fiundagner
Well-Known Fanatic
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2011
- Messages
- 210
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/i ... rnet-coup/
The international telecommunications union has decided it has the right to regulate internet traffic and use. Note that I said has decided, not petitioned for. The group states that the meeting next month is to determine the form the regulation will take, not if it will take it. It will happen.
Let us start off with this. Do we really want a bunch of unelected bureaucrats running the internet? Let us even skip the unelected part. Would you want the DMV in charge of internet traffic? Do we want countries such as China, Iran, and Russia (just as some examples) in charge of determining who can see what online? Anyone who pays attention to world politics should realize by now that the UN is not exactly a US friendly organization. It was founded on noble ideas, and designed to facilitate communication and cooperation between nations. These days what it mostly does is enable tyrants and kleptocrats at the expense of the US. Are these the people you want to see in charge of the internet?
Our main source of news and information these days is the internet. If the government got control of it do you really trust it to allow opinions online that run counter to government policy? If, say, Diane Fienstien had control of it do you think it would allow anyone to post anti-gun control arguments online? Or even tell you if new gun laws were being considered or enacted?
Contact your senators. Write your congress critters. Any form of government control of the internet is bad. The internet thrives on free and uncensored information flow. The free flow of information is just as important as the right to arm yourself. They go together like bread and butter, like peanut butter and jelly (unless your allergic to nuts, then it really must suck to be you, cause trust me, its good). For the first amendment to enable the second, the second amendment must defend the first.
The international telecommunications union has decided it has the right to regulate internet traffic and use. Note that I said has decided, not petitioned for. The group states that the meeting next month is to determine the form the regulation will take, not if it will take it. It will happen.
Let us start off with this. Do we really want a bunch of unelected bureaucrats running the internet? Let us even skip the unelected part. Would you want the DMV in charge of internet traffic? Do we want countries such as China, Iran, and Russia (just as some examples) in charge of determining who can see what online? Anyone who pays attention to world politics should realize by now that the UN is not exactly a US friendly organization. It was founded on noble ideas, and designed to facilitate communication and cooperation between nations. These days what it mostly does is enable tyrants and kleptocrats at the expense of the US. Are these the people you want to see in charge of the internet?
Our main source of news and information these days is the internet. If the government got control of it do you really trust it to allow opinions online that run counter to government policy? If, say, Diane Fienstien had control of it do you think it would allow anyone to post anti-gun control arguments online? Or even tell you if new gun laws were being considered or enacted?
Contact your senators. Write your congress critters. Any form of government control of the internet is bad. The internet thrives on free and uncensored information flow. The free flow of information is just as important as the right to arm yourself. They go together like bread and butter, like peanut butter and jelly (unless your allergic to nuts, then it really must suck to be you, cause trust me, its good). For the first amendment to enable the second, the second amendment must defend the first.
