Save the Internet.
By on Dec 19th, 2006 at 2:12 pm
Save the Internet.
SaveTheInternet.com has a brand new video on net neutrality that is currently ranked #1 on YouTube. Check it out:
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
This is amazingly important. This effect would hinder dissemination of ideas. Suppression of speech.
December 19th, 2006 at 2:23 pmWoo hoo! Rock it.
December 19th, 2006 at 2:26 pmIt’s the blogs, stupid.
December 19th, 2006 at 2:33 pmFreedom of speech is only valid if you’re in the ‘upper tier’ of our
socioeconomic caste system.
When bloggers have free speech, bad things happen…like losing the ‘06 midterms.
McCain Bill Is Lethal Injection For Internet Freedom
Exploits fear of sexual predators and basic misunderstanding of Internet to attack blogs critical of the warmongering agenda he fronts for
Republican Senator John McCain has introduced legislation that would fine blogs up to $300,000 for offensive statements, photos and videos posted by visitors on comment boards, effectively nixing the open exchange of ideas on the Internet, providing a lethal injection for unrestrained opinion, and acting as the latest attack tool to chill freedom of speech on the world wide web.
McCain’s proposal, called the “Stop the Online Exploitation of Our Children Act,” encourages informants to shop website owners to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, who then pass the information on to the relevant police authorities.
December 19th, 2006 at 2:52 pmRepublican Senator John McCain has introduced legislation that would fine blogs up to $300,000 for offensive statements, photos and videos posted by visitors on comment boards, effectively nixing the open exchange of ideas on the Internet, providing a lethal injection for unrestrained opinion, and acting as the latest attack tool to chill freedom of speech on the world wide web.
December 19th, 2006 at 2:54 pmI e-mailed old Mccain that he will never surpress our Freedom of Speech. He doesn’t like the bloggers. I said we will take to the streets if he tries that to take the internet Freedom of Speech. I guess he did not like the outcome of the election.
If the Corporation like Version, AT&T etc. try this we also will take to the streets.
December 19th, 2006 at 2:55 pm[...] Watch Video [...]
December 19th, 2006 at 3:15 pmIn Shift To Right, McCain Embraces Henry Kissinger!!!
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/19/mccain-kissinger/
henry K…
now theres an asshole of distinction,
no more aware of the rest of us than a recluse.
i always picture him in his footie jammies with a radioactive stuffed rabbit in his arms.
Posted by: Sunshine Jim
December 19th, 2006 at 3:17 pmOk, I have a question. What about individuals or groups that would want to do harm to children or advocate such action? Under “Net Nutrality” would they be protected?
December 19th, 2006 at 3:35 pm#9 robert
Net Neutrality is about keeping the internet as free as possible, not about protecting persons who are using the internet for illegal activities… and not that i don’t find such horribly despicable, but wanting to do something or advocating something is not necessarily a crime … performing that action is a crime … hope that makes sense. They would be just as protected as hate groups are.
Net Neutrality is simply about having equal access to any legal pages … as in, if i want news i can choose my news source and not be blocked or have slow loading time as opposed to the internet providers sponsered source.
December 19th, 2006 at 3:49 pmNet Neutrality is not about whether illegal activities on the internet can or cannot be monitored or punished.
These old fuddy duddy’s have no desire to use the internet they only want to control and own it, and you as well.
December 19th, 2006 at 3:52 pmOnline Exploitation of Our Children Act needs to be enforced BUT to pass other bills restricting freedom of speech on blog sites is another issue and should not be confused
Just think if it were not for the freedom of the internet we would have no news as the tele and newspapers are crap
December 19th, 2006 at 4:08 pm#12 robert
a host should not be accountable. the person who posts illegal content should be, and although a host may police their comments, they may not be able to catch everything. though if the host is told of said illegal content, and refuses to take action and remove said content, then i think they should also be liable.
December 19th, 2006 at 4:09 pmThis of course does not fall under Net Neutrality. This falls under McCains bill that mainly attacks blogs and user content driven sites. His bill is politically driven to suppress free speech. There are laws already on the books that can address illegal dealings on the internet, they should be enforced.
It appears that the current assault on free speech is driven by those who are either most threatened by the dissemination of information, or who stand to multiply their profits and monopoly in the future — or are they one and the same?
December 19th, 2006 at 5:00 pmThe internet is the future and they would squelch it. We see what happened to journalism in our country, to radio, to television, and we will see it on the Internet if we all don’t take action now.
All great movements in America did not start at the top and work its way down to the people — the greatest movements in America that were the most effective and most beneficial to American way of life were started at the bottom. Ordinary citizens clamoring the powers that be demanding change.
