“Net neutrality” to censor Drudge, Fox and ME?

Freedom of Speech StoppedAh yes, Leftists soon to get what they want, the censorship of those who oppose their policies?

As per normal it isn’t Republicans or Conservatives or those on the right who want to remove your freedoms and specifically your First Amendment freedoms, it is those who profess to be the most embracing and the most understanding and tolerant who wish to remove your freedoms: the Demorats and Leftists and so-called Progressives.

From the WashingtonExaminer.com:

Drudge, Fox News could be censored under new federal rules, experts warn

by Rudy Takala

A Washington, D.C., appeals court is set to hear arguments later this year on new net neutrality rules, which critics say could lead to government regulators censoring websites such as the Drudge Report and Fox News.

In its February vote on net neutrality, the Federal Communications Commission stated that broadband providers do not have a right to free speech. “Broadband providers are conduits, not speakers … the rules we adopt today are tailored to the important government interest in maintaining an open Internet as a platform for expression,” the majority held in its 3-2 vote.

The rules, which went into effect in June, require that broadband providers — such as Verizon or Comcast — offer access to all legal online content. It did not place such a requirement on “edge providers,” such as Netflix and Google. The FCC defines edge providers as “any individual or entity that provides any content, application, or service over the Internet, and any individual or entity that provides a device used for accessing any content, application, or service over the Internet.”

No right to free speech?

Writing in separate briefs, former FCC Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth and the Center for Boundless Innovation in Technology argues that the rules violate the First Amendment right of Internet providers to display the speech they choose.

“If rules such as these are not reviewed under the most rigorous scrutiny possible, government favoritism and censorship masquerading as ‘neutrality’ will soon cascade to other forms of mass communication,” the center argues.

“If the court upholds the FCC’s rules, the agency’s authority over the Internet would extend from one end to the other,” Fred Campbell, president of the Center for Boundless Innovation in Technology, told the Washington Examiner. “Because the same theories the FCC relied on to impose its new regulations on Internet service providers are also applicable to companies like Apple and Netflix, the FCC could extend its regulatory reach much further in the future.”

Could that “reach” mean me?  And you?  Our opinions on social media?  Any bit of written expression that involves an opinion or even a viewpoint?

More pointedly, our political opinions?  Opinions that could contradict those of the regime in power, as Mr Obama or others of power in DC?

Specifically, Campbell said, the FCC will likely try to control political speech.

“This possibility raises the risk that Congress or the FCC could impose restrictions on Internet video and other services that have traditionally been imposed on over the air broadcasting and cable television, including the fairness doctrine that once put the government in charge of determining whether broadcasters were fairly representing both sides of an issue,” he explained.

FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, who voted against the net neutrality rules, has said such restrictions may be coming if net neutrality is allowed to stand, warning in March that online political content like the Drudge Report could face greater regulation.

Why is it, however, that only Drudge and Fox News should be targeted?  Is it because the “rest” of the news agencies are so terribly unbiased — such as NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN?  It is no shock that there is much Left-wing bias in the newsrooms of what most would term the “mainstream media.”  Bernard Goldberg knew this years ago.  There are very few Republicans and right-wingers in MSM newsrooms.

Further, clearly the ignorant don’t know that Drudge doesn’t write news; the DrudgeReport is nothing more than a news aggregator.  It collects and collates news from sources around the globe, then slugs stories with a headline that catches.

Is this really the United States of America, when something like this could actually happen?

BZ

 

Drudge, BZ, your blog threatened

Free Speech EliminatedThe federal government is about nothing if not control.

Control of every aspect of your life, control, monitoring, regulation.

From CNSNews.com:

FCC Commissioner: Feds may come for Drudge

by Rudy Takala

(CNSNews.com) – Federal Communications Commission (FCC) member Ajit Pai said over the weekend that he foresees a future in which federal regulators will seek to regulate websites based on political content, using the power of the FCC or Federal Elections Commission (FEC). He also revealed that his opposition to “net neutrality” regulations had resulted in personal harassment and threats to his family.

However, Pai said it was only the beginning. In the future, he said, “I could easily see this migrating over to the direction of content… What you’re seeing now is an impulse not just to regulate the roads over which traffic goes, but the traffic itself.”

Continuing, he said, “It is conceivable to me to see the government saying, ‘We think the Drudge Report is having a disproportionate effect on our political discourse. He doesn’t have to file anything with the FEC. The FCC doesn’t have the ability to regulate anything he says, and we want to start tamping down on websites like that.’”

