U.S. Internet "Kill Switch" Bill in the Works

[boxcar]

Remember now: BO criticized the Mubarak administration for shutting down the Internet due to civil disorder within the country. BO called for restoring the 'net to Egypt's population. So, much for what BO says (which we know has about as much value as a wooden nickel). Meanwhile... a bill is in the works that would empower the president of the U.S. to do the very thing that BO condemned Egypt for doing. :bang: :bang: We all know that BO would sign this bill in a heart beat if it were ever to get through the House.

As Egypt goes offline US gets internet 'kill switch' bill ready

Oh...but wait...we have the solid promise of Senator Susan Collins that the government would not shut down the 'net for reasons of political dissent as Egypt did. Okay...all is good. We can breathe easier. We have the promise of a Dem[on] up which we can rely. :rolleyes: And remember: This is a promise by the same party who wants to seriously curtail and censor political free speech on the radio air waves by bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. :bang: :bang:

Senator Susan Collins, a co-sponsor of the bill, said that unlike in Egypt, where the government was using its powers to quell dissent by shutting down the internet, it would not.

“My legislation would provide a mechanism for the government to work with the private sector in the event of a true cyber emergency,” Collins said in an emailed statement to Wired. “It would give our nation the best tools available to swiftly respond to a significant threat.”

http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/as-egypt-goes-offline-us-gets-internet-kill-switch-bill-ready-20110131-1aah3.html

Boxcar

[ArlJim78]

now now, isn't "kill switch" now considered hateful rhetoric?

I'd let them have the internet kill switch in exchange for them giving to the people a government kill switch.

[Tom]

Hey, I got a good idea - let everyone who could be hurt by whatever a true cyber emergency is make their own plans to get their butts off line to protect themselves. Not the government's business at all.

Giving this thoroughly corrupt government that kind of power is like giving Scotch to Charlie Sheen.

[Tom]

now now, isn't "kill switch" now considered hateful rhetoric?

I'd let them have the internet kill switch in exchange for them giving to the people a government kill switch.

Time out switch! :lol:


This is another reason why we need our guns.

[mostpost]

Remember now: BO criticized the Mubarak administration for shutting down the Internet due to civil disorder within the country. BO called for restoring the 'net to Egypt's population. So, much for what BO says (which we know has about as much value as a wooden nickel). Meanwhile... a bill is in the works that would empower the president of the U.S. to do the very thing that BO condemned Egypt for doing. :bang: :bang: We all know that BO would sign this bill in a heart beat if it were ever to get through the House.

As Egypt goes offline US gets internet 'kill switch' bill ready

Oh...but wait...we have the solid promise of Senator Susan Collins that the government would not shut down the 'net for reasons of political dissent as Egypt did. Okay...all is good. We can breathe easier. We have the promise of a Dem[on] up which we can rely. :rolleyes: And remember: This is a promise by the same party who wants to seriously curtail and censor political free speech on the radio air waves by bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. :bang: :bang:

Senator Susan Collins, a co-sponsor of the bill, said that unlike in Egypt, where the government was using its powers to quell dissent by shutting down the internet, it would not.

“My legislation would provide a mechanism for the government to work with the private sector in the event of a true cyber emergency,” Collins said in an emailed statement to Wired. “It would give our nation the best tools available to swiftly respond to a significant threat.”

http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/as-egypt-goes-offline-us-gets-internet-kill-switch-bill-ready-20110131-1aah3.html

Boxcar
Without discussing, for now, the merits of the "kill switch" bill, I must comment on your statement that bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would curtail and censor political free speech. That statement is the opposite of reality. The Fairness Doctrine requires anyone who owns or operates a radio station (Which uses the public airways) to provide time for opposing points of view. Without the fairness doctrine, owners have been able to limit political discussion to points of view which they endorse and shut out other opinions. That's why there are so many fools in this country. They listen to Rush Limbaugh, they don't bother to proof what he says, and they live and vote in ignorance.

And, before you ask, no they don't have the right to put whatever they want on their stations because they own them. Their stations use the public airways and they are subject to the public. If they don't like it they can go into the frisbie business.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... That's why there are so many fools in this country...

The world is bad because of conservative media. The world can overcome via liberal politicians.

Simple.

[rastajenk]

And, before you ask, no they don't have the right to put whatever they want on their stations because they own them. Their stations use the public airways and they are subject to the public. If by "public" you mean political appointees working in the service of a larger partisan agenda, then I guess you could be right. If you're trying to say that airtime must be granted to every position on the entire political gradient, then, not so much.

[mostpost]

The world is bad because of conservative media. The world can overcome via liberal politicians.

Simple.
You got it. Congratulations!!!! But you also need to include conservative politicians. Otherwise, well done!!

