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

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/...131-1aah3.html

Boxcar

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.

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.

Time out switch! :lol:


This is another reason why we need our guns.

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.

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

Simple.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Back in US....Back in the US....Back in the USSR....