Although a federal court has ruled against FCC plans to further control the Internet, government agents and far-left pressure groups are redoubling their efforts to advance new regulations. The NYT and other media outlets have a special obligation to expose the radical elements working to undercut freedom and autonomy on the world wide web…
After reporting on a federal appeals court decision that limits the ability of federal regulators to control Internet traffic, The New York Times should now investigate actions taken by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that seemingly violate legal directives. A close examination of the pressure groups lined up in opposition to the court order and in favor of “Net Neutrality” would also interest readers.
The key player here is Free Press, a national non-profit group, lobbying aggressively for greater government control of the Internet. Seton Motley, president of LessGovernment.org, has kept careful tabs on “Media Marxists” who are connected with Free Press and other allied groups.
A good starting point for an investigative piece would be with the “coalition letter” released on June 29 that includes 150 signers expressing opposition against the Comcast v. FCC decision that checkmates federal regulations. There are radical elements pushing coercive measures that would subtract away from the autonomy and creativity of the World Wide Web. Motley’s post on RedState.com offers up some disconcerting details concerning the unsavory ties of coalition members.
“Another of the signers is James Rucker, the co-founder of ColorofChange.org. This space cadet entity’s other co-founder? Van Jones – the self-defined Marxist whose 9-11 Trutherism forced the Barack Obama Administration to dispatch him from his gig as the Administration’s Green Jobs Czar.
And then there’s Free Press. Which was co-founded by another avowed Marxist – Robert McChesney. McChesney is a master of the insidious written word.
Here’s what McChesney wrote about `net neutrality’:
At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point yet. But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.
Speaking of 9-11, here is McChesney less than two weeks after that horrible day:
The United States is, I think, by any honest account, the leading terrorist institution in the world today.
McChesney on Venezuelan Communist thug Hugo Chavez:
Venezuela is a constitutional republic. Chavez has won landslide victories that would be the envy of almost any elected leader in the world, in internationally monitored elections.
And McChesney on America’s capitalist system:
There is no real answer but to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles.”
When the Times reported on the court case back in April, it acknowledged that Congress might respond with legislation empowering the FCC to establish greater regulatory control. Since the Democratic commission members are already working to reclassify broadband regulations, it would appear the “net neutrality” forces are getting their ducks in a row.
Only a few months ago The Times suggested that Obama Administration would need to scale back its ambitions for the FCC.
“More broadly, the ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit could raise obstacles to the Obama administration’s effort to increase Americans’ access to high-speed Internet networks,” the report said.
“For example, the national broadband plan released by the administration last month proposed to shift billions of dollars in money from a fund to provide phone service in rural areas to one that helps pay for Internet access in those areas. Legal observers said the court decision suggested that the F.C.C. did not have the authority to make that switch.
The F.C.C. will now have to reconsider its strategy for mandating `net neutrality,’ the principle that all Internet content should be treated equally by network providers. One option would be to reclassify broadband service as a sort of basic utility subject to strict regulation, like telephone service. Telephone companies and broadband providers have already indicated that they would vigorously oppose such a move.”
But later in the report, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski made it clear that he would make every effort to push his agenda past the court ruling. The Times, which did a very adept job of reporting on the immediate fallout of the court case, should ask the chairman to explain how current efforts impact Internet freedom.
Why is the reclassification necessary?
Popularity: 1% [?]
