« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Google-backed FCC Censoring the Internet: Not a joke.

By: Neil Stevens (Diary)  |  May 27th, 2010 at 02:45 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

I told you the FCC wanted to censor the Internet. They said it was a joke. Well, Reason kept digging and lookee what they found: Michael Copps, the FCC commissioner who would like to have jurisdiction over the entire Internet, wants to start a “national conversation” about the FCC enforcing either regulations or “voluntary codes” controlling content.

It’s no wonder that even Democrats are scared of the runaway FCC

Quoth Reason:

Copps said that the [indecency] issue concerns him as well, suggesting that a majority of Americans want “something done” about “over the top” “mindless violence” or sexual material, but dodged Smith’s question about whether regulation or “voluntary codes” should be applied to the Internet, saying that “we need to have a national discussion about” applying public interest and decency standards to the Net.

Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to the brave new world of Net Neutrality and Title II Deem and Pass reclassification. And Google is doing what it can to keep the train going. Says National Journal:

Google increased the money it spends on lobbying in the first quarter by 57 percent over the previous year, paying $1.4 million to influence lawmakers and regulators, according to Consumer Watchdog, a nonpartisan, nonprofit public interest group that has been critical of Google’s activities.

….But critics believe the relationship between Google and the Obama White House has gotten a little too cozy. This month, for example, a White House technology adviser hired from Google last year was reprimanded for improperly contacting former colleagues, a violation of Obama administration ethics rules. U.S. Deputy CTO Andrew McLaughlin, Google’s former head of global public policy, traded e-mails with “his former employer on topics within the scope of his official duties,” according to the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Andrew Breitbart’s sites originally broke the Andrew McLaughlin story, through a Google Buzz security hole. Thank goodness Net Neutrality wasn’t around to deem Breitbart’s sites outside the public interest and therefore banned according to “voluntary” codes, or at least restricted according to a revived “fairness doctrine.”

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • earlgrey

    I’ve been using Yahoo as my search engine. Their politics aren’t any better, and I know it won’t make a difference in Google’s bottom line, but hey there are other search engines.

  • Hugh

    I will not get a phone with the Andriod operating system on it. I use Yahoo mainly for search. As you say, there are others.
    The FCC control though needs to be stopped dead in its tracks. We need to be screaming to our Senators and Reps.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
  • http://www.freeorbound.com freeorbound1

    Thank you for covering this issue. This move by the FCC combined with the nomination of Elena Kagan just proves how much the current administration does not respect individual free speech and press. In my mind this is not too much different than how China censors the internet for its citizens. The FCC is becoming like a “Red America” agency that is out of control.

  • SteveLA

    Of course we just bought my college bound daughter a Mac Book, so shows you what the heck I know. LOL

    I’m waiting to buy a Google/Andriod pad that I don’t have to jail break that runs flash. Ever seen RS on a ‘Pad…tired it at BB the other day…yuck.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    I’ve SEEN Safari on the iPad and it’s breathtaking, literally. I held my breath when I first saw it.

    I’d buy one if I had an excuse to drop that much on a toy, since I don’t travel enough for it to count as a tool.

    Oh to have one for Austin though.

    Oh and the recent benchmarking of flash on android proved Steve right: Flash is a pig and unsuitable for the form factor.

  • E Pluribus Unum

    It cures a whole lot of this uppity bureaucratic business. Americans better get the FCC under control while we still have any freedom of speech at all.

    Copps = jail.
    McLaughlin = jail.

  • Hugh
  • seandparnell

    Or rather, the conversation that is needed took place about 220 years ago, and the conclusion was “Congress shall make no law…”

    But I’m not sure how exactly Google ties into this specific issue. Yes, Google wants Net Neutrality. I seriously doubt that they want censorship of the web though, or any sort of “voluntary” standards designed by politicians in Washington – it would seriously damage their prize business, which is quickly connecting consumers with just about any sort of content they might desire.

    I think you’re conflating two issues – censorship of the internet, and regulation of access to the “pipes” of the internet. They really aren’t the same issue, I don’t think.

