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.

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.

I think it's time to come up with some sort of Constitutional Amendment about openly documenting public places and public servants. I'm certainly not in favor of individuals being recorded without their consent, but for public servants, their role as employees of the government should be all the consent we need, at least when they are going about their duties.

Great video, waynef100! Brilliant find!

>> ^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!)

>> ^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.

net neutrality means that whomever wants to get on the internet, can, for the same price. Exactly what networks like verizon hate, when they block your IPhone from getting on netflix. A better example is comcast throttling the bandwidth of bittorrent users.

so censorship on the internet is a different issue.
Reason.tv actually opposes censorship like:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/05/france-attempts-to-civilize-the-internet-internet-fights-back.ars
so I'll give reason.tv a kudos for that.

if net neutrality isn't free speech, what about media consolidation?
Should rupert murdoch be able to buy up every cable station on your cable tv?

Net neutrality is so simple that analogies just aren't needed.

Let's say I subscribe to AT&T's U-verse video on demand service. I can watch HD movies all day on it, but for some reason, HD movies on netflix just isn't working right. Because AT&T has a private network that it's own video on demand service is running on.

Thanks reason.tv, for taking AT&T cash (and making stupid analogies) so I can't possibly get HD movies from netflix.

>> ^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.

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

oops

oops

What your really saying is people don't have rights to restrict their property. I would like to use your house for my parties from now on then. Once again, you don't have a right to the internet just like you don't have a right to the New York Times. This entire argument is flawed. If people want to restrict access to their pipes, then that is their shallow grave. Consumer retaliation can be strong, devastatingly so. (Just ask Time Warner)

I mean, it isn't like everyone has internet. Go up to some rural mountain areas and you can't get it during the winter at times. And I am not just talking about broadband, I am talking about the internet. Are their first amendment rights being violated? Not being able to consume a product you desire has nothing to do with rights, at all. No one owes you speech, that is something you owe yourself.

I think your heart is in the right place on this, I think your demands are completely unreasonable, and in the end, lead down a path I don't think you desire. Does the FCC create free speech on TV? Or does it take an active role in making sure things aren't said? Same with the radio, are they handing out tickets for people not being expressive enough, or expression something they don't want heard? You really, really, really, don't want governments deciding how content is delivered on the internet...you really don't.

The problem isn't free speech, it's "policing" as opposed to "upholding the law". To paraphrase Colbert, these cops are using "lawiness". They are scared someone will call them up on some obscure finding or precedent and want to be able to lie their way out of it.

Here are some good resources that I have found along the way...

http://content.photojojo.com/tips/legal-rights-of-photographers/

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2005-12-29-camera-laws_x.htm

http://www.rcfp.org/pullouts/photographers/index.php

The guy telling the cameraman that he couldn't film the building, and when asked what law he was breaking, stood there completely speechless, is exactly what is going on...

That is, saying anything to get the resolution you want. You don't want some guy filming, tell him it's illegal regardless of whether it is or isn't. Most people will move along.

I understand coppers have a hard job and all, but this is creating trouble for themselves in the long run.

I put this question to a lawyer in Indiana, and he promptly stated that he was aware of no restrictions on the photography or video recording of State, Local or Federal police officers acting in the line of duty at any time in Indiana.

He stated this in a way that implied that he had no idea why there ever would be, and implied that he did not understand why I would be asking.

>> ^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.