[mostpost]

If by "public" you mean political appointees working in the service of a larger partisan agenda, then I guess you could be right. If you're trying to say that airtime must be granted to every position on the entire political gradient, then, not so much.

If Rush Limbaugh interviews a conservative politician or media person advocating repeal of the healthcare law, he should be required to interview a liberal politician or media person advocating its retention.

The same for Ed Schultz.

If a station has a candidate for office on its news shows, all other candidates for that office should have the opportunity to appear at a similar time. By candidates I mean anyone who is on the ballot or any viable write in candidate.

A station should be required to provide time to any candidate who is able to purchase that time.

[johnhannibalsmith]

You got it. Congratulations!!!! But you also need to include conservative politicians. Otherwise, well done!!

Please don't do this to you... please... the sarcasm meter is barely registering...

[johnhannibalsmith]

If Rush Limbaugh interviews a conservative politician or media person advocating repeal of the healthcare law, he should be required to interview a liberal politician or media person advocating its retention.
...

You've gone completely insane. What you want is government run media. Excellent.

[boxcar]

Without discussing, for now, the merits of the "kill switch" bill, I must comment on your statement that bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would curtail and censor political free speech. That statement is the opposite of reality. The Fairness Doctrine requires anyone who owns or operates a radio station (Which uses the public airways) to provide time for opposing points of view. Without the fairness doctrine, owners have been able to limit political discussion to points of view which they endorse and shut out other opinions. That's why there are so many fools in this country. They listen to Rush Limbaugh, they don't bother to proof what he says, and they live and vote in ignorance.

And, before you ask, no they don't have the right to put whatever they want on their stations because they own them. Their stations use the public airways and they are subject to the public. If they don't like it they can go into the frisbie business.

But the public has a right to listen to whatever they want because the public owns the airwaves -- not the government! And ratings have proven time and again that the public overwhelming desires to listen to conservative talk shows. In the free market system, all the radio stations are doing is observing the Law of Supply and Demand! There is very little demand for liberal drivel. And since radio stations are corporations looking to make money and profit, they will air shows that will guarantee large audiences so that in turn will attract ADVERTISERS -- you know other companies who pay the bills of the radio stations and ultimately incomes of their hosts. :bang: :bang: Therefore, advertisers want large audiences.

So, you see, Mosty, water seeks its own level in a free market system. It's not as you would have us believe. The radio stations are not all a bunch of conservative ideologues. Their primary motive is to MAKE MONEY and in order to do that they MUST obey the Law of Supply and Demand. Trust me: If they weren't making good money with their conservative talk shows, they would replace them in a heart beat with shows that would. There's no vast right-wing conspiracy going on here. There's simply no real money to be made with liberal garbage because the public largely rejects that kind of trash.

In closing, the Fairness Doctrine would effectively censor conservative talk because the conservative talk show hosts' time on the air would be curtailed drastically -- probably by half. That would indeed be a form of censorship because it would limit their speech!

Boxcar

[boxcar]

You've gone completely insane. What you want is government run media. Excellent.

Not only is he insane, but the megabytes of irony in his stupid comment is that there are very few liberals willing to take hardball questions from a conservative. They know conservatives would eat their lunch -- pretty much as we do right here on this forum. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

If Rush Limbaugh interviews a conservative politician or media person advocating repeal of the healthcare law, he should be required to interview a liberal politician or media person advocating its retention.

The same for Ed Schultz.

If a station has a candidate for office on its news shows, all other candidates for that office should have the opportunity to appear at a similar time. By candidates I mean anyone who is on the ballot or any viable write in candidate.

A station should be required to provide time to any candidate who is able to purchase that time.

An inquiring mind would like to know: Since many conservative talk shows devote so little time to actual interviews (Hannity a noted exception), would this mean no "equal time" would have to given to opposing views of various issues?

Boxcar

[PaceAdvantage]

You've gone completely insane. What you want is government run media. Excellent.Back in US....Back in the US....Back in the USSR....

[Robert Goren]

By the time the government realizes they need to use the "kill switch", it would already be too late. Another dumb idea from the Bush administration that the Obama administration has decide to run with.

[boxcar]

By the time the government realizes they need to use the "kill switch", it would already be too late. Another dumb idea from the Bush administration that the Obama administration has decide to run with.

Are you saying that BO is just as dumb as Bush? :D

Boxcar

[mostpost]

You've gone completely insane. What you want is government run media. Excellent.
First of all, what is wrong with giving people both sides of an issue? Let me rephrase to say Limbaugh or Shultz should not be required to seek out opposing viewpoints, but if a valid representative of an opposing viewpoint presents itself they should be given access. Candidates should have equal access.

[johnhannibalsmith]

First of all, what is wrong with giving people both sides of an issue?...

Nothing at all. In fact, it should be lauded, commended, awarded, and rewarded when it happens.

