A bipartisan coalition in favor of net neutrality has lost a key conservative supporter amid signs that the issue is becoming more divisive. The Gun Owners of America (GOA) severed ties with the net-neutrality coalition Save the Internet after a conservative blog questioned the association with liberal organizations such as ACORN and the ACLU.
The blog RedState described Save The Internet as a "neo-Marxist Robert McChesney-FreePress/Save the Internet think tank" and questioned why GOA would participate in a coalition that includes liberal groups such as the ACLU, MoveOn.Org, SEIU, CREDO and ACORN.
GOA was one of the charter members of Save the Internet, but a spokesman for the gun rights group said times have changed. "Back in 2006 we supported net neutrality, as we had been concerned that AOL and others might continue to block pro-second amendment issues," said Erich Pratt, communications director for GOA. "The issue has now become one of government control of the Internet, and we are 100 percent opposed to that," Pratt said. Save The Internet had long pointed to the support of gun owners as evidence that net neutrality is a nonpartisan issue. Net-neutrality advocates are struggling to maintain bipartisan support during an election season that has cast the issue along party lines.
Last month, 35 Tea Party groups came out against net neutrality in a letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The letter accused the FCC of “relentlessly pursuing a massive regulatory regime” that would stifle the growth of the Internet. . . . . . READ MORE >>>>>
Editor's notes: from this article, we learn that, once upon a time, there was a reason for "net neutrality." Four years ago, well before the current crop of Marxists took over the Government, there was a concern that large internet providers might work against free speech rights and the blogging world of the citizen. Back then, "net neutrality" was about returning or insuring the freedom of internet political speech. With the passage of time, that concern has been co-opted by the Marxist Left and is now being used to establish Government control of the internet in the name of REGULATED "fairness."
In a practical sense, this is how "net neutrality" will be used by the Marxist regime in power:
Their argument is this: it is not fair that community representation is not a part of the programing of many radio stations. A station that is primarily "conservative" in content is not representative of other cultural demographics of the particular region. The "solution" to this problem is a programing schedule that offers broadcast opportunity and content for all cultural demographics and political points of view. After all, the "airwaves" belong to all of us, not just the large corporate entities that control the broadcast world. Of course, broadcast time is not "free" and, often, there is not enough of a population to allow a broadcast center to function profitably if it attempts to function fairly. In that case, all political content should be eliminated until such a time as the broadcast station can equally provide for the airing of all opinions. ---- end of argument. Understand that "net neutrality" and "fairness doctrine" are terms used interchangeably by the enemies of freedom.
And that is the argument for net neutrality as used by the Marxists currently destroying this country. As you can see, there is a demand for fairness with regard to smaller demographics and if each community concern cannot be profitably represented, the programing that is profitable must be eliminated, as well. "Profit" is evil in this scenario as is the "corporation" and "majority opinion." Here, in the Central Valley of Southern California (just below Sacramento), the largest radio station is KMJ Radio. It is 24/7 talk and is the most listened-to station in the entire Valley. In fact, it is the #2 station in the nation. Currently, it is all "conservative" talk. In the past, the station carried Air America (before it went bankrupt, of course) and Larry King Live, among other liberal points of view. The station lost money with these programs. Net neutrality would demand that equal time be given to liberal programing as well as cultural programing . The broadcast day would include - by way of example - 3 hours of conservative talk, 3 hours of liberal talk, 3 hours of Hispanic talk programing, 3 hours of Vietnamese talk . . . and so on, until all cultural and political demographics are equally representative without regard to the profitability of such nonsense. Of course, under the rules of capitalism, this programing scheme is not remotely possible. In the end, only a government controlled and SUBSIDIZED radio station could feature such a schedule. On its face, this scheme is impossible. Understand that the goal of the Marxists' view of "net neutrality" is the abortion of all conservative, "anti-government" talk. "Fairness" is the buzz word. Government domination is the end game. Period.
If you disagree, think "NPR." In some parts of the country , you will find 10 stations that are National Public Radio in a single region. Such is the case in San Fransico Bay area and all of Oregon and Washington State. Each is subsidized by the Federal Government and, because of government funding, controlled as to content. Not one of the hundreds of stations carrying NPR programing air Rush Limbaugh or programs of that nature. Fairness ??? Of course not. You see, "fairness" has nothing to do with the issue. It is all about securing power and dominance. The fact of the matter is this: liberal broadcast and print "outlets" out number conservative opportunities by a ratio of 6 to 1. All of network television is liberal and pro-government. Virtually all of the major national papers are liberal and pro-government. All of public education is under the increasing control of the Secularists as is the University campus system. In fact, free political speech is not allowed on many campuses and sorely limited on the others.
Point of post: to inform as to the nature of the argument and to expose the truth about the lie of "net neutrality" and the "fairness doctrine."
Ah !! So that's how it works. No wonder "capitalism" is such an issue with these people.
ReplyDelete