Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 27th Aug 2010 19:28 UTC
Internet & Networking When Google and Verizon unveiled their joint net neutrality policy proposal, in which the FCC would play a central role in governing the internet, I mentioned how the the FCC might not be the kind of institution you'd want to hand over control to over your pornography life line (also known as the internet). Over the past few days, the FCC pretty much reiterated just why they are no the right people to govern the web.
Order by: Score:
obscenity not protected
by jack_perry on Fri 27th Aug 2010 19:34 UTC
jack_perry
Member since:
2005-07-06

Without addressing the merits of whether the FCC ought to be policing the internet, I'll point out that the Supreme Court has ruled (repeatedly, I think) that obscenity is not protected by the first amendment. Hence, whether the 2nd Circuit Court is correct likely depends on whether profanities count as obscenities. There, I will not venture to go.

That said, doesn't the FCC also have jurisdiction over cable? In that case, Thom, your worries about not getting your pr0n fix while in these Puritan States of America are totally unfounded. (Thanks for sheltering us those few years a few centuries back, btw.)

Reply Score: 3

RE: obscenity not protected
by Gooberslot on Sat 28th Aug 2010 04:31 UTC in reply to "obscenity not protected"
Gooberslot Member since:
2006-08-02

Just because the Supreme Court says something doesn't mean it's still not unconstitutional. It just means there's not a whole heck of a lot you can do about it.

Reply Score: 2

v Solution?
by jefro on Fri 27th Aug 2010 19:54 UTC
RE: Solution?
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 27th Aug 2010 20:08 UTC in reply to "Solution?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

So who do you think should protect children? Who should take a stand against things like child porn or exploited women?


How did you go from Janet's nipple and Bono's fcuk to child porn and forced prostitution?

Reply Score: 5

RE: Solution?
by aesiamun on Fri 27th Aug 2010 20:09 UTC in reply to "Solution?"
aesiamun Member since:
2005-06-29

Child porn falls under abuse...abuse is already illegal in the United States.

I believe women have a choice on whether they want to appear naked having sex on film (other than rape...which is illegal...already a law against that).

Why do we need another oversight committee telling us what we can and cannot do?

Reply Score: 3

RE: Solution?
by BluenoseJake on Sat 28th Aug 2010 13:29 UTC in reply to "Solution?"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Well, the children's parents for one.

Secondly, women porn stars are much better paid then male porn stars, and 100,000s of University chicks are camming their way through university as we speak. Who's exploiting who?

Thirdly, police should handle child porn, it's a criminal offense.

Edited 2010-08-28 13:29 UTC

Reply Score: 3

tuition rise ("rise")
by sPAZbEAT on Sun 29th Aug 2010 11:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Solution?"
sPAZbEAT Member since:
2009-07-17

"100,000s of University chicks are camming their way through university as we speak. Who's exploiting who?"
that's what's (indirectly) caused the high inflation of tuition fees?

:-)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Solution?
by righard on Sat 28th Aug 2010 13:36 UTC in reply to "Solution?"
righard Member since:
2007-12-26

Helen Lovejoy:
.... (ah, never mind)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Solution?
by Soulbender on Sun 29th Aug 2010 13:29 UTC in reply to "Solution?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

why won't someone THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!??

So who do you think should protect children?


Uhm, here's a wild guess...the parents.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by mtzmtulivu
by mtzmtulivu on Fri 27th Aug 2010 20:13 UTC
mtzmtulivu
Member since:
2006-11-14

FCC does not govern the web, it governs what and how ISP can and cant do when providing access to the web to their american customers in america.

The google and verison deal is about what and how ISP can and cant do when providing access to their customers in different distribution media(wired vs wireless) in america.

The title appear to be correct only to an american who is in american and think nobody else outside american is accessing the web,this isnt correct and hence the title isnt correct.

Reply Score: 5

hmmm
by poundsmack on Fri 27th Aug 2010 20:45 UTC
poundsmack
Member since:
2005-07-13

I agree.

but, of all the companies or governing boards I am most concerned about knowing my browsing habits (AKA, where poundsmack finds his porn), Google comes out on top followed closely after by Facebook.

Reply Score: 2

If The FCC Doesn't Regulate, Then Who?
by organgtool on Fri 27th Aug 2010 21:29 UTC
organgtool
Member since:
2010-02-25

Thom, I understand your concerns over the FCC trying to regulate net neutrality. I, and most other supporters of net neutrality, do not want to see any government entity censor any content on the internet. I don't even believe the FCC should have the power to censor network television (if you're that worried about your kids, use the V-Chip inside your television to block adult content).