We’ve seen this already from the federal government, in terms of the IRS terrorizing Conservative groups with threats and actions not directed to any other political community.

Tolerant LeftistsWe’ve seen Holder’s DOJ prosecuting cases based solely on race, at Obama’s direction.  Mr Obama and Mr Holder are two of DC’s Racists In Chief.  We’ll see how AG Lynch does.

“Is it unthinkable that some government agency would say the marketplace of ideas is too fraught with dissonance? That everything from the Drudge Report to Fox News… is playing unfairly in the online political speech sandbox? I don’t think so,” Pai said.

“The First Amendment means not just the cold parchment that’s in the Constitution. It’s an ongoing cultural commitment, and I sense that among a substantial number of Americans and a disturbing number of regulators here in Washington that online speech is [considered] a dangerous brave new world that needs to be regulated,” he concluded.

Those persons who are ignorant of the world surrounding them would be the first to say “that’s ridiculous, you’re paranoid.  Nothing like that could ever happen in the US.”

In response I’d say: “it’s already happened.  Where were you?”

Leftist Thinking In DreadsThe First Amendment and the Second Amendment are interlinked.

Why do you think there is such a push to eliminate the Second Amendment by the federal government, to onerously regulate firearms and ammunition?

Because without the ability to defend ourselves on a civilian level, the federal government, any government, can lay rules and regulations on a population that has no ability to fight back in any manner.

Let me provide further clarity: the Second Amendment, as some think, doesn’t exist solely to enable people to go hunting if they wish.  It exists to keep the populace safe from an overbearing government.

The Obama Regime is leaving in a few years, thank the Lord.  But if another Demorat steps in, you’ll find your fundamental rights challenged once more.  If that occurs, this nation could very well erupt in a fashion no one wants to see or consider.

Voltaire QuoteEnjoy reading my blog whilst you can.

BZ

P.S.

1. How to end free speech.
2. Obama eliminating free speech.
3. Muslims eliminating free speech.
4. Soft money goes, then so does free speech.
5. Chuck Schumer wants to kill free speech.

These things are occurring right here, right now, in the United States of America, ladies and gentlemen.

Pass the word.

Leftist Free SpeechHere is what Leftists think of Free Speech.  And who defines “hate speech”?  Why, Leftists do, of course.  “Hate speech,” such as support of US foundational documents.

 

Wisconsin DA Chisholm’s Political Gestapo

Chisholm's Political Gestapo[And shame — MASSIVE SHAME — upon those “law enforcement officers” (you deserve to be in quotes) who took part in those raids.

You know who you are and you know you conducted yourselves improperly, no matter what you say or how you attempt to justify your actions publicly.  You still cannot sleep well at night.  As well you shouldn’t.  You violated your fundamental Constitutional oaths.]

If you donated to or voted for Scott Walker in Wisconsin, you were brought under the gunsights of Democrat District Attorney John Chisholm and Leftist Democrat Judge Judge Barbara KlukaBarbara Kluka, who signed off on every piece of paper proffered before her by Chisholm.

This was nothing more than criminalizing Conservatism.

Something of which all my consistently loyal readers could be accused: being Conservative.  Not even Republican, but at their base: Conservative.

Like myself.  I am no longer a Republican, I am an Independent voter.  I tossed the GOP to the curb over five years ago.

I am an Independent Conservative.  And I’m a law enforcement officer.

That said, police SWAT teams were, literally, utilized by Leftist, Demorat forces in order to frighten, harass and intimidate loyal American taxpayers who did nothing more than exercise their rights as guaranteed by the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

This article at the NationalReview.com reveals all.

Wisconsin’s Shame: ‘I Thought It Was a Home Invasion’

by David French

Cindy Archer, one of the lead architects of Wisconsin’s Act 10 — also called the “Wisconsin Budget Repair Bill,” it limited public-employee benefits and altered collective-bargaining rules for public-employee unions — was jolted awake by yelling, loud pounding at the door, and her dogs’ frantic barking. The entire house — the windows and walls — was shaking. She looked outside to see up to a dozen police officers, yelling to open the door. They were carrying a battering ram.

What had she done?

She had been a Conservative.  That is all.

Then they left, carrying with them only a cellphone and a laptop.

Certainly that required a SWAT response, dogs, gearing up, a SWAT call-up, overtime, call-up time, backup units, a tactical plan, did it not?

