Net Neutrality DOES violate AT&T's 1st amendment right
The 1st Amendment guarantees people* such as AT&T* corporation* the freedom of religious belief without interference from the government.
AT&T should have the freedom to worship their god (money) and practice their religion (greed, screwing consumers) without the government prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Net Neutrality would constitute government interference with both Greed and Screwing Consumers. Persons* such as AT&T* should not be deprived of the joy that their religion brings into their life, as evidenced by their evil laughter at the misery and expense of others.
The supreme court did the right thing (for rich people) in the Aereo case. There, the plaintiffs were rich people limiting access to content that was freely available over the airwaves. The supreme court clearly recognizes the overriding interest of greed here compared to trivial matters such as human trafficking (or worse).
(sarcasm, but sadly true about the importance of money)
Others say that: I'm no expert on where the sun rises or where it shines but there are a lot of smart people in silicone valley and if they put their mind to it, the sun could rise in the West.
Those narrow minded people who say the sun rises in the East are not being Fair Minded.
> The stupid people today in power, failed at history > just like the rest of us that let them get into power.
Or those people in power know history full well, and simply do not care about the sheer magnitude of bad consequences, the number of people affected, or the number of generations of people affected by their decisions as long as their own personal lives right now wealth and power.
> If these actions couldn't be stopped then, [. . . .] > what in the hell do these people think they'll > accomplish by spying on everyone?
They'll prevent whistleblowers from informing the public. They'll prevent rich or powerful people from being embarrassed. They'll ensure that corporations get what they want.
Ultimately, and eventually inevitably . . .
They'll keep themselves in power. They'll crush dissent.
Re: First, it's not "extortion" if the content was viewed.
> Second, "iiNet has dealt Voltage another blow" makes > the ISP a partisan co-conspirator.
No. It just means they have an interesting in helping their customers. iiNet hasn't done anything illegal.
> actively objecting to court orders
Are you saying there is something wrong with this? Ordinary legal process.
> helping its customers to infringe
ISP's don't help their customers infringe. They merely provide a connection to the internet. Otherwise, the electric utility also helps customers infringe in the very same way as ISPs do.
ISP's can help their customers get due process, and there is nothing wrong with that.
But we all know how you feel about due process. Guilty as accused! Off with their heads!
Banning automobiles would hurt big corporations (oil, gas, autos).
Starting and fighting wars helps other big corporations (defense contractors, torture contractors, etc), while also not affecting the corporations in the previous paragraph.
The internet was RIGHTLY thought of as a communications platform, not an entertainment platform. Because it is.
The fact that communications can be used for entertainment is simply one use for communications.
That general statement is true of any communications technology. Scratchings on cave walls. Printing press. Photographic film. Moving pictures. Audio recordings. Radio. Television. And the intarwebtubes.
But why would anyone want to watch any, let alone every new Hollywood release*.
YouTube has so much more to offer. I'm learning some Hebrew right now (on YouTube). I don't know that I have the discipline to stick with it. But so far I know the alphabet (or aleph-bet) and can pronounce and write them. (I decided not to learn a new programming language this year. This is more challenging.)
*re-release, remake, sequel, sequel of old remake, etc.
On the post: AT&T Argues Net Neutrality Violates Its First Amendment Rights
AT&T could not possibly be concerned about 1st amendment freedom of speech issues. So it must be a concern about religious practice.
Free Speech is about saying something, not about preventing others from saying things, or regulating the flow of others' speech.
On the post: AT&T Argues Net Neutrality Violates Its First Amendment Rights
Net Neutrality DOES violate AT&T's 1st amendment right
AT&T should have the freedom to worship their god (money) and practice their religion (greed, screwing consumers) without the government prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Net Neutrality would constitute government interference with both Greed and Screwing Consumers. Persons* such as AT&T* should not be deprived of the joy that their religion brings into their life, as evidenced by their evil laughter at the misery and expense of others.
It's right there in the 1st amendment.
* Corporations are people too
On the post: Once Again, Just Because Someone Used Backpage.com For Trafficking, Doesn't Mean Backpage Is Liable
Re:
(sarcasm, but sadly true about the importance of money)
On the post: FBI Director Claims That The World's Most Knowledgeable Cybersecurity Experts Are Not 'Fair Minded' About Encryption Backdoors
Re: Re: Being Fair Minded
But as Comey says, we need to have a conversation about whether the sun rises in the East or the West.
On the post: FBI Director Claims That The World's Most Knowledgeable Cybersecurity Experts Are Not 'Fair Minded' About Encryption Backdoors
Being Fair Minded
Others say that:
I'm no expert on where the sun rises or where it shines but there are a lot of smart people in silicone valley and if they put their mind to it, the sun could rise in the West.
Those narrow minded people who say the sun rises in the East are not being Fair Minded.