But in the U.S. the FCC is the only logical choice for an organization to regulate net neutrality. Sure, Congress could create a law that outlines the terms of neutrality and bans everyone from violating those terms, but you need an organization to enforce those laws. We could create another organization for enforcement, but it makes more sense to use the FCC since it is already in charge of regulating broadband. We just need need to be vigilant if the FCC ever attempted to censor content over the internet - that's a responsibility of all citizens living in a republic and applies to all areas of government oversight.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by jjmckay
by jjmckay on Fri 27th Aug 2010 21:35 UTC
jjmckay
Member since:
2005-11-11

I also think maybe the title is not correct. I think since Thom is understandably not a US citizen he didn't understand the nuance between FCC censorship on TV and the Internet. I don't see anything in 'thehill' article about the Internet or web.

Edited 2010-08-27 21:37 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by jjmckay
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 27th Aug 2010 21:37 UTC in reply to "Comment by jjmckay"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I also think maybe the title is not correct. I think since Thom is understandably not a US citizen he didn't understand the nuance between FCC censorship on TV and the Internet. I don't see anything in 'thehill' article about the Internet.


Of course there's nothing in that article about the internet. All I use the article for is to illustrate just what kind of an organisation the FCC really is, i.e., one you don't want overseeing the internet.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by jjmckay
by jjmckay on Fri 27th Aug 2010 21:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by jjmckay"
jjmckay Member since:
2005-11-11

Of course there's nothing in that article about the internet. All I use the article for is to illustrate just what kind of an organisation the FCC really is, i.e., one you don't want overseeing the internet.


Oh, right! Yes I definitely don't want to see the FCC overseeing the Internet! Absolutely. That's a nightmare scenario as far as I'm concerned.

Edit: And yes, I think Net Neutrality would indeed open up a huge can of worms as far as FCC oversight on the Internet.

Edited 2010-08-27 21:41 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by jjmckay
by jjmckay on Fri 27th Aug 2010 22:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by jjmckay"
jjmckay Member since:
2005-11-11

Of course there's nothing in that article about the internet. All I use the article for is to illustrate just what kind of an organisation the FCC really is, i.e., one you don't want overseeing the internet.


Tom sorry I thought the main newsbit of the headline was 'thehill' link in the blurb but after you replied I found your writeup. Great article and I agree, if that matters. Unfortunately, there has been a huge corporate PR campaign from Internet content providers such as Google who have been very successful in creating a lot of hysteria in support of Network Neutrality which likely would, as you point out, be administered by the FCC.

I've been doing what I can to keep the Internet free from FCC oversight and I also agree with the previous story here on OSNEWS that rightly pointed out that free and open competition is far more powerful to keep the Internet neutral. I believe that if we end the government-granted duopoly, we won't need FCC or government regulation to keep the Internet free because consumer choice is a very powerful force, more powerful than the FCC or Congress.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by jjmckay
by MamiyaOtaru on Fri 27th Aug 2010 23:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by jjmckay"
MamiyaOtaru Member since:
2005-11-11

what makes you think the FCC would regulate the internet like broadcast TV instead of cable TV?

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by jjmckay
by ssa2204 on Sat 28th Aug 2010 06:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by jjmckay"
ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

what makes you think the FCC would regulate the internet like broadcast TV instead of cable TV?


Because it comes down to how they define the services. The FCC does regulate cable TV, it is just the decency laws do not apply because they are not broadcast. The comparison to how the FCC wants to govern the internet is more akin to telecoms. Because broadcast "pushes" the signal over the open airways, anyone can receive the signals whether they want it or not. Telecoms, cable, and internet are not broadcast or pushed over public airways but through private/public networks. More specifically you have the option whether to receive voice, data, or TV through a private service.

Reply Score: 3

Carlin on OSNews?
by dpanov on Fri 27th Aug 2010 21:54 UTC
dpanov
Member since:
2009-01-12

I never dreamt of viewing George Carlin on OSNews, seriously. ;)
Thumbs up for the inclusion.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by kittynipples
by kittynipples on Sat 28th Aug 2010 00:16 UTC
kittynipples
Member since:
2006-08-02

The FCC regulates the content of broadcast television because the electromagnetic spectrum is considered a Public Good, cable television and the Internet are not.

Reply Score: 2

v *facepalms*
by jaklumen on Sat 28th Aug 2010 18:36 UTC
RE: *facepalms*
by olefiver on Sat 28th Aug 2010 21:42 UTC in reply to "*facepalms*"
olefiver Member since:
2008-04-04

His articles _are_ written by a ghost writer.