It was indeed a home invasion, but the people who were pouring in were Wisconsin law-enforcement officers. Armed, uniformed police swarmed into the house. Plainclothes investigators cornered her and her newly awakened family. Soon, state officials were seizing the family’s personal property, including each person’s computer and smartphone, filled with the most intimate family information.

And what were the Archer’s told? They were told to shut up.

Why were the police at Anne’s home? She had no answers. The police were treating them the way they’d seen police treat drug dealers on television. In fact, TV or movies were their only points of reference, because they weren’t criminals. They were law-abiding. They didn’t buy or sell drugs. They weren’t violent. They weren’t a danger to anyone. Yet there were cops — surrounding their house on the outside, swarming the house on the inside. They even taunted the family as if they were mere “perps.”

Shut up.

As if the home invasion, the appropriation of private property, and the verbal abuse weren’t enough, next came ominous warnings. Don’t call your lawyer. Don’t tell anyone about this raid. Not even your mother, your father, or your closest friends.

What triggered these horrendous CIVILIAN raids?

For dozens of conservatives, the years since Scott Walker’s first election as governor of Wisconsin transformed the state — known for pro-football championships, good cheese, and a population with a reputation for being unfailingly polite — into a place where conservatives have faced early-morning raids, multi-year secretive criminal investigations, slanderous and selective leaks to sympathetic media, and intrusive electronic snooping.
 

Yes, Wisconsin, the cradle of the progressive movement and home of the “Wisconsin idea” — the marriage of state governments and state universities to govern through technocratic reform — was giving birth to a new progressive idea, the use of law enforcement as a political instrument, as a weapon to attempt to undo election results, shame opponents, and ruin lives. Most Americans have never heard of these raids, or of the lengthy criminal investigations of Wisconsin conservatives. For good reason. Bound by comprehensive secrecy orders, conservatives were left to suffer in silence as leaks ruined their reputations, as neighbors, looking through windows and dismayed at the massive police presence, the lights shining down on targets’ homes, wondered, no doubt, What on earth did that family do?

Except for now.  Americans have heard now, the reason for this post.

Our First Amendment, our very freedom is threatened.

But there’s more about DA John Chisholm and his Socialist Shop:

At the same time that the public protests were raging, so were private — but important — protests in the Chisholm home and workplace. As a former prosecutor told journalist Stuart Taylor, Chisholm’s wife was a teachers’-union shop steward who was distraught over Act 10’s union reforms. He said Chisholm “felt it was his personal duty” to stop them.

Meanwhile, according to this whistleblower, the district attorney’s offices were festooned with the “blue fist” poster of the labor-union movement, indicating that Chisholm’s employees were very much invested in the political fight

So it would appear Chisholm staged his own personal vendetta — because he could — as his wife, a union shop steward, hated Scott Walker’s union stance.  Perfect: wielding the office of District Attorney as a political sledgehammer against Conservatives.

Much like Lois Lerner and the IRS.  Much like Operation Choke Point.  All ideas of Leftists.  All aimed at reducing freedoms, not increasing them.

Of course, DA Chisholm had Leftist help in the local court:

But with another election looming — this time Walker’s campaign for reelection — Chisholm wasn’t finished. He launched yet another John Doe investigation, “supervised” by Judge Barbara Kluka. Kluka proved to be capable of superhuman efficiency — approving “every petition, subpoena, and search warrant in the case” in a total of one day’s work.

Here is where Chisholm’s Gestapo went to work:

Empowered by a rubber-stamp judge, partisan investigators ran amok. They subpoenaed and obtained (without the conservative targets’ knowledge) massive amounts of electronic data, including virtually all the targets’ personal e-mails and other electronic messages from outside e-mail vendors and communications companies.

The investigations exploded into the open with a coordinated series of raids on October 3, 2013. These were home invasions, including those described above. Chisholm’s office refused to comment on the raid tactics (or any other aspect of the John Doe investigations), but witness accounts regarding the two John Doe investigations are remarkably similar: early-morning intrusions, police rushing through the house, and stern commands to remain silent and tell no one about what had occurred.

With Gestapo tactics comes fear.

O’Keefe, who has been in contact with multiple targeted families, says, “Every family I know of that endured a home raid has been shaken to its core, and the fate of marriages and families still hangs in the balance in some cases.”

Anne also describes a new fear of the police: “I used to support the police, to believe they were here to protect us. Now, when I see an officer, I’ll cross the street. I’m afraid of them. I know what they’re capable of.”

