Fairness Doctrine Could Control Internet Content

[apdst]

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080812160747.aspx

FCC Commissioner: Return of Fairness Doctrine Could Control Web Content
McDowell warns reinstated powers could play in net neutrality debate, lead to government requiring balance on Web sites.

By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
8/12/2008 5:37:12 PM



There’s a huge concern among conservative talk radio hosts that reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine would all-but destroy the industry due to equal time constraints. But speech limits might not stop at radio. They could even be extended to include the Internet and “government dictating content policy.”



FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell raised that as a possibility after talking with bloggers at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. McDowell spoke about a recent FCC vote to bar Comcast from engaging in certain Internet practices – expanding the federal agency’s oversight of Internet networks.



The commissioner, a 2006 President Bush appointee, told the Business & Media Institute the Fairness Doctrine could be intertwined with the net neutrality battle. The result might end with the government regulating content on the Web, he warned. McDowell, who was against reprimanding Comcast, said the net neutrality effort could win the support of “a few isolated conservatives” who may not fully realize the long-term effects of government regulation.



“I think the fear is that somehow large corporations will censor their content, their points of view, right,” McDowell said. “I think the bigger concern for them should be if you have government dictating content policy, which by the way would have a big First Amendment problem.”



“Then, whoever is in charge of government is going to determine what is fair, under a so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine,’ which won’t be called that – it’ll be called something else,” McDowell said. “So, will Web sites, will bloggers have to give equal time or equal space on their Web site to opposing views rather than letting the marketplace of ideas determine that?”



McDowell told BMI the Fairness Doctrine isn’t currently on the FCC’s radar. But a new administration and Congress elected in 2008 might renew Fairness Doctrine efforts, but under another name.



“The Fairness Doctrine has not been raised at the FCC, but the importance of this election is in part – has something to do with that,” McDowell said. “So you know, this election, if it goes one way, we could see a re-imposition of the Fairness Doctrine. There is a discussion of it in Congress. I think it won’t be called the Fairness Doctrine by folks who are promoting it. I think it will be called something else and I think it’ll be intertwined into the net neutrality debate.”



A recent study by the Media Research Center’s Culture & Media Institute argues that the three main points in support of the Fairness Doctrine – scarcity of the media, corporate censorship of liberal viewpoints, and public interest – are myths.

[preservanation]

This BS can never be passed.

I refuse to believe that the people will allow it.
I think we have the intelligence to see through this for what it is...an attack on ideas.

This is another loser for the Dems.

[apdst]

If it can regulate internet content, then it should be a non-start for the Liberals, since they enjoy a majority of the information that goes out on the net. Just think about Huffpo and Democracy Now having to allow an opposing view point.

[IndieVisible]

I've been a Internet Marketer since 1995. There has always been threats against Internet freedom, which is the last frontier of REAL freedom. It must remain free of regulation.

[Elrathin]

Sorry but this is nothing but fear mongering. The fairness doctrine (something I am not in support of coming back BTW) has no wording to include the internet.

This is just another poor attempt to try and instill fear in people that if Obama or a Dem controlled congress is elected net neutrality will go away. That is completely and utterly FALSE.

I agree that net neutrality is important and needs to remain so though.

[lily]

I agree El...it's just another form of the 911 billboard.....if Democrats get elected they are going to somehow take over the internet.......for crying out loud, neither side can contol porn on the internet.......I don't see how they are going to enforce this......but hey, it's worth a try, seems fear works on some.

[BoogyMan]

The fairness doctrine is little more than a way to force ideological control of electronic media delivered markets. Is it really that much of a stretch of the imagination to see that if such a neanderthal ideology is passed into law for broadcast media that it could easily find the Internet to be its target in a broader version of the legislation?

The Internet must maintain its neutrality as it seems to be the last bastion of true ideological freedom.

[Stoner]

Let me get this straight. The libbies don't want us to snoop on terrorists but they do want to limit Rush Limbaugh on the radio.

Got it. :shame:

[Elrathin]

Is it really that much of a stretch of the imagination to see that if such a neanderthal ideology is passed into law for broadcast media that it could easily find the Internet to be its target in a broader version of the legislation?