Thoms "... crippling addiction to heroin, cocaine, and unicorn dust" tragically led to his death back in 2009. Not from OD, but from being impaled on a unicorn horn.

That's right kids of usa. If not for the FCC you'd all be gored by rabid unicorns hopped-up on coke and crack.

Edited 2010-08-28 21:50 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Why?
by ferrels on Sat 28th Aug 2010 18:51 UTC
ferrels
Member since:
2006-08-15

Why are so many non-Americans even worried about this to make comments? The FCC has absolutely no jurisdiction outside of the US. Your EU porn servers are safe! Replace "EU" with the non-US country of your choice.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Why?
by olefiver on Sat 28th Aug 2010 21:49 UTC in reply to "Why?"
olefiver Member since:
2008-04-04

Well, most of the TLD infrastructure is located in USA.
Most of the worlds internet-traffic passes through the US.

If FCC is mandated to uphold net neutrality, how do one define which internet traffic FCC should govern and not?

The fear (IMHO) in us non-US-ians is that the US' net neutrality laws' effect would spread throughout the world 'cause of the largely centralized structure of the net's large hubs and TLD servers, both of which are by and large located in the US.

Edited 2010-08-28 21:52 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Why?
by ferrels on Sun 29th Aug 2010 01:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Why?"
ferrels Member since:
2006-08-15

Thom's article is alarmist FUD. The FCC doesn't monitor the net now and they don't want to monitor it in the future. As for net neutrality being mandated, that's FUD too. For the most part, US citizens and the US government alike want nothing to do with net neutrality. We're fairly satisfied with the net as it is.

As for most internet traffic originating in foreign countries having to pass thru the US, all I can say is that you're misinformed. Germans wanting to peruse porn on German web sites do so without ANY data passing to/from the US and it would remain so even if Thom's big, bad, FCC did enforce net neutrality....which they won't. Replace Germany with the country of your choice in the sentence above.

Frankly, I'm getting very tired of Thom's "Chicken Little" articles where he paints the US as some sort of bogey man that's gonna getcha. The sky isn't falling and the US has no desire to police the world's porn, not even Thom's porn. Why doesn't he pick on North Korea? Oh, that's right. The net is restricted there and Thom wouldn't be able to get any info from them. And it would require more effort and real research to write a story about them as well. The US is an easy target, especially when his audience seems to be made up almost completely of non-US citizens who don't understand the FCC's role here or what's going on in the US in general.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Why?
by Soulbender on Sun 29th Aug 2010 13:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Why?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Most of the worlds internet-traffic passes through the US.


Is that a fact? Do you really think intra-europe and intra-asia traffic (which is a lot) does a detour to the U.S? Heck, you could even pass traffic from europe to asia without going via the U.S if necessary.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Why?
by Soulbender on Sun 29th Aug 2010 13:32 UTC in reply to "Why?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

It makes us feel superior.

Reply Score: 2

Some Basics
by mobius32 on Mon 30th Aug 2010 10:47 UTC
mobius32
Member since:
2010-08-30

The author doesn't seem familiar with a U.S. Supreme Court ruling made a number of years ago which makes a very clear distinction between cable television and over-the-air broadcast television with regard to indecency -- and I believe that the ruling in that case is very applicable to any indecency regulation of the Internet by the FCC. In short, the Court said that since people invite cable into their homes it will not be judged by the same standard as over-the-air broadcast television. All you have to do is compare what is shown and said on cable vs. regular television and it is clear that there's no indecency regulation on cable ... sure, some of the more basic cable channels might police themselves in certain ways, but you can absolutely get "indecent" programming on cable.

My second point is -- in response to the author's claim that "I can assure you that several governments all over the world - including the despicable one here in The Netherlands - are more than happy to copy the FCC model of policing the media" -- that the author fundamentally misunderstands a basic point: if you look at European media regulators you will see that they scratch their heads at how much violence the U.S. allows on television; and the U.S. scratches its head over how much sex is allowed on European television. So, I wouldn't at all say that governments are more than happy to police via the adoption of an FCC model. Additionally, given the existence of the U.S. First Amendment, there are restrictions on speech proscriptions that don't exist in other places. Many European nations have laws against speech that would be "protected" here in the U.S. (I'm not saying one is better than the other, just that it's different).

There might be lots of reasons that would make FCC Internet regulation problematic, but I don't think the author has raised any of these issues.

Reply Score: 1