Cindy says, “I lock my doors and I close my shades. I don’t answer the door unless I am expecting someone. My heart races when I see a police car sitting in front of my house or following me in the car. The raid was so public. I’ve been harassed. My house has been vandalized. [She did not identify suspects.] I no longer feel safe, and I don’t think I ever will.”

Rachel talks about the effect on her children. “I tried to create a home where the kids always feel safe. Now they know they’re not. They know men with guns can come in their house, and there’s nothing we can do.” Every knock on the door brings anxiety. Every call to the house is screened. In the back of her mind is a single, unsettling thought: These people will never stop.

I urge you, please read the full article here.

Read Sheriff David Clarke’s issues with Chisholm’s stances here.

CHISHOLMSheriff David Clarke, for those of you who don’t know, is a true American patriot.

Rush’s take is here.

This is one reason, among many, that I am an Oathkeeper.  Just as I have feared, law enforcement is being utilized as a gross political tool for Leftists.  I repeat:

Shame — MASSIVE SHAME — upon those “law enforcement officers” (you deserve to be in quotes) who took part in those raids.

You know who you are and you know you conducted yourselves improperly, no matter what you say or how you attempt to justify your actions publicly.  You still cannot sleep well at night.  As well you shouldn’t.  You violated your fundamental Constitutional oaths.

You make me sick to my heart, you alleged “police officers” who took part in those raids of lawful citizens.  You wound me, and all other LEOs who seek nothing more than to conduct their business professionally and within the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Have you no soul?  Have you no conscience?  Moreover, have you no intellect, no sense of questioning, no grasp of our foundational documents?  Are you truly that filled with fear of your supervisors?

How could you not at least ask questions?

Is this actually my country?  Is this truly the United States of America?

How can this occur in my country?

BZ

BZ’s very own federal government: coming for MY First Amendment rights

First Amendment WrappedFirst, from the WashingtonExaminer.com:

Dems on FEC move to regulate Internet campaigns, blogs, Drudge

by Paul Bedard

In a surprise move late Friday, a key Democrat on the Federal Election Commission called for burdensome new rules on Internet-based campaigning, prompting the Republican chairman to warn that Democrats want to regulate online political sites and even news media like the Drudge Report.

Democratic FEC Vice Chair Ann M. Ravel announced plans to begin the process to win regulations on Internet-based campaigns and videos, currently free from most of the FEC’s rules. “A reexamination of the commission’s approach to the internet and other emerging technologies is long over due,” she said.

Does anyone with a semblance of common sense realize, for example, what the Drudge Report actually is?  For the most part Matt Drudge doesn’t write his stories; his site is merely an aggregator of stories from around the globe and around the internet.

He takes them and collates them, then places them on his site with accompanying headlines.  It is the headlines and the types of stories featured on Drudge to which Leftists object.  They also object to Drudge’s massive popularity and his incalculable hit ratio.

When Drudge makes a link to a story, that site’s servers can frequently be downed due to the quantity of hits.  To object to Drudge, however, is to object to reality.

“I told you this was coming.”

Under a 2006 FEC rule, free political videos and advocacy sites have been free of regulation in a bid to boost voter participation in politics. Only Internet videos that are placed for a fee on websites, such as the Washington Examiner, are regulated just like normal TV ads.

Ravel’s statement suggests that she would regulate right-leaning groups like America Rising that posts anti-Democrat YouTube videos on its website.

FEC Chairman Lee E. Goodman, a Republican, said if regulation extends that far, then anybody who writes a political blog, runs a politically active news site or even chat room could be regulated. He added that funny internet campaigns like “Obama Girl,” and “Jib Jab” would also face regulations.

“I told you this was coming,” he told Secrets. Earlier this year he warned that Democrats on the panel were gunning for conservative Internet sites like the Drudge Report.

An incredibly important final paragraph:

“Regrettably, the 3-to-3 vote in this matter suggests a desire to retreat from these important protections for online political speech — a shift in course that could threaten the continued development of the Internet’s virtual free marketplace of political ideas and democratic debate,” they concluded.

Ladies and gentlemen, when did you ever possibly believe that your First Amendment rights could even remotely be threatened by some capricious force that is not guaranteed by your federal government in its Bill of Rights or US Constitution?

Is that not insane?  Your federal government threatening its own guarantees?

BZ

US Flag Under Attack