Yes, it is quite a stretch. Especially considering the reasons the fairness doctrine came about in the first place. This is just more fear mongering. It would be the equivalent of someone saying that if you elect McCain he will bring fascism and anyone that is against the government will be killed.

Look up the fairness doctrine, look at the reason for it. There would be NO REASON for the internet to be part of that and NO WORDING of the fairness doctrine includes the internet. Pure paranoia.

[lily]

Let me get this straight. The libbies don't want us to snoop on terrorists but they [b]do]/b] want to limit Rush Limbaugh on the radio.

Got it. :shame:

If you've got some spare time, can you find a post here where one "libby" has endorsed the fairness doctrine?

[BoogyMan]

Yes, it is quite a stretch. Especially considering the reasons the fairness doctrine came about in the first place.

I am sure you will expound upon why it is a stretch, El. I would like you to show me why I may be paranoid in this regard.

[Elrathin]

I am sure you will expound upon why it is a stretch, El. I would like you to show me why I may be paranoid in this regard.

The fairness doctrine was brought about because of the LIMITED resources of the media and the corporate control of what was put on it. The internet is an UNLIMITED resource and neutral, why would the fairness doctrine be applied to it?

[xLIBREx]

The government so desperately wants to gain control over the free speech of Americans. They already control the rest of the media and it must kill them people can speak freely and across vast distances online.

I bought a nice collapsible stock for my Armalite AR today. Money well spent.

[Shoey]

The primary goal of fairness doctrine and the federal hate crimes legislation bill (H.R. 1592) lead by the secular Left is to simply control speech, or "culturally incorrect thoughts" :shame:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPmw5EABWmE

^ Rod Parsley on Hate Crimes Law

[Elrathin]

The primary goal of fairness doctrine and the federal hate crimes legislation bill (H.R. 1592) lead by the secular Left is to simply control speech, or "culturally incorrect thoughts" :shame:


So how does the fairness doctrine "control" speech? What are you personally forced to say or not say?

Again, I am not for the fairness doctrine coming back, but these incorrect statements about the fairness doctrine is amazing from righties.

[apdst]

If you've got some spare time, can you find a post here where one "libby" has endorsed the fairness doctrine?

None here, probably, but there are some in Washington, for sure.

[Stoner]

It's funny how libbie radio and their hosts can't draw ratings (mainly because all they do is babble false claims like Bush lied, no WMDs, war was for oil, etc...) so they want to censor radio shows that are thriving just because they're conservative. :shame:

Here's a hint. Quit spewing hate-mongering, lie-filled dribble and maybe you will draw more people than an Ice-Cube movie.

[Shoey]

So how does the fairness doctrine "control" speech? What are you personally forced to say or not say?

If you examine the fairness doctrine at face value, the primary goal is to limit speech from controversial "issues" Homosexuality is a controversial issue here in the U.S. but the fairness doctrine (if passed) and the federal hate crimes bill would not only limit speech, but potentially jail people from preaching behind the pulpit on the subject of homosexuality or a Liberal comedian cracking a joke about "queers" for their so called "culturally incorrect thoughts"

[Elrathin]

If you examine the fairness doctrine at face value, the primary goal is to limit speech from controversial "issues" Homosexuality is a controversial issue here in the U.S. but the fairness doctrine (if passed) and the federal hate crimes bill would not only limit speech, but potentially jail people from preaching behind the pulpit on the subject of homosexuality or a Liberal comedian cracking a joke about "queers" for their so called "culturally incorrect thoughts"

Nope it isn't, but please continue to spread that erroneous statement. The fairness doctrine is to put EQUAL time to viewpoints, and not let one viewpoint dominate.

And I have yet to see any hate crime bill that would involve jail time for calling someone a queer. I can call someone a ni***r without going to jail if I so choose to so why would calling someone a queer involve jail time?

About the fairness doctrine though I don't think it will pass because unlike back when it first came about there are MANY viewpoints, not just two. It would be insane to try an enforce a network or radio station to air EVERY viewpoint.

[Milton Bradley]

Nope it isn't, but please continue to spread that erroneous statement. The fairness doctrine is to put EQUAL time to viewpoints, and not let one viewpoint dominate.