    Sean Parnell
    President
    Center for Competitive Politics
    http://www.campaignfreedom.org

  • http://www.800cart.com Ron Robinson

    And you use the same tools to author web sites that you would to author sites anywhere else.

    This will just put small US web hosts out of business as people who want freedom in their political speech move their web servers off shore.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    He said Google search didn’t work with the iPhone, so naturally he is compelled to buy the Google phone. :-)

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    It’s a clear chain of events

    Google funds Net Neut

    FCC attacks Comcast over Net Neut

    Comcast sues

    DC Circuit strikes down Net Neut

    Google-backed Free Press/Save the Internet calls for Title II reclassification in order to reinstate Net Neut

    FCC does Title II reclassification

    Copps uses Title II powers to censor content

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    It doesn’t matter where the offshore servers are, if the FCC fines ISPs that serve up illegal foreign content.

  • Hugh

    I guess the “comrade” salutation should have been a dead giveaway to your jesting. If I had a choice between a google driven phone or tin cans and a tight string I would take the string and the cans.
    Have a wonderful and thoughtful Memorial Day. I will be traveling and maybe out of touch for a few days.

  • streiff

    talking about something he doesn’t understand? Again? Whoddathunkit.

  • Hugh

    The issue is preserving the Constitution. “Congress shall pass no law.” Agreed. What the FCC wants is to circuvent that. That’s the whole point.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister
  • seandparnell

    In fact, one of the first things I did when I arrived at my present job was put together a fairly comprehensive debunking of the sham “study” they did with the Center for American Progress on talk radio: http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/detail/the-latest-effort-to-stifle-political-speech

    It starts out “For those of you following the attempt to suppress talk show hosts by reviving the so-called ?Fairness Doctrine,? the Center for American Progress (CAP), along with a group called Free Press, has released a report claiming to show the need for clamping down on dissent from liberal orthodoxy on the nation?s airwaves…”

    So yeah, I know who they are and what they want.

    But Net Neutrality is not censorship of the internet any more than common carrier requirements for phone companies is censorship. Unless the term is being applied in a new way I’m not familiar with, this is basically the same argument that occurred between the RBOCs and CLECs in the 90′s and into the next decade, before the argument just became way to ridiculous because technology made the argument obsolete. It has to do with the ability of content providers like google, microsoft, netflix, and others, to have access to the “pipes” of AT&T, Comcast, and others to provide their content without having to pay to ensure their content doesn’t get slowed by the owners of the “pipe” for being bandwidth hogs.

    Net Neutrality about economic regulation of private property, and depending on how one feels about such things it should be argued against based on that. It really isn’t about censorship of the web, any more than the old RBOC/CLEC argument was about censoring people talking on the phone.

    Censorship of the web is what Copps was talking about, no doubt, and it’s what Congressional Democrats are talking about right now with the DISCLOSE Act (CCP was the group that brought this issue to wider attention, btw: http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/detail/does-the-disclose-act-attack-internet-free-speech). But, as I’ve said before on numerous occasions, Net Neutrality really isn’t about censoring the web. It’s about the government dictating to one private property holder (the “pipe” owners) on what terms they must make their services available to others.

    Sean Parnell
    President
    Center for Competitive Politics
    http://www.campaignfreedom.org

  • seandparnell

    Anybody who disagrees with you on anything, by definition doesn’t understand the issue.

    Probably worth keeping in mind is that I do run a pro-first amendment organization, with a focus on the political rights of speech, assembly, and petition. I do know a bit about government efforts to censor political speech, online and elsewhere.

    Sean Parnell
    President
    Center for Competitive Politics
    http://www.campaignfreedom.org

  • Aaron Gardner

    That’s not proof he knows what he’s doing.

  • discerningconservative
  • seandparnell

    If the subject under discussion is “how does one get elected president,” then yeah, I’d say he’s probably got a decent understanding of that topic.

    Oh, and snappy one liners are fun, but they aren’t really arguments.