To me, net neutrality is not so much an assault on free speech as the corporate sector trying to squelch entrepeneurship. The new economy is internet-based: think about behemoths like Google, Yahoo, Amazon, as well as brand-new media like MySpace, Facebook, and YouTube. These guys would have been forced out of the market by richer established businesses before they even got off the ground. Net neutrality is what allows big ideas to compete against big dollars.
Prominently featured in the video is my congressman Ed Markey (MA, so I don’t have to say “D”), a big NN proponent. He was the ranking member on the Telecom and Internet subcommittee in the last congress. So he’s likely to become chair in the next congress, although last time I called his office they said it wasn’t official yet.
here’s the story.
December 19th, 2006 at 5:23 pmThis is off of this thread – House Armed Services Chairman ‘Extremely Concerned’ With Iraq Escalation Plans -Dec. 18 ,2006
Available in older posts section for free and at absolutely no charge. You have to read the whole thread to appreciate it.It`s a real gem.
Not so fast;I have one thing I’d like to add to this discussion.
Atleast twice in the last 50 posts,unbelievable said that she ‘doesn’t lie’.
Yet she told me,thus everyone else on this blog,last spring,that her Mother was dead.This turned out NOT to be TRUE.
Now answer your own question: What kind of person would say that about their own Mother just for the sake of winning an argument?
Now you all are beginning to see why I’ve had such acrimony with her in the past.
Just for the record,BnF, I never,ever,insulted her Mother,that’s if you were referring to something I might have said.
She told me her Mom was dead after I said she probably lives at home with her Mom.
All this can be found in the archives.
This is who you are dealing with,and she has no respect.
Comment by Si Byl — December 20, 2006 @ 2:22 am
Trueblue,
Of course, Unbelievable is offended by any remark about sexuality:
Men’s peak is 17, and women’s is 40. I’m guessing I’m closer to 40 than you are to 17? :)
Comment by unbelievable — April 17, 2006 @ 4:03 pm
and:
I think it’s a plot by women in their 40’s so they can get 17 year old men :)
Comment by Tundra — April 17, 2006 @ 4:19 pm
I assure you, that’s mostly a guy fanatasy. As men age they get better in other ways. :)
Comment by unbelievable — April 17, 2006 @ 4:29 pm
and this:
If a course is called “Shaving your legs†there is no reason to discuss how to braid leghair (That’s for unbelievable)
Comment by Tundra — April 17, 2006 @ 8:34 pm
Flirting with me again, I see ; )
Comment by unbelievable — April 17, 2006 @ 8:49 pm
finally capped of by this:
If I were asked for a one line answer to the question “What makes a woman good in bed?†I would say, “A man who is good in bed.â€
- – Bob Guccione (1978)
Comment by unbelievable — April 18, 2006 @ 4:51 pm
and the email Unbelievable misquotes?
“If I were asked for a one line answer to the question “What makes a woman good in bed?†I would say, “A man who is good in bed.â€
- – Bob Guccione (1978)
Comment by unbelievable â€
amen to that!!! (care to put the hypothesis to a test? —just kidding…)
Perhaps it is Unbelievable who is envious of my spirituality. She has derided the thought of breathing a cloud away, yet I’ve taught others to do so as well.
Perhaps she was offended because I was just kidding. After all, I have mentioned on these boards that I wear a kilt. And you know what they say about a woman scorned. I mean, to take what I wrote and somehow twist that into insinuating that I, a married man, was interested in having an adulterous affair with someone who lives a couple of thousand miles away takes either dimentia, a great imagination, or wishful thinking.
And Trueblue, as you can see, a shaman would say “Amen.â€
There’s another word, a greeting, I say to you:
Namaste.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — December 19, 2006 @ 7:53 pm
December 20th, 2006 at 4:09 amThe debate over net neutrality has nothing do with freedom of speech. Why do you think big corporations like Google, Amazon and eBay are pushing for net neutrality rules? Out of the goodness of their heart? No, because they don’t want have to pay to have their enormous amounts of content distributed to millions of households. Sure they pay minimally now for bandwidth but millions of dollars need to be invested in our internet infrastructure to ensure a seamless and responsive internet. Think in big picture terms about the unintended consequences that will result from net neutrality.
I work with Hands Off the Internet Coalition and I encourage you to visit this post by liberal economist and regulatory expert Alfred Kahn who cautions those who support net neutrality.
December 20th, 2006 at 3:33 pm[...] Those Of You Still Trying to Figure Out Net Neutrality By Screwy Hoolie via ThinkProgess comes this YouTube [...]
March 15th, 2007 at 11:20 pm[...] Those Of You Still Trying to Figure Out Net Neutrality By Screwy Hoolie via ThinkProgess comes this YouTube [...]
March 31st, 2007 at 8:21 pm