I agree ,this is the fundamental reason.


The reason behind this legislation, as I understand it, was the FCC insisting that equal time be given on the public airwaves. So, for example, you wouldn't end up with a local TV News broadcast that came out looking like FOXs national broadcast.


This was one of the things the few FCC did that I actually agreed with.

[ThatGuy]

Nope it isn't, but please continue to spread that erroneous statement. The fairness doctrine is to put EQUAL time to viewpoints, and not let one viewpoint dominate.



If there is no market for the minority view.... why force people to listen to a rebuttal on something that may not be true and just as biased... shoot. Is PETA gonna have equal time after a Whitetail Deer hunting show? That's what Pelosi and other Dems are supporting.
This " Fairness doctrine " turns anything political into a State of the Union address w/ rebuttal. I don't want to hear that. I have had a hard enough time correcting my children over the years with Liberal crap teachers talk about at High School.

[xLIBREx]

Come on, it's called the "Fairness Doctrine" for fuck's sake. That should be a red flag that it's anything but "fair." Can someone please show me where it says in the Constitution the government has the power to force private institutions to give opposing viewpoints? Maybe they should force Coke to put at least 1 Pepsi in every six pack?

If people don't fucking wake up they will finally emerge from the political and intellectual lethargy wondering where all their rights went?

[BoogyMan]

The fairness doctrine was brought about because of the LIMITED resources of the media and the corporate control of what was put on it. The internet is an UNLIMITED resource and neutral, why would the fairness doctrine be applied to it?

The current environment of talk radio, the medium at which this ridiculous legislation is squarely aimed in it's most recent incarnation, could be called pretty much UNLIMITED as well, El. With the advent of satellite radio, Internet radio, traditional broadcast FM and AM radio, and etc it is easy to make such a case.

What about Internet radio El, is that going to take a hit under such foolish legislation? Most likely.

Modern technology makes the need for the "fairness doctrine" evaporate like water on a desert highway.

[Elrathin]

The current environment of talk radio, the medium at which this ridiculous legislation is squarely aimed in it's most recent incarnation, could be called pretty much UNLIMITED as well, El. With the advent of satellite radio, Internet radio, traditional broadcast FM and AM radio, and etc it is easy to make such a case.

What about Internet radio El, is that going to take a hit under such foolish legislation? Most likely.

Modern technology makes the need for the "fairness doctrine" evaporate like water on a desert highway.

Boogy I'm in agreement with you on that. That is why I said I am NOT for it. But to say that they will apply it to the internet is paranoia.

Satellite radio is a limited media that you or I cannot just start up and run in an instant such as the internet with a forum, blog, or webpage. That is why the fairness doctrine would not bleed into the internet.

Internet radio would not be affected by the fairness doctrine. Anyone can make a sound bite on their webpage, blog, or whatever on the internet.

Again to repeat myself, I am NOT for the fairness doctrine coming back. I only corrected the paranoia that some have that it will be applied to the internet. The internet is an unlimited resource, there is no need for the fairness doctrine to be applied.

[Elrathin]

If there is no market for the minority view.... why force people to listen to a rebuttal on something that may not be true and just as biased... shoot.

The problem was that when the fairness doctrine first came around, there was no internet and the media was a limited resource. Limited bandwidth for radio and television meant only a certain number could break into the business. So all iut took was say for a liberal or conservative power base to order its radio and television stations to reject ANYTHING of the other view to the point of a monopoly. There was a time for the fairness doctrine and it has since passed. It should not come back again IMO.

[xLIBREx]

The problem was that when the fairness doctrine first came around, there was no internet and the media was a limited resource. Limited bandwidth for radio and television meant only a certain number could break into the business. So all iut took was say for a liberal or conservative power base to order its radio and television stations to reject ANYTHING of the other view to the point of a monopoly. There was a time for the fairness doctrine and it has since passed. It should not come back again IMO.

There was a time when it was OK to shit on the Constitution to force private enterprise to espouse a viewpoint it didn't agree with? Can you please show me which enumerated power you are talking about which allows Congress to do this?

[Elrathin]

There was a time when it was OK to shit on the Constitution to force private enterprise to espouse a viewpoint it didn't agree with? Can you please show me which enumerated power you are talking about which allows Congress to do this?

