Republicans against free Internet

BobTheCoward said:
No. No it does not.
Click to expand...

Could you explain why why you feel that way?

To me, the internet is an open forum of public opinion. As others on this thread have pointed out, it functions, in part, on government subsidy. Therefore, we are paying taxes for its upkeep. To pay taxes for a public forum from which my point of view can be arbitrarily excluded, according to the whims of a private party, certainly amounts to a violation of the First Amendment.

Remember that being forced to pay taxes for the support of religious views not necessarily one's own, i.e. the Church of England, was one of the issues that ultimately led to the American Revolution.
 
TimCallahan said:
If ISPs can determine the content of what goes on the Internet, if private companies have the right to deny certain points of view, it certainly does violate First Amendment rights to freedom of expression.
Click to expand...

How? You don't have the right to freedom of expression on the JREF forums. Are your rights being violated by posting on this forum?
 
Newton is correct. This is why I think the internet should be something provided for by the government, that way it can be used by everyone.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Newton is correct. This is why I think the internet should be something provided for by the government, that way it can be used by everyone.
Click to expand...
Maybe the Postal Service should go into the ISP business to serve at least the rural areas to which Obamawants to expand high-speed internet.

Wonder how many customers of existing ISPs would then tell toll-booth ISPs to go to hell.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Newton is correct. This is why I think the internet should be something provided for by the government, that way it can be used by everyone.
Click to expand...

I don't think it has to be provided by the government to be free and fair. Forcing content providers to be separate, and not sign any deals with, all ISP's is all that is required. I think that could be considered a "consumer protection" deal as well. If Comcast gives me an "internet connection" it should be to the entire internet, not just what they think I should access.
 
leftysergeant said:
Maybe the Postal Service should go into the ISP business to serve at least the rural areas to which Obamawants to expand high-speed internet.

Wonder how many customers of existing ISPs would then tell toll-booth ISPs to go to hell.
Click to expand...

Or require ISP's that get those special monopoly deals to provide access to everyone like they did with phone companies in the past.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I disagree and agree at the same time. I agree that the government help built it, and I agree that an ISP has no "right" to put up a toll booth.

I disagree that this ends the debate. The questions if it is a rights issue at all or about the restrictions of freedom imposed are valid.
Click to expand...

They can, all they have to to is charge by usage. That does not violate the ideas of net neutrality. What it prevents is them installing a high speed lane for people willing to pay for it.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Newton is correct. This is why I think the internet should be something provided for by the government, that way it can be used by everyone.
Click to expand...

I am not sure about that. I would be like the phone company blocking you from calling certain numbers. By and large net neutrality is not about censorship in the traditional sense, it is about anti competitive practices.
 
ponderingturtle said:
And why is putting a fast lane onto the internet so counter to that? Why shouldn't those who pay for it get better distribution? They do that in any other form of media after all.
Click to expand...
Because it's not the job of the ISP to pick winners and losers of internet commerce, it is to connect their customer to any web site they wish to visit. Just like FedEx doesn't charge Amazon more than any other company, they all pay the same rate.

They are common carriers, and their infrastructure is located on public property and subsidized by taxpayers.
 
WildCat said:
Because it's not the job of the ISP to pick winners and losers of internet commerce, it is to connect their customer to any web site they wish to visit. Just like FedEx doesn't charge Amazon more than any other company, they all pay the same rate.

They are common carriers, and their infrastructure is located on public property and subsidized by taxpayers.
Click to expand...

Sorry for the nitpick, but I would wager Amazon gets special deals for its bulk distribution...
 
Newtons Bit said:
So... any corporation that has taken public money can't restrict legal, but off-topic, content posted on a forum said corporation hosts?
Click to expand...

I think you're missing the point. If ISPs can determine the content of the Internet they are in a position to censor any point of view, articularly political, they disagree with. The ISPs aren't hosting forums. Organizations like JREF are hosting them. The FCC regulations obviously don't apply to JREF or any other forum host.
 
Last edited:
TimCallahan said:
I think you're missing the point. If ISPs can determine the content of the Internet they are in a position to censor any point of view, articularly political, they disagree with. The ISPs aren't hosting forums. Organizations like JREF are hosting them. The FCC regulations obviously don't apply to JREF or any other forum host.
Click to expand...

I think you're moving the goalposts.
 
TimCallahan said:
I think you're missing the point. If ISPs can determine the content of the Internet they are in a position to censor any point of view, articularly political, they disagree with. The ISPs aren't hosting forums. Organizations like JREF are hosting them. The FCC regulations obviously don't apply to JREF or any other forum host.
Click to expand...

Assuming an all-private internet (you know, within in the bounds of what is achievable) I see no problem with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom