Quote:
Originally Posted by mickmoranis
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
One week ago they made a ruling about how the internet works, despite public concent. The exact same gorup of people have the power to make the ruling that we will from henceforth not allow any websits that support usenet or torrenting.
Here is all the info you need to know how the FCC works: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commun...ns_Act_of_1934
The FCC has a ton of power, 1934 was a terrible year for Americans. |
So, you can't cite it. Got it.
I can say that I own the moon, but it doesn't make it true. I know this is more nuanced than Red Fish Blue Fish, so please tell me if I lose you.
NN supporters are not stating that a Title II classification is the best solution. There are some valid (if not weaker) arguments against it from a Constitutional perspective. Nor are we opposed to statewide regulations if they are allowed to stand against preemption. Most NN supports feel that the best solution is direct congressional legislation that all data must be treated equally.
But, you're not seeing that. You're just jacking off about "NN = CENSORSHIP" without even understanding how or why it works.
"Because I said so" isn't how the law works. I know that's what your dad says when you need to eat your vegetables or when its Goofy Time, but that doesn't fly for civil authority.
If you're going to tell me that NN, as it was enacted, allows the Federal government carte blanche to censor websites, you'll need to cite the exact rule or law that allows it to do so.
And until you do that: Do Not Pass Go. Do Not Collect $200.