Articles Comments

SENTRY JOURNAL » Cass Sunstein, FCC, Free Speech, mandates, Net Neutrality, regulation » Net Neutrality: The real reason bloggers should be concerned

Net Neutrality: The real reason bloggers should be concerned

The real reason bloggers should be concerned about net neutrality has a great deal to do with the man on the left.  This man is Cass Sunstein, another Harvard Law school graduate that is currently the Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (ORIA). OIRA carries out several important functions, including reducing paperwork burdens, reviewing Federal regulations, and overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs.

So Mr. Sunstein is in a position to influence regulatory policies in just about every agency that falls under the executive branch.  He is a huge proponent of net neutrality and in 2001 he outlined what he envisioned with the internet under the watchful eye of the government.  It is actually quite revealing. 

Please listen to the below clip.

Scary stuff.

“If we can’t get voluntary arrangements than maybe Congress should hold hearings on mandates.”  This is exactly the dark destination that net neutrality could take us to if it’s implemented.  Cass Sunstein knows this because as he said in the above interview, we might need to have a legal mandate as a last resort to have it as an ultimate weapon designed to encourage people to do better.  It sounds very “Orwellian” to me.  In fact it doesn’t sound very American at all.  Our Founding Fathers would be so proud. 

You see they believed political speech should be one of the most protected forms of speech and should be shielded from government influence or manipulation.  The Founders were fearful of a government without the checks and balance of a free press and free speech.  This is why it was so important to them to protect these rights in the Constitution with the 1st amendment.  What we do every day in the blogosphere is the exercise of free of speech and this speech is sacred and protected by our Constitution.

The FCC is determined to smash down these constitutional barriers that protect our free speech from the heavy handed regulation imposed by the federal government.  Cass Sunstein believes the word voluntary is complicated.  Not to me!  You see voluntary means just that…voluntary. 

It’s about the difference between freedom of choice and freedom from choice; the latter being inescapably tied to net neutrality.

Liberty forever, freedom for all!

Share
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Filed under: Cass Sunstein, FCC, Free Speech, mandates, Net Neutrality, regulation

opinions powered by SendLove.to
Comments
  • Matt June 19, 2010 at 12:05 AM

    Well said, John. Sunstein is a very scary guy.

    The left cannot abide true freedom of speech. Liberalism, in the presence of reality, collapses like the house of cards that it is. Therefore, people discussing the issues freely, and sharing what is actually happening, is intolerable, and the left's lies and true intent are exposed.

    So, they try to limit it, squelch it, punish it…you name it. There can only be one voice-the voice of the state.

  • Gorges Smythe June 19, 2010 at 3:47 AM

    The Bible tells us that doers of evil prefer the darkness; so is it any wonder that the left soes believe in freedom of speach?

  • Trestin Meacham June 19, 2010 at 6:49 AM

    This needs to become an in person cause of the Tea Parties. They are trying to dismantle the constitutional movement in this country by cutting off our means of communication.

  • Kristin June 19, 2010 at 6:51 AM

    Sunstein is a scary dude. They know that the market won't buy their ideas (think AirAmerica) so their solution is to force the rest of us to advertise for them or shut us down.

    Add this new Lieberman bill with the internet kill switch and they are well on their way.

  • John Carey June 19, 2010 at 9:02 AM

    Well put Matt! The left's only truth is their truth and all other opinions are regarded as lies. This is why they must control the message or should I say the damage, because they know that their truths cannot stand on their own and when faced with the cold hard facts implode.

  • John Carey June 19, 2010 at 9:06 AM

    That's an interesting point GS, because Cass Sunstein does hide in the shadows manipulating the course of things. Time to aim the spotlight on him.

  • John Carey June 19, 2010 at 9:08 AM

    I agree Trestin. We need to do whatever we can to spread the word on this attempt to limit free speech. We need to expose the hidden agenda of the left and show the world what net neutrality is really about.

  • John Carey June 19, 2010 at 9:10 AM

    This why we must do everything in our power to expose these frauds Kristin…while we still can.

  • LD Jackson June 19, 2010 at 9:45 AM

    Okay, you guys know by now that I do not use the terms I am about to use lightly. Having said that, Sustein is a total idiot. I could not believe he was sitting there, saying our websites should have links or even a popup window to an opposing view. Trouble is, he actually believes that is necessary, thus he wants Congress to mandate it if we do not do it willingly.

    He is talking politically, but let me take this a bit further. There are many of us who are opposed to homosexuality, especially when that group of people do their best to force their lifestyle choice down our throats. They want to be considered normal.