That wasn't at all what you said. You know what you said and even on a day like today where you are beating the drum without even arms, I suspect you have to understand the frightening reality that you laid the groundwork for.

[Robert Goren]

Are you saying that BO is just as dumb as Bush? :D

BoxcarSometimes he is.

[mostpost]

But the public has a right to listen to whatever they want because the public owns the airwaves -- not the government! And ratings have proven time and again that the public overwhelming desires to listen to conservative talk shows. In the free market system, all the radio stations are doing is observing the Law of Supply and Demand! There is very little demand for liberal drivel. And since radio stations are corporations looking to make money and profit, they will air shows that will guarantee large audiences so that in turn will attract ADVERTISERS -- you know other companies who pay the bills of the radio stations and ultimately incomes of their hosts. :bang: :bang: Therefore, advertisers want large audiences.

So, you see, Mosty, water seeks its own level in a free market system. It's not as you would have us believe. The radio stations are not all a bunch of conservative ideologues. Their primary motive is to MAKE MONEY and in order to do that they MUST obey the Law of Supply and Demand. Trust me: If they weren't making good money with their conservative talk shows, they would replace them in a heart beat with shows that would. There's no vast right-wing conspiracy going on here. There's simply no real money to be made with liberal garbage because the public largely rejects that kind of trash.

In closing, the Fairness Doctrine would effectively censor conservative talk because the conservative talk show hosts' time on the air would be curtailed drastically -- probably by half. That would indeed be a form of censorship because it would limit their speech!

Boxcar

The public and the government are not exclusive to each other. The government is what the public selects (elects) to do the public business. So stop acting like they are opposites.

The question is do people listen to conservative radio because they love conservative radio, or because they have no other option? Up to a few years ago, I had no liberal radio to listen to and I live in Chicago with dozens of stations. Many of Limbaugh's 600 plus stations are in rural areas where there are few station choices. In some areas he is on more than one station covering the same listeners.

The right of a station to show a profit is not absolute. It is tempered by the public interest. It is fine to open up a parachute shop, but if you try to make a profit by selling parachutes made from recycled screen doors your right to make a profit ceases.

Finally, you are not censoring conservative hosts by cutting their air time. Even at half the time they still have plenty of time to prevaricate.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...The right of a station to show a profit is not absolute. It is tempered by the public interest. It is fine to open up a parachute shop, but if you try to make a profit by selling parachutes made from recycled screen doors your right to make a profit ceases.
...

So you want to label partisan speech a criminal endeavor along the lines of your example?

[boxcar]

The public and the government are not exclusive to each other. The government is what the public selects (elects) to do the public business. So stop acting like they are opposites.

The are very different entities. And very often the government acts against the public's best interest, placing it's own selfish interests and political agendas way ahead of the public's interests. (I point you to ObamaCare and 27 states rejecting it!) May I suggest you join the real world and quit acting as though the U.S. government is this virtuous, unselfish, benign entity? The public is big enough, old enough and savvy enough to choose what PRODUCTS it wants to listen to over the PUBLIC's airwaves!

The question is do people listen to conservative radio because they love conservative radio, or because they have no other option?

You're so utterly clueless when it comes to the workings of the free market. Even if it were the only option in the entire universe, if the radio product was generally unacceptable, people would either shut off their radios or listen to some other station to receive a different product. What you're forgetting is that the general public are CONSUMERS. People will not consume products they don't like -- that they find offensive -- that they find insulting -- that they find are replete with falsehoods, etc., etc., etc.

Up to a few years ago, I had no liberal radio to listen to and I live in Chicago with dozens of stations. Many of Limbaugh's 600 plus stations are in rural areas where there are few station choices. In some areas he is on more than one station covering the same listeners.

Thank you for proving my point. The Law of Supply and Demand works very well, thank you. Rush is on so many stations because there is a huge demand for his program. What part of this business law don't you understand? :rolleyes:

The right of a station to show a profit is not absolute. It is tempered by the public interest. It is fine to open up a parachute shop, but if you try to make a profit by selling parachutes made from recycled screen doors your right to make a profit ceases.

No it isn't! It's tempered by the PUBLIC DEMAND! And public demand when coupled with quality supply gives any business the right to profit! In a free market system the public gets to choose what's in its own best interest! :bang: :bang: I doubt there would be very much demand for the 'chutes in your stupid parachute analogy. But there's plenty of demand for conservative talk shows. Your entire argument is elitism at its worst because its underlying assumption is that the public isn't capable of determining what products to buy -- which ones represent value to them or which ones are in their best interest. You're saying only the U.S. government is qualified to do that. Why don't you just be completely honest and tell us that you favor a state-controlled media and be done with it? With this kind of media, you could get all the liberal sewage over the airwaves you'd be able to gulp down.