    Sean Parnell
    President
    Center for Competitive Politics
    http://www.campaignfreedom.org

  • seandparnell

    Obama doesn’t “run America.” He runs the federal government, which thankfully is not the same thing as America.

    Sean Parnell
    President
    Center for Competitive Politics
    http://www.campaignfreedom.org

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Sean… Title II expressly allows for content regulation and price controls.

    That’s what the FCC is doing in order to defy the DC Circuit Court in Comcast v. FCC and the Congress in the Telecommunications Act 1996 in order to do Net Neutrality.

    And oh look, you think you have to explain to me how the Internet works. Were you on the Internet making dynamic websites 13 years ago, Sean? I was.

    And again, the FCC is trying to everything without any stinkin’ legislation. If they get away with Title II classification they don’t need it, either.

    And Google gets its share of the blame for all of it. There are reasons that Free Press is so opaque on its donations.

    Why do I get the feeling you think you can be pro-Genachowski on Net Neut but anti-Copps on the chickens coming home to roost on Title II?

    P.P.S. SavetheInternet.com’s FAQ cites Copps as their guy on the FCC.

    It’s all wrapped up together. Net Neutrality. Title II. Fairness Doctrine. National Broadband Plan.

  • Aaron Gardner

    Especially when you take what I said and some how equate it to electoral politics.

    It would help if you could comprehend what you supposedly protect.

    Also, for the sake of me not posting twice, contextually I was correct in saying that Obama “runs” America. You are just too dim witted to recognize that obvious context.

    Have a great day.

  • seandparnell

    I’m not “pro Genachowski” or “pro Net Neut.” I simply don’t believe that the common carrier requirements that you fret over will lead to censorship of the internet. There are plenty of reasons to oppose Net Neut. This is not one of them, in my opinion.

    Title II definitely is about price controls, but I don’t see the content controls you mention, please tell me where that is.

    As for Google, I’m pretty sure that as a content provider they aren’t interested in seeing censorship come to the web. They want free access to the infrastructure, not policies that will reduce the amount of content that they can bring to their customers.

    I’m not terribly interested in Free Press’ donors – if their arguments are wrong, they’re wrong, regardless of who their donors are. Given that I’m busy fighting Congressional Democrats’ efforts to make donors to private groups less opaque, suffice it to say I’m not impressed by that element of your argument.

    This is pointless, of course – you’ve decided that requiring “pipe” owners not differentiate between users who consume varying amounts of bandwidth somehow amounts to censorship. I disagree. Probably best to leave it at that.

    Sean Parnell
    President
    Center for Competitive Politics
    http://www.campaignfreedom.org

  • streiff

    that you have a non-job at a 3d rate advocacy group and go from there. If there is any doubt in your mind about your significance remember you’re commenting on our website. We don’t even visit yours.

    By the way, has Brad improved his social skills or is he still a pompous ass?

  • seandparnell

    Not to mention totally unresponsive to the point I raised, but oh well.

    Sean Parnell
    President
    Center for Competitive Politics
    http://www.campaignfreedom.org

  • GregInFla

    Announcements like those from MMS and SEC could be used to support need to control content. Have you heard of anyone actually being charged or named? Me neither.

  • GregInFla

    Finance regulations are in the news. Blam! SEC watches porn.

    Oil spill in news. Blam! MMS watching porn.

    Coincidences?

  • http://www.helpawhiteguy.com livefreenh

    Objectively, the nation’s voters spoke and elected Obama. Is that because you guys were too lazy to vote? Maybe. But the facts are that “they won”. This indicates a mandate by the American public for this “hope and change” BS, so they are going out to do it. That includes the FCC. And as far as Google, they are in business to make money. If they fight the White House, they will fail as a business, Don Quixote style. They will also fail their shareholders, and possibly be liable to criminal charges, thanks to this “hope and change” administration who loves to take over corporations (especially ones that are too big to fail). So maybe Google is just doing business with the Devil currently in office. And maybe you guys should get out and vote next time instead of twittering away your time preaching to the choir. Just my 2c