Wow, what an interesting spin you got there. I think I made myself quite clear that with a limited media a power base with money could control the flow of information from a viewpoint without the consent of the people. A monopoly.

So yes, there was a time.

[xLIBREx]

Wow, what an interesting spin you got there. I think I made myself quite clear that with a limited media a power base with money could control the flow of information from a viewpoint without the consent of the people. A monopoly.

So yes, there was a time.

No, I asked you a specific question and you ignored it so one more time: Please show me which one of Congress's enumerated powers (Hint, it's Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution which lays these powers out) would allow them the power to control a private organization and the viewpoints they choose to promote?

Or is it that you only care about the Constitution when it happens to coincide with your beliefs or when Bush abuses it? Nah, you are bigger than that, right?

(I am saddened by the average American's complete ignorance of the document from which all government power is defined calling it things like "spin." Then again, that's just the way the politicians like it.)

[ThatGuy]

The problem was that when the fairness doctrine first came around, there was no internet and the media was a limited resource. Limited bandwidth for radio and television meant only a certain number could break into the business. So all iut took was say for a liberal or conservative power base to order its radio and television stations to reject ANYTHING of the other view to the point of a monopoly. There was a time for the fairness doctrine and it has since passed. It should not come back again IMO.


History is understood. But the current attempt to revive this doctrine is not to keep me watching only local Charlotte Channels instead of say Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Local channels on my DirecTV.
Paranoia is how Pelosi or Barry would phrase it. I'm outraged it is even suggested.

[Elrathin]

No, I asked you a specific question and you ignored it so one more time: Please show me which one of Congress's enumerated powers (Hint, it's Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution which lays these powers out) would allow them the power to control a private organization and the viewpoints they choose to promote?

Or is it that you only care about the Constitution when it happens to coincide with your beliefs or when Bush abuses it? Nah, you are bigger than that, right?

(I am saddened by the average American's complete ignorance of the document from which all government power is defined calling it things like "spin." Then again, that's just the way the politicians like it.)

Congress has the right to legislate laws does it not?

[BoogyMan]

But to say that they will apply it to the internet is paranoia.

I really have to disagree. It is the next logical progression when you consider the current iterration of the "fairness doctrine" for what it is, an egregious attempt to curb free speech in the media.


Satellite radio is a limited media that you or I cannot just start up and run in an instant such as the internet with a forum, blog, or webpage. That is why the fairness doctrine would not bleed into the internet.

Not just everyone has the capability to manage an Internet presence either, El. By that type of logic it also could be considered limited on the basis of technical ability.


Internet radio would not be affected by the fairness doctrine. Anyone can make a sound bite on their webpage, blog, or whatever on the internet.

Internet (live streaming) would certainly be affected by this legislation and it would be just the first of many incursions into the freedom the Internet provides.

[Elrathin]

But the current attempt to revive this doctrine is not to keep me watching only local Charlotte Channels instead of say Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Local channels on my DirecTV.
Paranoia is how Pelosi or Barry would phrase it. I'm outraged it is even suggested.

Again, I don't disagree with you in the fact that it should not come back. I just don't believe in the paranoia that some have been voicing that the internet would be covered under the fairness doctrine, it wouldn't.

[xLIBREx]

Still waiting for that answer Elrathin. Or should I just assume it's never coming?

[Elrathin]

I really have to disagree. It is the next logical progression when you consider the current iterration of the "fairness doctrine" for what it is, an egregious attempt to curb free speech in the media.

Again, why or how would you apply the fairness doctrine to the internet Boogy and who would enforce it? It is paranoia to think that it would happen.


Not just everyone has the capability to manage an Internet presence either, El. By that type of logic it also could be considered limited on the basis of technical ability.

Sorry Boogy, but are you honestly telling me that putting up a webpage is the same difficulty as getting your own T.V. or raido station? I think it is understood what I meant by anyone can setup a webpage, forum, or blog much much easier and accesible than getting your own raido or T.V. station.

In fact I can setup a webpage prolly in about 5-10 min. Can I get my own T.V. or Radio station in that amount of time as a common person? No, I can't. Not the same thing.


