Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Fairness Doctrine Passed in the Stimulus for The Internet.

Update: From American Spectator via Gateway Pundit

"Waxman is also interested, say sources, in looking at how the Internet is being used for content and free speech purposes. "It's all about diversity in media," says a House Energy staffer, familiar with the meetings. "Does one radio station or one station group control four of the five most powerful outlets in one community? Do four stations in one region carry Rush Limbaugh, and nothing else during the same time slot? 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."'

No Right wing hack here, much more a Libertarian. The progressives have only to say go and it is done. We are going to get gotten by strings. Administrative regulation. Net neutrality was slipped in to the stimulus bill. It has been up for debate before. It is some what confusing and went no where.

Hold Off On Net Neutrality
"Network neutrality is supposed to promote continuing Internet innovation by restricting the ability of network owners to give certain traffic priority based on the content or application being carried or on the sender's willingness to pay. The problem is that these restrictions would prohibit practices that could increase the value of the Internet for customer"

When It was talked about I was confused. I didn't come down either way. Didn't look into it at the time. It may be that some priority need to be set a side but should stay relatively neutral. That would be the case if I didn't think that they were up to something very very bad.

Ace Of Spades and a hat tip.
"According to critics, while language in the FCC policy statement is about limiting (or filtering) porn, the way it's written could easily be expanded to limit or regulate opinion and gives the FCC fairly broad powers to do so. And as we all know, the FCC board consists of political appointees and the balance shifts whenever a new administration takes over that's of a different political party than the previous one. "

Beyond the Fairness Doctrine - Reason Online
"Now the bad news. There's a host of other broadcast regulations that Obama has not foresworn. In the worst-case scenario, they suggest a world where the FCC creates intrusive new rules by fiat, meddles more with the content of stations' programs, and uses the pending extensions of broadband access as an opportunity to put its paws on the Internet. At a time when cultural production has been exploding, fueled by increasingly diverse and participatory new media, we would be stepping back toward the days when the broadcast media were a centralized and cozy public-private partnership."

Hot Air
"The basic line of attack described in the quote, i.e. “localism,” is also familiar as a favored lefty strategy for sneaking in Fairness without calling it Fairness. The Center for American Progress hailed it in its 2007 report on how to “reform” talk radio and Boehner sent a letter to the FCC opposing it last year (scroll down to the last update)."

IDB - Fairness Down Your Throat
"A 21st century Fairness Doctrine, however, would have to extend beyond the airwaves to accomplish its purposes of government-regulated "balance" in the opinions available to the public.
After appearing at the Heritage Foundation in Washington earlier this month, FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell gave a videotaped interview to the Media Research Center and warned that "whoever is in charge of government is going to determine what is fair, under a so-called Fairness Doctrine, which won't be called that — it'll be called something else."
And McDowell asked: "So, will Web sites (and) bloggers have to give equal time or equal space on their Web site to opposing views, rather than letting the marketplace of ideas determine that?"
According to McDowell, "this election, if it goes one way, we could see a re-imposition of the Fairness Doctrine." But McDowell believed it would be given a different name and "intertwined into the net neutrality debate."'

This is not exactly how it proposed that they would get the Fairness Doctrine in. As Usual they were much bolder than I thought. Reposting the video(for a third time?)

" the bigger concern should for them should be if you have government dictating content policy"

Obama controls the FCC, or will in a month or so. He just has to tell them that the Internet need to be more "fair" and its over. No law needs to be passed. No review. No discussion. It is done.
He won't do it right away. Obama can just wait till all the pieces are in place. Heath Care in place, unions in control, census done, nationalized banks, endless newspeak and so on. Better list here.

If Obama Wins, Damage Likely to Be Permanent
"Four years is more than enough time to inflict permanent damage on this country, given the large majorities the moonbat messiah is likely to have in both houses of Congress. The Wall Street Journal warns that if Dems get BHO in the White House and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, we will enter “a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy.”'

Are they moving us in a progressive direction because they think it works better and the rest is just to keep them in power. I don't like conspiracies. Most of the time I think they are complete crap. But what the hell is going on here?

No comments: