Bringing Down the 1st Amendment

It's not the first time it's been tried.

It won't be the last.

However, it's staggering just how many people want to limit First Amendment Rights to those speeches and writings that agree with theirs.

It's a Euro idea, that SOME opinions or writings are just unacceptable, and MUST be censored. It didn't start with the Nazi party, as is often suggested. Long before Hitler, European countries were censoring Socialists, Communists, Anarchists, Atheists, Feminists, those who opposed the official state church, those who were pro-Democracy, etc.

But, the Leftists and their allies, the Progressives, have gathered energy, used their positions to pressure companies to cancel their provided services to organizations - or individuals - that they deem too controversial. Or Non-Lefitst. Or "Homophobic" or "Anti-Woman/LGBTQ-whatever/Black/Minority".

Without proof. Except their VERY strong Say-So.

The same people who insisted that churches had to tolerate crude, vulgar, hateful expressions right outside - and, sometimes, inside - their places of worship have suddenly developed the vapors at the IDEA that they should have to tolerate such nonsense, themselves.

Funny how those same women who will INSIST that they be treated as though they are BIG, BRAVE WOMYN also insist that we moderate our speech, because - you know - they just can't BEAR the sound of all that AWFUL "HATE"!

And, it's not just them insisting that we, who disagree with them, refrain from speaking in their presence.

They're also mobilizing their considerable forces to pressure OTHERS from providing a platform. Or links. Or, not condemning us strongly enough. Or refusing to go along with their efforts to make those they dislike become a un-person.

For those who do not understand the un-person thing, I include this educational link.



Share

Net Neutrality - Pravda Under Another Name

The FCC is still trying to get its hands on the Net.  In the words of a Socialist (interview from The Socialist Project):

There are three overriding and connected issues that are central to media democracy activism in the United States.

The first issue is the Internet. The battle for network neutrality is to prevent the Internet from being privatized by telephone and cable companies. Privatization would give them control over the Internet, would allow these firms to privilege some information flows over others. We want to keep the Internet open. What we want to have in the U.S. and in every society is an Internet that is not private property, but a public utility. We want an Internet where you don’t have to have a password and that you don’t pay a penny to use. It is your right to use the Internet. The benefits of a public Internet are numerous. It would end the digital divide, which remains a very serious problem in the U.S. and worldwide.

Oy, where to start?

First, I'm really not sure where he is going with that "you don't have to have a password" - is he implying that none of our messaging, text uploads/downloads, or other interactions should be private?  I wouldn't like that - I like my privacy.

I don't quite know how to explain it to him, but there IS NOT A DIGITAL DIVIDE.   All kids have it at school.  The poor and/or homeless have it in shelters, libraries, unemployment offices.

No, it's not as convenient as having it in your own living room, but the Internet is available to any American that wants it - period.

I'm DEEPLY suspicious about government attempts to take over media (for, after all, that's primarily what the Internet has become - the People's Media).  In countries that do have that control, it's mainly used to keep their subjects citizens from accessing it freely.

BTW, I strongly suggest that you read that nut's ramblings about state control of the media (he's for it).  His views are in the mainstream for liberals, unfortunately.

And, that's why I'm against the state control of the Internet.

---

I posted this, and realized that the word Pravda might not be known by the younger readers.  Pravda was the official newspaper of the former Soviet Union.  The word itself means "Truth" - which the actual newspaper was NOT dedicated to.  Pravda published propaganda straight from Stalin's mouth; the crop estimates, the production figures, the slant on event of the day - it was news as the Soviet controllers wanted its subjects to read about - highly massaged data, "official" statements, NO criticism of the government or its rulers.

Ordinary citizens didn't read Pravda, they decoded it - reading cynically and for clues to the real situation.  Pravda was the premier example of what a state-run media could become - a way of keeping the people clueless and under their thumb.

Share

The Internet is NOT An Inherently Free Tool

Take the example of China - the country's rulers successfully pressured Google to impose a country-wide censorship.

The Internet has been prophesied as the next great tool of democracy, that will invariably lead repressive regimes to a new era of freedom.

In 1989 Ronald Reagan proclaimed that “The Goliath of totalitarianism will be brought down by the David of the microchip”; later, Bill Clinton compared Internet censorship to “trying to nail Jell–O to the wall”; and in 1999 George W. Bush (not John Lennon) asked us to “imagine if the Internet took hold in China. Imagine how freedom would spread.”

Such starry–eyed cyber–optimism suggested a new form of technological determinism according to which the Internet would be the hammer to nail all global problems, from economic development in Africa to threats of transnational terrorism in the Middle East. Even so shrewd an operator as Rupert Murdoch yielded to the digital temptation: “Advances in the technology of telecommunications have proved an unambiguous threat to totalitarian regimes everywhere,” he claimed. Soon after, Murdoch bowed down to the Chinese authorities, who threatened his regional satellite TV business in response to this headline–grabbing statement.

It's true, of course, that a country that lets in the unabridged Internet COULD find itself experiencing that "Springtime in Prague" freedom.

But, it's likelier that the dictatorship would simply block the more egalitarian aspects of the Net - the social networking, the videos, etc. - and monitor all other activity. Control of the means used to connect (routers, modems, DSL lines, etc.) are well within the dictator's grasp.

In fact, it's even easier to censor the Net today, than when it began. I used the early Internet, through BBS and Fidonet. Because it wasn't as centralized, it was easier to evade the law (there's a reason there's a Talk Like a Pirate Day, ya' know). If one node (BBS) was caught, another could simply pick up the traffic.

Today, all you'd have to do to shut it down is to hit the major players, and the Net is effectively toast in that country.

Read the rest of the post - Evgeny Morozov is also a skeptic of the concept that everything is groovy with Internet - he thinks it's more likely to spread entertainment, than freedom.