    At the end of the day, if Cass Sustein has his way and we are required to submit to net neutrality, what will stop them from requiring us to link to or post someone's opposing view on homosexuality? Even though it goes against everything we believe and stand for, we are supposed to allow the readers of our websites access to such trash? I think not.

    Sorry for the rant, John.

  • Teresa June 19, 2010 at 10:37 AM

    They are trying to limit our free speech because they know conservatives are effective in changing minds and hearts on the internet. This is about the FCC forcing us to promote principles that are antithetical to our moral beliefs. They are trying to impose their culture of death on us. This must be stopped!

  • John Carey June 19, 2010 at 1:57 PM

    Rant away Larry. This is issue is very serious and should concern nearly all bloggers so your rant is justified. We need to do whatever we can do to get the word out about this. Thanks for the comments my friend.

  • John Carey June 19, 2010 at 2:01 PM

    It does indeed Teresa and we must hold the line. Contact your representative/senator and let them know that this is an attack on not only the right to free speech but also on one of the last free market systems in the world. WE MUST HOLD THE LINE!

  • Opus #6 June 20, 2010 at 1:04 AM

    John, our reps will hear from us all in November. They left the phones off the hook last year. This year they will hear us from the ballot box.

  • John Carey June 20, 2010 at 6:46 AM

    I feel that this election year will be unlike any we have seen in years Opus. The progressives overreach has exposed them and people are definitely starting to see again. The FCC's continuous effort to control the Internet even after the courts have turned them away and members of both parties in Congress have told them to back off shows how determined they are to limit free speech. We need to continue to spread this word about this power grab.

  • LD Jackson June 20, 2010 at 7:46 AM

    I am going to have to retract part of my first comment. I have been doing some research on this subject, specifically to do with Cass Sustein, and it appears he has now admitted that his original ideas in 2001 were not so smart. I think his words were "bad policy ideas".

    I still have concerns, especially when it comes to the promotion of the homosexual lifestyle, but consider this. If net neutrality was to lead to such a situation, ie. linking articles to opposing viewpoints, that blade would cut both ways. I can not see the liberals allowing that to happen with a website such as Moveon.org.

    I am not saying we shouldn't keep a close eye on this, but I suspect there may not be so much to be concerned with as we first believed.

  • John Carey June 20, 2010 at 10:35 AM

    Larry, I want to thank you for finding where Cass Sunstein admitted that his 2001 statements were “bad ideas.” That is at least somewhat encouraging; however I believe Cass Sunstein is what he is and even though he publically stated that his statements from 2001 were bad ideas, I still feel that his core beliefs on the matter of Internet regulation have not change. He stated that the Internet might be far too complex for the government to regulate. This doesn't mean he has changed his mind about the NEED to regulate the Internet; he just believes it's too complex as of this point in time to do so.

    My real concern about net neutrality is how it is being packaged and sold. Do I believe that if the FCC wins and finds a way to start regulating certain aspects of the Internet that they are going to start off censoring bloggers first; absolutely not. However I do believe that they are laying the ground work to have the ability to take such actions in the future because this is exactly how the progressives work. This is why we need to hold the line and check them at the door. I guess the real point of this entire post is to help make people aware that these views that Cass Sunstein conveyed in 2001 are alive and well in Washington DC and that the FCC with the backing of hard left organizations like free press is trying awful hard to stick their nose in the business of the Internet. This is after all their third attempt since being turned away by the courts and then warned by Congress not to proceed to press forward. For me this is the type of resolve that should raise the alert level for all who desire to keep the web free from government intrusion.

    Anyway thanks again for the information on Cass Sunstein. It slipped past me, something I don't take lightly.

  • Charles June 20, 2010 at 6:28 PM

    Well, First Amendment, Second Amendment, any of them that the current regime can take away, they will. Not all of a sudden CRASH falls a big tree, but little, by little, by little.

    Ironic that the Party is not actually taking freedoms, so much as we are giving them away.

  • John Carey June 20, 2010 at 6:40 PM

    I agree Charles we seem to be willing to just give our freedoms away.

  • Matt June 20, 2010 at 7:17 PM

    John, just because he said his ideas were a "bad policy idea" doesn't mean that he doesn't like them. He may only being meaning that they would be unpopular for a politician to put forward. However, if the FCC would like to regulate the Internet by fiat, they could do so easily, as they are unelected. Just look at some of the things that Mark Lloyd has said.

    Always remember that when the left can't get something done legislatively, they will do so by regulation, or by judicial decision. They don't give up, and they don't quit.

  • John Carey June 20, 2010 at 7:20 PM

    Thanks Matt.