Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiplashDug
Are you sure about that statement?
...................
Federal Communications Commission member Robert McDowell said in August that a potential reimposition of the Fairness Doctrine could be ?intertwined? with the debate over network neutrality. McDowell warned that an effort to reimpose the defunct broadcasting doctrine could sync up with efforts to regulate network management, resulting in ?government dictating content policy? on the Web.
...................
This twisted theory of the First Amendment cannot support net-neutrality regulation. The First Amendment was intended to protect us from tyrannical, coercive government power, not the silly mistakes of private companies.
http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/ps/20...neinternet.pdf
................... |
The Fairness Doctrine only applies to licensed broadcasters. I am 100% certain on this and it's written in every document about the fairness doctrine.
There is a huge difference in net neutrality and the fairness doctrine. Net neutrality has more to do with open ended competition than anything. The ability for Google to not be blocked by all the major ISPs in favor of their own search engine. So that AT&T doesn't block Vonage and eliminate competition. The CATO Institute is a Libertarian group and while I respect their opinion, it's akin to taking the side that we should allow monopolies in this country. It is just not good for the vast majority of the American people.
I don't agree with the Fairness Doctrine either. But I think it's a completely different issue than Net Neutrality. There isn't as much a need for the Fairness Doctrine these days as we limit the amount of media one person/company can own (I believe it's 30%). When the Fairness Doctrine was created, there was a fear that 2 or 3 people would completely dominate the frequencies and control public opinion. That is not as much an issue today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiplashDug
Not that some of these sources aren't partisan... but none the less, its not as cut an dry Obama - McCain as you think. Democrats in the State of CA already tried to bring discussionon a special tax to the Adult industry. So to say that one side is better for adult -vs- the other is not entirely true.
|
Of course there isn't a party that is perfect for the industry. But there is a big difference in a statewide tax on an industry and the complete annihilation of it. A couple conservative judges can completely ban any form of pornography.
And whatever your ideologies are in regards to net neutrality, there is no doubt that not having it in the long term hurts us signifigantly. The question posed by pr0 was which candidate was better for the internet and adult, the answer is clearly Obama. This is matched by every major technology publication and group. It's the reason why almost every major web property heavily supports him.
While there may be other reasons to vote for candidates, if your primary issue is your business online, then Obama is the only choice.