: August 20th, 2009, 12:55 PM
  2. Danger!!! Swatting!
    By MandM in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 7th, 2009, 03:57 PM
  3. Rice Says Gun Rights Are as Important as Right to Free Speech and Religion
    By Bumper in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: May 14th, 2005, 08:10 PM