Internet (live streaming) would certainly be affected by this legislation and it would be just the first of many incursions into the freedom the Internet provides.

No, it wouldn't because anyone can counter that with a webcam recording. People can't however, put their views on the raidio like they can the internet.

[Elrathin]

Still waiting for that answer Elrathin. Or should I just assume it's never coming?

Congress can legislate laws. That answers your question.

[ThatGuy]

Algore / Tippergore - PMRC. Offended by the lyrics of a Prince song their daughter was listening to, touched of a music industry witch hunt in 1985-1986.

You give a monkey a rope and it'll want to be a Cowboy.

[xLIBREx]

Congress can legislate laws. That answers your question.

Oh, so you are saying Congress can simply make laws and doesn't have to abide by the Constitution? Have you even read the Constitution? I am beginning to think you don't have a clue how our nation is governed.

Someone pinch me, did Elrathin seriously just say this? No wonder our nation is circling the bowl at an alarming rate.

[Elrathin]

Oh, so you are saying Congress can simply make laws and doesn't have to abide by the Constitution? Have you even read the Constitution? I am beginning to think you don't have a clue how our nation is governed.

Think whatever you want. That's your right. I have opinions of people as well. Congress was abiding by the constitution when they made the Fairness Doctrine. Show me where they weren't with PROOF.

[xLIBREx]

Think whatever you want. That's your right. I have opinions of people as well. Congress was abiding by the constitution when they made the Fairness Doctrine. Show me where they weren't with PROOF.

I asked you to give me the specific power. Now you want to play a game. You obviously can't do it.

You basically just gave up your right to ever bitch about your rights being violated. You are part of the very problem which allows it to happen. In fact, you deserve to have your rights violated.

(I'm disgusted.)

[Elrathin]

I asked you to give me the specific power. Now you want to play a game. You obviously can't do it.

You basically just gave up your right to ever bitch about your rights being violated. You are part of the very problem which allows it to happen. In fact, you deserve to have your rights violated.

I see you've provided no proof and have added an attack into the equation. Nice, well I'm through with you.

[xLIBREx]

I see you've provided no proof. Thank you and please continue your baseless claim.

Still playing your game I see. I asked you to provide me with the enumerated power. You are simply refusing and trying to avoid the question by asking me to prove a negative. You want the proof, here are the powers and the one you believe exists isn't listed:

Enumerated powers

Main article: Enumerated powers

Congress's powers are enumerated in Section Eight:

Section 8: The Congress shall have power

To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;—And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

This has nothing to do with opinion. You are simply wrong.

If you give the smallest shit about this country, please educate yourself on how it actually works for everyone's sake.

[Shoey]

And I have yet to see any hate crime bill that would involve jail time for calling someone a queer. I can call someone a ni***r without going to jail if I so choose to so why would calling someone a queer involve jail time?

As I stated in my previous post, the federal hate crimes bill (H.R. 1592) could extend to speech and you and I could be jailed for preaching the Gospel in OUR OWN church!

HR 1592, like all hate crime laws, imposes a longer sentence on a criminal motivated by hate than on someone who commits the same crime with a different motivation. Increasing sentences because of motivation goes beyond criminalizing acts; it makes it a crime to think certain thoughts. Criminalizing even the vilest hateful thoughts--as opposed to willful criminal acts--is inconsistent with a free society.

HR 1592 could lead to federal censorship of religious or political speech on the grounds that the speech incites hate. Hate crime laws have been used to silence free speech and even the free exercise of religion. For example, a Pennsylvania hate crime law has been used to prosecute peaceful religious demonstrators on the grounds that their public Bible readings could incite violence. One of HR 1592’s supporters admitted that this legislation could allow the government to silence a preacher if one of the preacher’s parishioners commits a hate crime. More evidence that hate crime laws lead to censorship came recently when one member of Congress suggested that the Federal Communications Commission ban hate speech from the airwaves.

Hate crime laws not only violate the First Amendment, they also violate the Tenth Amendment. Under the United States Constitution, there are only three federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. All other criminal matters are left to the individual states. Any federal legislation dealing with criminal matters not related to these three issues usurps state authority over criminal law and takes a step toward turning the states into mere administrative units of the federal government.

