>> ^marinara:

>> ^marbles:
https://www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality
If you don't want certain companies making decisions about the content of your internet, then your argument should be for a free market rather than accepting a government sanctioned one.

bah. How about this from the EFF:

San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) called on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) today to close loopholes in its proposed regulations for network neutrality -- loopholes that could let the entertainment industry and law enforcement hinder free speech and innovation.

from :
https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/01/14
Ha! The EFF is on my side!


That's not a loophole Marinara. That's the way it is written. As with most "laws" written in the last century or so, they actually accomplish the exact opposite of their supposed intent.

Don't really care for the title because I don't think Gov't is intentionally doing this.

It seems to me it's just a symptom of the problems we have with law enforcement officers who think they are the sheriff in some western movie where they think they can do whatever they want. The video even admits that when the issue got to the courts, the right to free speech was upheld so I think it's pretty blatantly incorrect to assert that Gov't is warring against cameras.

Gov't just has a personnel problem where they hire insecure people with fragile egos to enforce the law

>> ^marbles:

https://www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality
If you don't want certain companies making decisions about the content of your internet, then your argument should be for a free market rather than accepting a government sanctioned one.


bah. How about this from the EFF:

San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) called on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) today to close loopholes in its proposed regulations for network neutrality -- loopholes that could let the entertainment industry and law enforcement hinder free speech and innovation.

from :
https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/01/14

Ha! The EFF is on my side!

>> ^marinara:

reason.tv are hypocrites who want to wreck free speech by killing net neutrality.


Net Neutrality will kill internet free speech. https://www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality

If you don't want certain companies making decisions about the content of your internet, then your argument should be for a free market rather than accepting a government sanctioned one.

>> ^marinara:

reason.tv are hypocrites who want to wreck free speech by killing net neutrality.


Cause regulation is what you need for free speech...just like radio and tv and movies aren't censored! Your opinion isn't shared by everyone, so it is hard to label them hypocrites You can't regulate free speech into existence, you can only regulate it away. It is like saying since I can't post things in someone else's news paper my free speech has been violated. The REAL culprit in the whole net nutrality debate is the lack of consumer choice in your broadband. A lot of that has to do with state and city regulations on who can lay cable, and you can bet it is a hotbed of mixed interests. If and when wireless is the mainstay of bandwidth, the entire net neutrality issue is moot. If you could choose between one of 300 networks, you would have more choice to choose against companies that don't play nice. Others, that don't care, won't make that choice. I prefer not to let government get its foot in the door for this last safe haven of free speech, the government has a much worse history than most things I can think of.

Not to mention that argument is completely flawed I might as well say you are a hypocrite because of your views on Net Neutrality and then use that to disregard your very sound opinion on abortion. ERROR ERROR does not compute! I will still allow you to touch me, though! (time for another drink!)

i found a video here about Reason's stance at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTshrURtcjU (Will Net Neutrality Save the Internet?). I'm not throwing the baby out with the bath water yet...>> ^waynef100:

this is intriguing can you provide an example? thanks!>> ^marinara:
reason.tv are hypocrites who want to wreck free speech by killing net neutrality.

this is intriguing can you provide an example? thanks!>> ^marinara:

reason.tv are hypocrites who want to wreck free speech by killing net neutrality.

Summary:
A year of coastal erosion on "Lines of Defence".

Go to http://www.ifever.org.uk for
* Higher quality videos
* More details on project
* Full image archive

Project Details:
"Lines of Defence", when installed on 15th January 2005, consisted of 38 flags in five lines, each one meter apart, positioned on the eroding cliffs 60 m. south of Martello Tower W, East Lane, Bawdsey, Suffolk.

Letters on the flags spelled out SUBMISSION IS ADVANCING AT A FRIGHTFUL SPEED, a text sourced by Simon Frazer for its reference to climate change and the essentially fearful reaction which prompts people to go to war.

A camera was positioned at Martello Tower W, looking south towards the harbours of Felixstowe and Harwich. The tower is less than 10 m. away from the cliff's edge and is the focus of a local campaign to fund sea defences. The camera recorded the progress of the work by taking one image every 15 minutes from 15th January 2005 to 15th January 2006.

The final flag fell from the cliff on 16th September 2005; making the loss of land 14 metres in the first 8 months of 2005. At this point along the coast a total of 17 metres eroded in one full year. To mark this spot one white flag was placed 17 metres from the cliff's edge on 6th January 2006.