It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The other way to go after the internet is what the EU approach is; threaten people based on something which can't move around (like routing tables can). Threaten them where they "live", and this is the EU approach.
a reply to: Deplorable
Once Europe is gone - who do you think they will be after next, the US. Do you honestly think the 2nd Amendement will restore power to the people?
In June 2017, Axel Voss (EPP, Germany) was appointed as the new rapporteur in replacement of Therese Comodini Cachia for the proposal for a directive on copyright in the Digital Single Market. Rapporteur Voss is finalising his compromise amendments and the vote of the EP report in the JURI Committee is scheduled for June 2018.
European Union is in the process of revising copyright laws, and many people are alarmed about the impact that passage of the law as it is drafted at this point could have on the sharing of information online. The main focus of attention is Article 13 of the Copyright proposal of the European Commission which would seemingly drastically curtail fair use, which is the doctrine that certain copyrighted material can be used in limited ways without permission from copyright holders. I haven’t had time to dig deeply into all the legal ramifications, but what many observers are saying is that if the law is implemented it could drastically change the way the internet operates
Like what I just posted. It could be copyright infringement, and the writer could bill ATS for it. Oh noz!
I'd rather freedom be protected, as is the purpose of government.
Unless the Congress puts a legal structure in place guaranteeing "net neutrality"
originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Gryphon66
That'd make for a pleasant change of pace, wouldn't it?
My second argument would be that the internet is the 21st century equivalent of "the post roads" and therefore comes under the direct purview of Congress under Article 1, Section 8.
That's not a bad notion, at all. I kinda like it, in fact. Well thought!!
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Southern Guardian
It might have been interesting to see his actual argument. From your article:
"The rule transforms the Internet by imposing common-carrier obligations on Internet service providers and thereby prohibiting Internet service providers from exercising editorial control over the content they transmit to consumers," Kavanaugh wrote. The FCC's imposition of the rule was unlawful because "Congress did not clearly authorize the FCC to issue the net neutrality rule" or to impose common-carrier obligations on ISPs, Kavanaugh argued. But even authorization from Congress wouldn't have saved the net neutrality rules from Kavanaugh's dissent, because he also argued that the rules violate ISPs' First Amendment free speech rights.
Under Supreme Court precedents, "the First Amendment bars the Government from restricting the editorial discretion of Internet service providers, absent a showing that an Internet service provider possesses market power in a relevant geographic market," Kavanaugh wrote. "Here, however, the FCC has not even tried to make a market power showing. Therefore, under the Supreme Court's precedents applying the First Amendment, the net neutrality rule violates the First Amendment."
TO me, Judge Kavanaugh is interpreting SCOTUS precedent and the Constitution quite clearly and reasonably.
Unless the Congress puts a legal structure in place guaranteeing "net neutrality" ... it should be a businesses right to provide services as they see fit so long as customers are treated equitably.