Because federal hate crime laws criminalize thoughts, they are incompatible with a free society. Fortunately, President Bush has pledged to veto HR 1592. Of course, I would vote to uphold the president’s veto.
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst050707.htm

http://www.cfnews.org/WANTED-Poster.jpg

[Truth_and_Power]

So instead of just keeping the rules that prevent extreme media consolidation, let's allow consolidation and then create a government regulatory bureaucracy to regulate them. Anyone who doesn't think that these moves are part and parcel with the media consolidation changes is asleep at the wheel.

We are moving from a free market of media to a regulated monopoly/oligopoly

[Truth_and_Power]

The Hacker Manifesto

by
+++The Mentor+++
Written January 8, 1986

Another one got caught today, it's all over the papers. "Teenager Arrested in Computer Crime Scandal", "Hacker Arrested after Bank Tampering"...

Damn kids. They're all alike.

But did you, in your three-piece psychology and 1950's technobrain, ever take a look behind the eyes of the hacker? Did you ever wonder what made him tick, what forces shaped him, what may have molded him?

I am a hacker, enter my world...

Mine is a world that begins with school... I'm smarter than most of the other kids, this crap they teach us bores me...

Damn underachiever. They're all alike.

I'm in junior high or high school. I've listened to teachers explain for the fifteenth time how to reduce a fraction. I understand it. "No, Ms. Smith, I didn't show my work. I did it in my head..."

Damn kid. Probably copied it. They're all alike.

I made a discovery today. I found a computer. Wait a second, this is cool. It does what I want it to. If it makes a mistake, it's because I screwed it up. Not because it doesn't like me... Or feels threatened by me.. Or thinks I'm a smart ass.. Or doesn't like teaching and shouldn't be here...

Damn kid. All he does is play games. They're all alike.

And then it happened... a door opened to a world... rushing through the phone line like heroin through an addict's veins, an electronic pulse is sent out, a refuge from the day-to-day incompetencies is sought... a board is found. "This is it... this is where I belong..." I know everyone here... even if I've never met them, never talked to them, may never hear from them again... I know you all...

Damn kid. Tying up the phone line again. They're all alike...

You bet your ass we're all alike... we've been spoon-fed baby food at school when we hungered for steak... the bits of meat that you did let slip through were pre-chewed and tasteless. We've been dominated by sadists, or ignored by the apathetic. The few that had something to teach found us willing pupils, but those few are like drops of water in the desert.

This is our world now... the world of the electron and the switch, the beauty of the baud. We make use of a service already existing without paying for what could be dirt-cheap if it wasn't run by profiteering gluttons, and you call us criminals. We explore... and you call us criminals. We seek after knowledge... and you call us criminals. We exist without skin color, without nationality, without religious bias... and you call us criminals. You build atomic bombs, you wage wars, you murder, cheat, and lie to us and try to make us believe it's for our own good, yet we're the criminals.

Yes, I am a criminal. My crime is that of curiosity. My crime is that of judging people by what they say and think, not what they look like. My crime is that of outsmarting you, something that you will never forgive me for.

I am a hacker, and this is my manifesto. You may stop this individual, but you can't stop us all... after all, we're all alike.

[bishop]

isn't this another example of what pro-constitution people refer to as "the slippery slope"?

the two-party sheep continue to follow their corrupt leaders, and freedoms and liberties continue to slip down the slope. far be it from them to realize this of course - far easier to throw handfuls of poop at the monkeys in the other cage.

[ThatGuy]

isn't this another example of what pro-constitution people refer to as "the slippery slope"?

the two-party sheep continue to follow their corrupt leaders, and freedoms and liberties continue to slip down the slope. far be it from them to realize this of course - far easier to throw handfuls of poop at the monkeys in the other cage.

I don't think it's the sheep that are the problem here. Problem is Liberal leaders want to censor what they can't control. They always have.

[preservanation]

Congress has the right to legislate laws does it not?Not unconstitutional ones.
That's why the appointment of SCOTUS judges is at the forefront in this election.
I guarantee Ginsberg would vote for this, not because it has anything to do with the document she has sworn to uphold,but because it would silence the opponents to her political ideology.
This is a travesty.