Matt Drudge: Copyright Laws Could Outlaw Linking to Websites
by Paul Joseph Watson
Matt Drudge warns that the very foundation of the free Internet is under severe threat from copyright laws that could ban independent media outlets, revealing that he was told directly by a Supreme Court Justice, “It’s over for me.”
During an appearance on the Alex Jones Show, Drudge asserted that copyright laws which prevent websites from even linking to news stories were being advanced.
“I had a Supreme Court Justice tell me it’s over for me,” said Drudge. “They’ve got the votes now to enforce copyright law, you’re out of there. They’re going to make it so you can’t even use headlines.”
“To have a Supreme Court Justice say to me it’s over, they’ve got the votes, which means time is limited,” he added, noting that a day was coming when simply operating an independent website could be outlawed.
“That will end (it) for me – fine – I’ve had a hell of a run,” said Drudge, adding that web users were being pushed into the cyber “ghettos” of Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.
Watch Drudge on YouTube:
This would severely limit free speech.
But isn’t that the point of America’s thrust now under Leftists?
Now that the Obama Leftists have the GOP right where they want them, dangling at the end of an erectile-dysfunctional leash, what might be a major reason the FCC won’t release the 322-page document? Why is it so secret? Why so serious?
I was thinking: if I were the Obama-run FCC and I wanted to help throttle the internet and begin the systematic removal of our First Amendment (Obama is already working on that pesky Second Amendment), what would I do?
I know. I’d place within those regulations a return to the Fairness Doctrine, and I would apply said doctrine to the internet. I’d apply it to blogs, I’d slather it like warm butter all over the web.
The US Department of the Internet is here, in all its chewy, buttery, governmental goodness. And you can bet the DOI will be jam-gepacked with all the efficiency, thrift, cheer, good will and responsiveness as your local DMV. Or, uh, any other federal government function.
Regulators OK ‘net neutrality’ rules for Internet providers
by Anne Flaherty
WASHINGTON (AP) — Internet service providers like Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile now must act in the “public interest” when providing a mobile connection to your home or phone, under rules approved Thursday by a divided Federal Communications Commission.
The plan, which puts the Internet in the same regulatory camp as the telephone and bans business practices that are “unjust or unreasonable,” represents the biggest regulatory shakeup to the industry in almost two decades. The goal is to prevent providers from slowing or blocking web traffic, or creating paid fast lanes on the Internet, said FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler.
The 3-2 vote was expected to trigger industry lawsuits that could take several years to resolve. Still, consumer advocates cheered the regulations as a victory for smaller Internet-based companies which feared they would have to pay “tolls” to move their content.
On its face, hey, “net neutrality,” what’s not to love about “neutrality,” right?
After all, it’s about “fairness.” Air quotes. “Fair” – “ness.”
But then there’s this:
Opponents, including many congressional Republicans, said the FCC plan constitutes dangerous government overreach that would eventually drive up consumer costs and discourage industry investment.
Initially, one can rest assured there will in fact be a new department created by the federal government (why not the Department of the Internet?), with its concomitant bloated bureaucracy, profligate spending, unfettered reach and brain-glazing indifference.
And as I wrote earlier, if the internet wasn’t broken, why the stultifying alacrity to allegedly “repair” it?
But here’s the real truth to the situation, and what these rules will have wrought:
Michael Powell, a former Republican FCC chairman who now runs the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, warned that consumers would almost immediately “bear the burden of new taxes and increased costs, and they will likely wait longer for faster and more innovative networks since investment will slow in the face of bureaucratic oversight.”
It’s not true that consumers would see new taxes right away. The Internet Tax Freedom Act bans taxes on Internet access, although that bill expires in October. While Congress is expected to renew that legislation, it’s conceivable that states could eventually push Congress for the ability to tax Internet service now that it has been deemed a vital public utility.
And why wouldn’t states do this, when they are actively seeking new cash sources for in-state Free Cheese programs?
“Read my lips. More Internet taxes are coming. It’s just a matter of when,” Commissioner Pai said.
O joyous day. A more regulated and less responsive internet, uninterested and unmotivated in technological innovation, for which we’ll all be paying more money.
Run by the same people who brought you ObamaCare and the healthcare.gov website that was the epitome of productivity, coherence and budgetary frugality.
Using Europe as a model, we can see that throttling the internet via “net neutrality” results in fewer innovations and fewer choices. All in the interest of “fairness,” you see.
“Net neutrality distorts competition to benefit one group and disadvantage another—the very definition of crony capitalism.” ~ JeffEisenach
Demorats haven’t seen the rules for the FCC’s “net neutrality” proposal — all 332 pages of them — but they’re applauding the rules anyway. In just the fashion they did with ObamaKare, passed in the dead of night, unilaterally, and unable to see the bill itself — just like the FCC.
Essentially, the US controls the internet. We could cede power of course, but why would we? Oh right. It’s not “fair” for the US to actually have power, according to Mr Barack Hussein Obama. Again, it is all about his background, his raising and education. You need to read this to understand Mr Obama.
FCC Chair Refuses to Testify before Congress ahead of Net Neutrality Vote
by Andrew Johnson
Two prominent House committee chairs are “deeply disappointed” in Federal Communications Commission chairman Tom Wheeler for refusing to testify before Congress as “the future of the Internet is at stake.”
Wheeler’s refusal to go before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday comes on the eve of the FCC’s vote on new Internet regulations pertaining to net neutrality. The committee’s chairman, Representative Jason Chaffetz (R., Utah), and Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Fred Upton (R., Mich.) criticized Wheeler and the administration for lacking transparency on the issue.
“So long as the chairman continues to insist on secrecy, we will continue calling for more transparency and accountability at the commission,” Chaffetz and Upton said in a statement. “Chairman Wheeler and the FCC are not above Congress.”
If that isn’t bad enough, does anyone consider what I term “logical extensions” — ?
Who physically controls the internet? Who controls the tap, the faucet, the “shut-off” if you will? And how can this power be transferred?
Republicans Fear Net Neutrality Plan Could Lead to UN Internet Powers
by Brendan Sasso
The U.S. government’s plan to enact strong net neutrality regulations could embolden authoritarian regimes like China and Russia to seize more power over the Internet through the United Nations, a key Senate Republican warned Wednesday.
Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune of South Dakota argued that by claiming more authority over Internet access for net neutrality, the Federal Communications Commission will undermine the ability of the U.S. to push back against international plots to control the Internet and censor content.
Countries like Russia already have made it clear that they want the International Telecommunications Union or another United Nations body to have more power over the Internet, Thune said.
“It seems like reclassifying broadband, as the administration is doing, is losing a valuable argument,” Thune said at his panel’s hearing on Internet governance. “How do you prevent ITU involvement when you’re pushing to reclassify the Internet under Title II of the Communications Act, and is everyone aware of that inherent contradiction?”
Excellent questions but won’t be answered.
I have but one logical question:
If these regulations are so wonderful, so beneficent, then why the complete opacity? Why the stonewalling? Why the refusal to embrace transparency upon which, after all, Mr Barack Hussein Obama said his entire administration is based?
Easy answer: the FCC and Mr Obama want no pushback and NO, the regulations will NOT be beneficial for Americans.
Finally: the internet is NOT broken. Why are you insistent upon “fixing” it?