FCC Title ll , End of free porn?
 

I am pasting this since it appears there is a virus at the link to it:

In a move that took many Internet experts by surprise, the FCC has declared that free pornography on the Internet violates federal law prohibiting obscene programming. In a statement today from FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, he states that once the FCC took regulatory authority over the Internet as a Title II public utility, it was incumbent on the agency to standardize how it applies existing laws over all forms of transmission in order to protect the children and to avoid potential conflicts of interest.

?Now that the Internet is classified as a public utility, the same as public airwaves, we knew that we had to move to ensure that the same standards of decency we apply to public radio and television were also applied to the public Internet. The Internet is so ubiquitous that with today?s technology, it is trivial for children to view free pornography on their computers or mobile devices. It is not a stretch to say that the Internet reaches more youth today than radio or television ever has. To not prevent our children from obscene content would simply be irresponsible on our part. Additionally it could open the door for relaxing standards on the public airwaves. If we do not apply the same rules to content on the Internet, it is entirely possible that we would be forced to change the way we regulate the public airwaves and that would be completely unacceptable.?

The FCC chairman went on to say that they are not violating free speech because obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment. In addition, because people can pay for pornography on the Internet in much the same way that they can pay for it via cable or satellite TV, they are not infringing on people?s rights to view such content. He explained that the ?paywall? system that exists on cable TV ensures that minors can not legally view pornography since they would not have access to credit cards to pay for it. ?What works well for cable companies can also work well for Internet companies. We aren?t done investigating ways to apply the various models that exist in the cable TV industry to the Internet. For example, we may soon require companies like Netflix to charge extra for unrated shows like ?Orange is the New Black?. A ?pay-per-view? system would ensure that minors could not watch shows that may be potentially indecent, even if their parents have already paid for the content. We feel confident that adults will not mind paying to re-watch an episode knowing they are protecting the youth of the nation from potentially offensive content.?

Also surprising was the method the FCC took to declare free pornography illegal. ?We did not need to take a vote for this procedural action. Having already declared the Internet a public utility equivalent to the public airwaves, we already posses the authority to apply existing standards. In fact, if we did not take this action, we could be viewed as shirking our responsibility to the public. I am simply protecting the trust the public has placed in our agency and the federal government at large.?

Additionally Mr. Wheeler foreshadowed a definition of the controversial ?harmful devices? clause in the FCC ruling on Internet Title II authority. ?Given that the Internet is basically an unlicensed broadcast platform, we are considering how to apply part 15 of the FCC rules that state devices may not cause harmful interference and must accept any interference received. We are working with our partners at the NSA to understand how devices that employ strong encryption could potentially subvert these rules. We are reviewing their suggestions to require technology companies to give government agencies a way to decrypt data as a means to ensure that devices can not be used in harmful ways.?

When asked if the FCC would take further action on regulating content on the Internet, Wheeler stated that nothing within their authority was off the table. ?When we declared our intention to protect Net Neutrality for legal content, we meant it. But that means that we must act to make clear what content is legal or illegal. With the help from our partners at the RIAA and MPAA, pirated music and movies are on our shortlist. With the upcoming elections in 2016, we also need to make sure that content of a political nature is properly scrutinized for compliance.?

Also asked about how the FCC would enforce existing rules over the Internet, the FCC chairman stated that he has already reached out to many of the same people who worked on the Healthcare.gov health insurance marketplace web site. ?They did an amazing job creating that site and we feel confident they can do similar work designing a way to seek out and report obscene content online. We will have massive data centers built to store and catalog all records of reported obscene material. I give you my word that I will personally review all said material to ensure the proper working order of such a system. And to answer your next questions, we can simply increase existing USF fees and expand their application to Internet service providers to fund this system. Technically it?s neither a penalty nor a tax so we?re sure Internet users won?t mind.?

yes, and I dont like poo :2 cents:

strangely enough this is only found on one website, lifelibertytech.com from over a year ago..

I thought that porn was legal in the USA due to the free speech thing.

I give you my word that I will personally review all said material to ensure the proper working order of such a system.

Thats alot of porn to review.

google, "FCC title 2" the telecoms and Republicans are trying to reverse it in appellate court right now they are fighting net neutrality. Changing the internets classification was the means to the end of getting net neutrality.

I Googled some of the quotes from the story they reported as coming from Tom Wheeler and only one site comes up lifelibertytech.com and the story gives no source links to any quotes.

Can anyone confirm any other sources? The story came out April 1st 2015 BTW :winkwink:

Edit: was creating my post while BlackCrayon posted evidently

Links Mr. 10 posts since 2002???? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

What are you implying? Is it a fake story, could be , although the site looks legit. But the FCC did reclassify the internet to title 2, that's a fact

The constitution overrides any legislation or regulation in most cases.

Free speech is enshrined in the US constitution, therefore I believe the constitution would win out.

That said, it means absolutely nothing to the world if porn were somehow banned in the USA because many of the web's biggest porn sites are hosted in Europe and Canada.

It's unenforceable bullshit. Plus it opens the door as to what is "obscene". That's usually defined by "community standards" but since this is the Internet what "community" are we talking about?