On the post: New Whistleblower Claims UK's Nuclear Submarine Fleet A 'Disaster Waiting To Happen'
Re: Re: Which way is it? You can't have it both ways
On the post: Secretary Of State: We Must Have A Secure Internet; Homeland Security Secretary: A Secure Internet Makes Us All Less Safe
Re: Re: Re:
> just like the rest of us that let them get into power.
Or those people in power know history full well, and simply do not care about the sheer magnitude of bad consequences, the number of people affected, or the number of generations of people affected by their decisions as long as their own personal lives right now wealth and power.
(What mental disorder is that?)
On the post: Secretary Of State: We Must Have A Secure Internet; Homeland Security Secretary: A Secure Internet Makes Us All Less Safe
Re: Re: Re:
Those who fail to learn from history are destined to repeat it in summer school.
Oh, wait . . .
Those who fail to learn from history are destined to be promoted to a decision making role.
On the post: New Whistleblower Claims UK's Nuclear Submarine Fleet A 'Disaster Waiting To Happen'
Which way is it? You can't have it both ways
Which way is it?
1. Is McNeilly arrested for telling untruths?
(his subjective and unsubstantiated personal views)
2. Or is McNeilly arrested for telling the truth?
If (1), then why arrest him at all?
If (2), then why arrest him at all?
On the post: Secretary Of State: We Must Have A Secure Internet; Homeland Security Secretary: A Secure Internet Makes Us All Less Safe
Re:
> what in the hell do these people think they'll
> accomplish by spying on everyone?
They'll prevent whistleblowers from informing the public.
They'll prevent rich or powerful people from being embarrassed.
They'll ensure that corporations get what they want.
Ultimately, and eventually inevitably . . .
They'll keep themselves in power. They'll crush dissent.
On the post: Appeals Court Rightly Overturns NAACP's Successful Attempt To Censor Speech Via Trademark Law
Free Speech is great!
On the post: Australian ISP Promises Free Lawyers For Targets Of Copyright Trolls
Re:
On the post: Australian ISP Promises Free Lawyers For Targets Of Copyright Trolls
Re: First, it's not "extortion" if the content was viewed.
> the ISP a partisan co-conspirator.
No. It just means they have an interesting in helping their customers. iiNet hasn't done anything illegal.
> actively objecting to court orders
Are you saying there is something wrong with this? Ordinary legal process.
> helping its customers to infringe
ISP's don't help their customers infringe. They merely provide a connection to the internet. Otherwise, the electric utility also helps customers infringe in the very same way as ISPs do.
ISP's can help their customers get due process, and there is nothing wrong with that.
But we all know how you feel about due process.
Guilty as accused! Off with their heads!
On the post: Chris Christie: Your NSA Fears Are Bullshit And Civil Liberties Advocates Are Extremists
Re: Save Lives?
Banning automobiles would hurt big corporations (oil, gas, autos).
Starting and fighting wars helps other big corporations (defense contractors, torture contractors, etc), while also not affecting the corporations in the previous paragraph.
On the post: Chris Christie: Your NSA Fears Are Bullshit And Civil Liberties Advocates Are Extremists
Not relevant to the article, but . . .
What would he do given the power of the presidency?
Nuclear weapons?
On the post: Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood Insists His Emails With The MPAA Are Super Secret
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why does Hollywood hate Google?
The fact that communications can be used for entertainment is simply one use for communications.
That general statement is true of any communications technology. Scratchings on cave walls. Printing press. Photographic film. Moving pictures. Audio recordings. Radio. Television. And the intarwebtubes.
On the post: Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood Insists His Emails With The MPAA Are Super Secret
Re: not one adversary, but hundreds
By the time the dinosaurs realize they should get out of the tarpit as soon as possible, it will be too late for them.
Unskippable commercials that were irrelevant ten years ago and even less relevant today.
Unskippable commercials for upcoming new releases that were released fifteen years ago and are nowhere to be seen today.
FIB warnings that untruthfully misuse the FBI logo to frighten people with half truths and misstatements.
Over valuing content when it comes to licensing it for streaming using new technology.
Realizing that it is technology that would have saved them, and had always done so in the past.
On the post: Dept. Of Public Works Finds Watching 20 Hours A Week Of Full-Screen Porn On Work Computers To Be A Bit Too Much
The department finds 20 hours to be a bit too much?
Is it 5 hours too much? 10 hours too much?
It will be a long bureaucratic process to determine the appropriate amount.
On the post: Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood Insists His Emails With The MPAA Are Super Secret
Re: Re: Why does Hollywood hate Google?
But why would anyone want to watch any, let alone every new Hollywood release*.
YouTube has so much more to offer. I'm learning some Hebrew right now (on YouTube). I don't know that I have the discipline to stick with it. But so far I know the alphabet (or aleph-bet) and can pronounce and write them. (I decided not to learn a new programming language this year. This is more challenging.)
*re-release, remake, sequel, sequel of old remake, etc.
On the post: Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood Insists His Emails With The MPAA Are Super Secret
Re: 'incriminating information'
Also known as: State's Evidence.
Next >>