  • http://www.helpawhiteguy.com livefreenh

    http://web.archive.org/web/19990125084553/alpha.google.com/ is a link to Google’s website 11 years ago. That’s pretty impressive, too. So now Neil, what have you done for me lately? Oh, that’s right. Bragging about something you did in (high school?) while using the RFCs that we wrote, 10 years or more before your “dynamic web site” project. Good for you. But how does this help us get that socialist out of the White House? The WH web site just switched over to Drupal. Does that make Drupal people a bunch of sympathizers also? Because as one of the original authors and ongoing open source contributors, I resent that implication. Neil, you seem to be resting on your laurels about something that isn’t really too impressive in the first place. Maybe you should endeavor to stay on topic and be happy with that as an accomplishment. With all due respect.

  • doncorleone

    To think that net neutrality isn’t censorship because it’s only trying to “fix” the pipes is folly. When you don’t pay your water bill what happens? They shut it off. The internet deals with intellectual capital, when you have a govt. “screener”, he’ll shut off what he doesn’t like, especially when they’ve paid the govt. for the privalege. Progressive presidents have shut down loyal dissent on at least 2 occasions. When the “fairness doctrine” came into being, what “pipes’ were involved there? Preachers’ sunday radio shows, outting l.b.j. for pulling dead people votes out of their church cemetaries in texas. They read every piece of mail during w.w.2.. Wilson’s minions monitored speech in print and in person. Like a computer virus, this censorship will spread throughout, with a speed unseen historically, intellectual capital is tied directly to advertizing capital, redirect the pipes to govt. friendly sites, others critical to the govt., dry up.

  • http://www.periodictablet.com superamerican

    Obama Only Dem Candidate To Pledge “Google Government”

    First Posted to the Huffington Post, 08-26-07 11:34 AM

    While the obviously anti-business Obama Administration launches investigations, inquiries and lawsuits against virtually every big business that breathes, its friends can roll.

    The Obama Federal Trade Commission allows Google to purchase AdMOb a major player in mobile display ad technology for $750 million. Its decision was completely unexpected, to say the least. Even The Wall Street Journal had written that both Google and AdMob expected the FTC to block the deal over antitrust concerns. Google completed the takeover before you could say “crony”.

    Its nice to know that with Obama its not what you do, it’s clearly who you know, who you back and to whom you donate.

    Can it be termed “Corrupt Capitalism”? “Crony” seems to benign.

    Please read my conservative blog: http://www.per5iodictablet.com

    A disgusted Superamerican.

  • http://www.periodictablet.com superamerican

    Obama Only Dem Candidate To Pledge “Google Government” (First Posted to the Huffington Post, 08-26-07 11:34 AM)

    While the obviously anti-business Obama Administration launches investigations, inquiries and lawsuits against virtually every big business that breathes, its friends can roll.

    The Obama Federal Trade Commission allowed Google to purchase AdMob ,a major player in mobile display ad technology, for $750 million. Its decision was completely unexpected, to say the least. Even The Wall Street Journal had written that both Google and AdMob expected the FTC to block the deal over antitrust concerns. Google completed the takeover before you could say “crony”.

    It’s nice to know that with Obama it’s not what you do, it’s clearly who you know, who you back and to whom you donate.

    Can it be termed “Corrupt Capitalism”? “Crony” seems too benign.

    Please read my conservative blog: http://www.periodictablet.com

    A disgusted Superamerican.

  • stephaniet

    I seem to recall that Google and China had a big fight because China wanted to sensor web searches and Google didn’t want to play along. Or something like that. I am in no mood to go looking for the specifics, though it would likely help me if I did. Anyway, my point is, they had that nice big ruckus over there, and now they come *here* to do it? Dad came home one day reporting that some of the uppity elite wanted us to be just like China for a day. Yeah. Just like China. Halfway there already…

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Google collaborated with the Chicoms up until the Chicoms sponsored an attempt to spy on Google’s servers.

    Then Google threw the fit.

  • paulainnes

    I would like to see what google gets as a result of their cooperation with FCC.

  • remnant60

    Just helping to set the table.