So....a tube site is located in Shitstainastan. That material will be blocked in the USA? What about VPNs?

Ridiculous.

It also has a date of APRIL 1, 2015 So, like, maybe... April Fools :thumbsup

.

ACLU is backing the FCC, so is google. No one cares about free porn this time, it's all about net neutrality, encryption and privacy. The Democrats are for the reclassification and the Republicans are opposed.





Consumer Groups Back FCC Rulemaking On Internet Privacy Protections











PR Newswire

May 11, 2016

































WASHINGTON, May 11, 2016 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Consumer Watchdog today joined a coalition of a dozen consumer groups in supporting the Federal Communications Commission's effort to implement privacy regulations covering broadband Internet access providers.

The coalition backed the FCC in a letter to the Senate Judiciary's Privacy Subcommittee, which was holding a hearing on the FCC's proposed privacy rules. In the letter to Subcommittee Chairman Jeff Flake and Ranking Member Al Franken the groups noted that broadband access providers "have both the ability and the financial incentive to observe and monetize a significant amount of activity and content that consumers engage in online."

"If consumers cannot trust their broadband provider to protect their content and personal information, the result could be an erosion of consumer privacy and chilling of online speech," the groups wrote. "Commonsense protections may lead to a broader adoption and use of the Internet, as individuals gain confidence in conducting everyday business and exploring new services online."

Signing the letter were: American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Digital Democracy, Center for Democracy and Technology, Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Federation of California, Consumer Watchdog, Demand Progress,

Free Press, Open Technology Institute at New America, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, and Public Knowledge. The letter continued:

"The FCC's current proceeding is a direct result of its clear statutory mandate. As former FTC Commissioner Julie Brill stated, the FCC reclassification of broadband as a Title II service adds "a brawnier cop on the beat" on privacy issues. We are happy that the FTC and FCC have signed a Memorandum of Understanding on consumer privacy highlighting the complimentary, but different roles and powers each agency brings to protecting consumers online. The FCC was directed by Congress to implement a specific framework of proactive, forward-looking privacy protections for telecommunications services. Without this sector-specific framework consumers could not count on the protection of their basic communications that undergirds other key areas of privacy, such as financial and health information."

Wheeler can say whatever he wants but the US Supreme Court has already decided these matters.

MILLER v. CALIFORNIA | FindLaw
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/394/557

That should read 'lawful' pornography.

The Rise And Fall Of FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler's Internet Empire

Contradicting citation;
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1462
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commun...ns_Decency_Act
With regard to the Communications Decency Act: Reno v. ACLU, the United States Supreme Court struck the anti-indecency provisions of the Act.

Wheeler is blowing smoke.

Also illegal in most States....work on THAT Gov't!!

<//////////////////////>~~~~

Thing is once the Internet is a public utility same as tv, cable and radio why would you allow porn to be broadcast with no paywall on the Internet, but not on network or Cable tv. I don't see them making an exception for the Internet. Who would make the case for free porn? Other than the tube sites.

And that's the crux of the matter.

If porn wants to hide behind the First Amendment, it has to apply to online distribution, Cable and TV as well. It can't.

Community standard is the community that's watching porn. This doesn't include children.

The problem is enforcing the laws. As Porn Nerd points out at the moment it's pointless to try to stop except at the home by parents.

In my opinion, it would be great if this could be enforced. We had similar laws pre-Internet. When people were making a lot of money from porn.

What disturbs me is that this mumbo-jumbo is coming from Obama's political appointee as chair of the FCC.


Notwithstanding, a verifiable national ID card there is no legal way to validate age on the internet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_...Protection_Act
"On January 21, 2009, the United States Supreme Court refused to hear appeals of the lower court decision, effectively shutting down the law"

Now, Congress could make another try but this is Wheeler's own delusional vision. Or, is it the Democratic Party's and the Hillary Clinton Campaign's attempt to appeal to the middle-right religious segment to gain their votes that have been alienated by Trump's assumed nomination?

That or Wheeler has really gone off the reservation :2 cents:

As many of you pointed out the 4/1 date on that article was suspicious, so I emailed the author, Tom Wheeler never said any of those things regarding free porn, that being said , I still Think title 2 is the beginning of the end for free porn, here is his response:

Yes, it was a prank, as your astute readers determined.



However, I took great care in writing the article so that it could be entirely plausible. Only in the last paragraph did I start getting a little toungue-in-cheek, although I still tried to keep it reading somewhat realistic. The point of the article was to be a warning within a prank, as the power the FCC hijacked in the name of “net neutrality” is broad and virtually unlimited. I fear it won’t be long before the FCC does begin to throw their weight around regulating the Internet.




I’d be happy to comment on the forum if people have more questions about the article.






Thanks!



Marcel Brown

The Most Trusted Name in Technology



618-580-6256








Marcel, I am writing you regarding a story you did last year on the FCC:



lifelibertytech.com/2015/04/01/fcc-declares-free-porn-illegal-encryption-as-harmful/



I posted this story on the gfy.com forum, a few people were skeptical if this was in fact a real story, or an April fools prank since it was published on 4/1/2015, could you clarify this? was it real or a prank? Here is a link to the forum in case you want to post