Trump’s Supreme Court pick: ISPs have 1st Amendment right to block websites

a reply to: Southern Guardian

And you'd rather the FCC regulate how you and others conduct business, freedom be damned. Kavanaugh sided with individual liberty; you side with statism and bureaucracy. Let that sink in.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

And you'd rather the FCC regulate how you and others conduct business,

I'd rather freedom be protected, as is the purpose of government.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

I did a thread on the Eu's nefarious plan to limit the net by allowing companies to charge for limks

"Get ready - Internet as you know it will be gone "The EU is About to Destroy The Internet" "
www.abovetopsecret.com...


NSA bulk collection of data; why am I not surprised.

What little faith I had of Trump being an outsider has been eroded to the certainty that he is just filling a role.
He never was an outsider. This is a further nail in the coffin of freedom of speech.

It should be interesting what eventuates coming into the mid-terms in the US with "fake news" "bots".etc

No wonder they pretended to go after Zuckerberg and facebook. Just all show for mass consumption. Our lawmakers squeal and pretend to look after the interests of Joe Smith.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Flyingclaydisk:
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?

saveyourinternet.eu...


www.europarl.europa.eu.

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.

angiedoll:
Chapter 13 has to do with copyright laws

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

angeldoll
Like what I just posted. It could be copyright infringement, and the writer could bill ATS for it. Oh noz!

a reply to: Southern Guardian

I'd rather freedom be protected, as is the purpose of government.

By FCC, that is, government regulation?

a reply to: Southern Guardian

I'd rather freedom be protected, as is the purpose of government.

No government has ever protected freedom in the history of the planet. Never. Not one. Government exists to remove freedom. That's why we have the Bill of Rights, a restriction on government to prevent them from removing those freedoms.

Again, call your Congressman. Kavanaugh has pointed out where Congress has neglected to protect the Internet by not declaring ISPs as common carriers. Congress is the closest branch of government to the people, and the one you have the most power to influence. The Judicial Branch is the farthest one from the people, charged with protecting the Constitution. It sounds to me like we should be grateful to Kavanaugh for pointing out the legalities behind net neutrality.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Southern Guardian

A govt. will never protect freedom. Why do you think the Constitution was written? It was to protect citizens from a govt over reaching its bounds.

That is why it is so important for us to be involved in governmental affairs.

a reply to: TheRedneck

C'mon man, stay outta my head...

Unless the Congress puts a legal structure in place guaranteeing "net neutrality"

The government did create net neutrality but evil Trump's evil POS FCC guy destroyed it.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Actually it's why the Founding Fathers gave us the 2nd, because only people will ever protect freedoms.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I made a similar post earlier. +1

a reply to: seagull

It's fun in here. Especially the redhead...

TheRedneck

a reply to: Southern Guardian
So you want us To to be upset about what specifically?? What action here should we all be angry about??

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!!

Yeah this thread made me a fan of Gryph. He's been slowly growing on me and this thread got me around to actually reading his posts in their entirety. Unlike the OP.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

See thats the problem with political chearleaders that only point the finger at the other team or cry wolf. Most people wont takes you seriously nor will they be receptive of your point of view even when you make a valid one.

The reality of this and Trumps picks is and should be concerning to everyone especially the individual republicans, who it will come back to haunt.

Net neutrality is what built the global economic powerhouse known as the internet and what gives equal voice to the individuals versus only the big corps.


Net neutrality principles is what allowed for the non MSM sources such as ATS to expose the clinton lies and scandals and allowed trump to win. Undoing this will be like giving control back to the propagandist msm . It will be like cnn getting full control of what articles and information you get to access in future elections. Say goodbuy to Q and all other anonymous anti going with the grain sources.

I believe this is the doing of the neocon republicans vs Trump himself. I believe Trump has no clue of what net neutrality is ,its importance, or how critical of a roll it played in him winning the election. The neocon have passed a big one over trump with this IMO.

If you really understood net neutrality and were a conservative you should be extremely concerned with this.


I have mentioned this concern before and a few threads on it.

net neutrality under trump


here is why trump is sucking now

They are legal considered "Common Carriers"

potomacinstituteceo.wordpress.com...

and then it isn't ....

arstechnica.com...

However the Republicans want to twist definitions --- internet is 'telecommunications'.

Dbl

a reply to: Southern Guardian

I do believe he's 100% correct in his opinion on ISP rights. As the ones holding all of the financial risks, those choices should be theirs. You will also find that my position on this hasn't changed, I opposed net "neutrality" when it was initially proposed and have remained consistent throughout, so what now, SG?

a reply to: interupt42

The problem with authoritarians in power is that they believe they will never be out of power again.

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.

IMO.

Very well put and backed up with FACTS not what ifs, claims, and hysteria.

what people are not gettting is JUST BECAUSE you THINK something is a right does not make it so.
we are a nation of LAWS.
laws are created by CONGRESS, signed by the president, if vetoed then overidden by congress (by a overwhelming majority) then the courts and ultimately the supreme court DETERMINE IF CONSTITUTIONAL.
Not the courts decide because the congress didnt pass the law we wanted.

Judges are only supposed to BY THE CONSTITUTION determine IF THE LAW IS CONSTITUTIONAL or not AS IT IS WRITTEN and/or if there is AN AMENDMENT thereof.

Yes its work and yes sometimes you are not gonna get what you want...but that is our system and we are a nation of LAWS.

dont like them...then GET THEM CHANGED LEGALLY.

in conclusion THE JUDGES ARE NOT LEGISLATORS.

Not by the constitution and nor should they be

Scrounger

Ok slightly thread spread but net neutrality keeps popping up.

as ATS goal / grace is "deny ignorance" lets apply it here.

One net neutrality was a REGULATION NOT A LAW.

Two want it a law, then MAKE IT ONE .
stop trying to make legislation from the courts.
you know that whole CONSTITUTION thing.

Three and biggest deny ignorance.
Net neutrality is ANYTHING BUT.
most people supporting it HAVE NOT READ THE THING.
I did and after wading though government legal speak that would make the hardest atty head explode I discovered one basic fact.
It gives THE GOVERNMENT OVER SITE AND CONTROL OF THE INTERNET.
Not only give them the same control they have over (ex) utility and cable companies.
You know the same companies that are ANYTHING BUT consumer friendly and more importantly GIVES SAME BIG COMPANY INFLUENCE they have now NOT LESS.

In short if you want to see the future under this just look at utility companies.
when have they EVER BEEN consumer friendly , cost less, ect?

Or how about cable companies that have in most cases ZERO COMPETITION LEGALLY (except for sat ), expensive and basically pay politicians to keep it that way.

Im sorry for the drift but the continued LIES on what net neutrality is, what it does, and the propaganda its in our best interests is too much.

BTW if it is such a good idea over say capitalistic system then why dont we have cell phone neutrality?

hmmmmmm

scrounger