Finally, you are not censoring conservative hosts by cutting their air time. Even at half the time they still have plenty of time to prevaricate.

Yes, it would be. 1.5 hours does not equal 3 hours. By drastically cutting their airtime, they would not have the time to explore in deeper depth more important topics and they wouldn't have a time to include all the content of their show which would normally fit within a 3-hour time span. Therefore, the government would be censoring shows in the dual sense of quality and quantity of content. In principle, it would be no different if the government came along and said conservative talk shows can only be 30 minutes in length.

Boxcar

[sammy the sage]

Are you saying that BO is just as dumb as Bush? :D

Boxcar

J.H.C. :rolleyes: When are ya'll going to EVER learn...they're on the SAME team...

From the bailing out of bankster's...to...allowing US. troops on home soil...to...no more habus corpus to keep you detained...to...Healt care bill DOESn'T APPLY to them...to...WHAT-EVER... :bang:

[Tom]

Originally Posted by mostpost
First of all, what is wrong with giving people both sides of an issue?...


See, your liberalism/dependency is showing.
You do not give people anything - people seek information.
If people wanted to hear the leftist drivel, Air America would not have died from starvation. CNN would be beating the Cartoon Network in ratings. PMSNBC would not be the complete joke it is today.

No thinking people want to listen to biased morons.
And, Comrade, the USA doesn't own the internet and it ain't public airwaves.

One day after Obama-Drama whines about Egypt cutting off the net, he talks about doing it here and of course, most-sheep drops and gives him 20.

Have you learned NOTHING from history?
Oh wait, maybe your National Geographic got lost in the mail. :D

[boxcar]

See, your liberalism/dependency is showing.
You do not give people anything - people seek information.
If people wanted to hear the leftist drivel, Air America would not have died from starvation. CNN would be beating the Cartoon Network in ratings. PMSNBC would not be the complete joke it is today.

No thinking people want to listen to biased morons.
And, Comrade, the USA doesn't own the internet and it ain't public airwaves.

One day after Obama-Drama whines about Egypt cutting off the net, he talks about doing it here and of course, most-sheep drops and gives him 20.

Have you learned NOTHING from history?
Oh wait, maybe your National Geographic got lost in the mail. :D

Good post up until you got to the part about "biased morons" :D The fact is that all of us are "biased". Conservatives listen to conservative talk shows because we are conservatives. Or more accurately...people/consumers will seek (you're spot-on with this term) talk show hosts who will affirm for them what they already believe! In a real sense, the talk show host and other conservative callers could be likened to a community of believers, sharing more or less the same political philosophy or ideology.

Politics, then, is very much like Religion in this respect. I attend an Evangelical Baptist church because I want to be in the presence of and commune with like-minded believers, elders and deacons who will affirm what I already believe.

The fact that so many people seek the content of conservative talk radio proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that most Americans are center-right in their political views.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

J.H.C. :rolleyes: When are ya'll going to EVER learn...they're on the SAME team...

From the bailing out of bankster's...to...allowing US. troops on home soil...to...no more habus corpus to keep you detained...to...Healt care bill DOESn'T APPLY to them...to...WHAT-EVER... :bang:

I wouldn't paint both of them with such a broad brush. But I have always known that Bush was no conservative, but neither was he as radical of a leftist as BO.

Boxcar

[JustRalph]

The public airwaves my ass!!!

Who the hell invented that phrase ?

Nobody owns the airwaves. It's like saying that oxygen molecules are part of public property. The airwaves are like gravity. They exist. But nobody owns them. The phrase "public airwaves" is a government invented philosophy to find a way to tax people. Plain and simple.

Selling the "public airwaves" has been very lucrative for the Government. Plain and simple.

Just like the philosophy of "Public Waterways" it's all bullshit.

[witchdoctor]

Careful Ralph, The government is probably working on a way now to tax oxygen consumption.

[boxcar]

The public airwaves my ass!!!

Who the hell invented that phrase ?

Nobody owns the airwaves. It's like saying that oxygen molecules are part of public property. The airwaves are like gravity. They exist. But nobody owns them. The phrase "public airwaves" is a government invented philosophy to find a way to tax people. Plain and simple.

Selling the "public airwaves" has been very lucrative for the Government. Plain and simple.

Just like the philosophy of "Public Waterways" it's all bullshit.

I think phrases like "public airwaves" "public roads", "U.S. Airspace", etc. are useful -- not so much to denote ownership per se as much as usage. It tells us who uses these mediums. Since the U.S. people use all these, they require government laws, rules and regulations to govern their usage for the public's protection. For example, do we want anyone in any kind of aircraft using "our" airspace? Or do we want our kids listening to "X" rated radio or obscene language over "our" airwaves? Or do we really want to drive on "our" roads without any rules of the road?

Boxcar