Net Neutrality Needs To Be Stopped; Supreme Court Upholds 2nd Amendment

Even though I'm supposed to be on vacation, there was just too pressing a need for a post this week. That need is Net Neutrality, and it's important because if we don't act, the government could soon have the power to censor this very article - and countless others like it - especially since it disagrees with government proceedings.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) has proposed a new bill to give the President - and the federal government, via a brand-new bureaucracy - power to indefinitely shut off or regulate any part of the internet during an "emergency" situation. The bill is called the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010. However, the bill (PDF here) makes little effort to clarify exactly what an "emergency" is, meaning the bill could give the government power to censor content - a blatant contradiction of the 1st Amendment. The only thing the bill explicitly disallows is warrantless wiretapping. It surprised me that Sen. Lieberman would be the sponsor of this bill; last fall, sens. Rockefeller (D-WV) and Snowe (R-ME) authored a similar bill, and Lieberman's record on technological matters has been pretty much common sense, if somewhat regulation-friendly. This (somewhat old) article on CNET explains in greater detail, from a technology standpoint, what the bill is all about. (Read the equally intriguing comments while you're at it.) After paging through the nearly 200-page bill, I definitely concur that the bill is way too vague - and, as we learned with the healthcare bill, vague bills are the worst kind.

Congress is on a mission to quickly (and carelessly, many would add) establish big government before the midterm elections in November. The Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010 is a sales pitch for more of the same. Stopping this bill should be a no-brainer regardless of your political affiliation. It interferes with personal liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of information (even though the last is not explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution, it still contributes to informed debate over important issues, such as the bill being discussed.) It also creates more government when we should really be cutting back. The added spending could raise the total federal budget, which would impact everyone's taxes. Is that something you really want? (It sounds like a step towards totalitarianism to me.) Think about it. If you're reading this article right now, you're an internet user. If the government disrupted your internet service, I'm sure your reaction wouldn't exactly be gleeful.

Please take a minute to contact your Senators and tell them to preserve your freedoms by standing against the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010.

***

Today, the Supreme Court ruled that the City of Chicago has no right to ban handguns, upholding the 2nd Amendment; read more here. Today was Justice John Paul Stevens' last day on the bench of the high court.

If you enjoyed this post, be sure to subscribe to our RSS Feed! Then you can receive our posts in your feed reader or email.