-
RSS Follow Become a Fan

Recent Posts

Q&A with Sen. Tom Cotton
Q&A with Sen. Ron Wyden
Q&A with Rep. Louie Gohmert
Q&A with Rep. Ted Lieu
Q&A with Sen. Tim Scott

Categories

Adam Kinzinger
Adam Weigold
Affordable Care Act
Agenda 21
Ajit Pai
Al DeKruif
ALEC
Al-Qaeda
American Enterprise Institute
American Legislative Exchange Council
America's Future Foundation
Amy Koch
Andrea Kieffer
Andrea Mitchell
Androids
Ann Coulter
Apple
Arlen Specter
Arne Carlson
Atlas Shrugged
Bad Legislators
Bad Republicans
Barack Obama
Barbara Banian
Bashar al-Assad
Ben Ginsberg
Ben Golnik
Ben Wiener
Benghazi
Beth Cobert
Bill Jungbauer
Bill Paxon
Bill Pulkrabek
Bitcoin
Bloopers
Bob Barr
Bob Corker
Bob Davis
Bob Gunther
Bobby Joe Champion
Book Reviews
Branden Petersen
Brandon Petersen
Brandon Sawalich
Brian Johnson
Bron Scherer
Brookings Institution
Budget Control Act
Carla Nelson
Cass Sunstein
Cato Institute
Caucuses
CCHF
Chamber of Commerce
Charles Chaput
Charlie Rangel
China
Chip Cravaack
Chris McDaniel
Christine O'Donnell
Christopher Painter
Civil Forfeiture
Claire Robling
Climate Change
Common Cause
CREW
Cybersecurity
Cynthia Lummis
Dan Hall
Dan Severson
Dave Brat
Dave Senjem
David Fitzsimmons
David Sturrock
Department of Justice
Department of Labor
Diane Johnson
Diane Rehm
Dick Armey
Donald Trump
DrudgeReport
Ed Morrissey
Education
Edward True
edX
Elijah Cummings
Erick Erickson
Erika Harold
Evie Axdahl
FBI
FCC
FEC
Federal Budget
Federal Communications Commission
Francesca Chambers
FreedomWorks
Gambling
Gay Marriage
General Electric
Geoff Michel
Global Warming
Good Legislators
Greg Davids
Growth & Opportunity
Growth and Opportunity Report
Haley Barbour
Harry Reid
Henry Barbour
Heritage Foundation
Hilda Solis
House Amendment 111
Iowa Caucus
Iowa Republican Party
Iran
IRS
ISIS
Jabhat al-Nusra
Jake Duesenberg
Janet Beihoffer
Jason Chaffetz
Jason Lewis
Jeff Bingaman
Jeff Flake
Jeff Johnson
Jeff Sessions
Jeh Johnson
Jim Abeler
Jim Oberstar
Jim Taylor
Joe Scarborough
John Blatnik
John Boehner
John Chafee
John Cornyn
John Gilmore
John Howe
John King
John Kline
John Kriesel
John McCain
John Nolte
John Yoo
Jonathan Merritt
Josh McKoon
Julianne Ortman
Julie Rosen
Justin Amash
Katrina Pierson
Keith Downey
Keith Ellison
Kelly Fenton
Keystone XL
King Banaian
KTLK
Kurt Bills
Kurt Daudt
Kurt Zellers
Labor Department
Laura Ingraham
Lee Goodman
Liberal Republicans
LightSquared
Linda Killian
LookTrueNorth
Loretta Lynch
Lost Generation
Louie Gohmert
Marco Rubio
Margaret Cavanagh
Marianne Stebbins
Mark Buesgens
Mark Dayton
Mark Foley
Mark Kennedy
Mark Meadows
Martin O'Malley
Marty Seifert
Mary Franson
Maryland
Matt Dean
Matthew Feeney
Media Bias
Mercatus Center
Michael Brodkorb
Michael Cummins
Michael Gerson
Michael Kubesh
Michael Mukasey
Michele Bachmann
Mike Benson
Mike O'Rielly
Mike Osskopp
Mike Parry
Mike Pompeo
Mike Sommers
Minimum Wage
Minnesota Budget
Minnesota Conservatives
Minnesota Legislature
Minnesota Republican Party
Minnesota Tea Party Alliance
Mitch Berg
Mitch McConnell
Mitch Pangerl
Mitt Romney
MNGOP
Modern States Education Alliance
MOOCs
Morrie Lanning
Nancy Pelosi
NARAL
National Security
Neal Peterson
Net Neutrality
New York Times
Newsbusters
Newt Gingrich
NFL
Norm Coleman
Norm Ornstein
NSA
ObamaCare
OccupyDC
Office of Fossil Energy
OPM
Orrin Hatch
Ottawa
Pat Anderson
Pat Buchanan
Pat Garofalo
Pat Shortridge
Paul Demko
Paul Gosar
Paul Koering
Paul Krugman
Paul Teller
Pete Hegseth
Pete Nelson
Pete Sessions
Peter King
Phil Krinkie
Pine City
Pine County
Pine County Republicans
Politics in Minnesota
President 2012
Privacy
Q&A
Racino
Rand Paul
Raul Labrador
Ravi Zacharias
Reason Magazine
Redistricting
Reince Priebus
Religious Freedom Restoration Act
Renee Ellmers
Republican Liberty Caucus
Republican National Convention
Republican Party of Minnesota
Republican Study Committee
Rich Murray
Rick Nolan
Rick Perry
Rick Santorum
Rick Weible
Right to Work
RNC
Rod Hamilton
Rodney Davis
Roger Crawford
Ron Carey
Ron DeSantis
Ron Erhardt
Ron Latz
Ron Paul
Ron Wyden
Rory Koch
RSC
Rudy in the Media
Ryan Winkler
Ryan-Murray
Scott Dibble
Scott Honour
Sean Duffy
SEIU
Sharon Angle
Simply Right
Simpson-Bowles
Socialists
Solar Power
Solyndra
Stadium
Star Tribune
State of the GOP
Steny Hoyer
Steve Gottwalt
Steve Hensley
Steve Jobs
Steve Largent
Steve Perkins
Steve Scalise
Steve Smith
Steven Chu
Stingrays
Sue Jeffers
Syria
Tad Jude
TARP
Tarryl Clark
Tax Foundation
Taxes
Taxpayers' League of Minnesota
Tea Party
Ted Cruz
Ted Lieu
Ted Lovdahl
Terry McCall
Thad Cochran
Thomas Mann
Thomas Massie
Thomas Miller
Thomas Sowell
Tim Cook
Tim Faust
Tim Griffin
Tim Huelskamp
Tim Kelly
Tim Pawlenty
Tim Scott
Title II
Tobacco Taxes
Todd McIntyre
Tom Clougherty
Tom Coburn
Tom Cotton
Tom DeLay
Tom Emmer
Tom Graves
Tom Harkin
Tom McClintock
Tony Sutton
Trans-Alaskan Pipeline
Twila Brase
Unemployment
Unions
Vin Weber
Virginia Foxx
Walter Mondale
Warren Buffett
Wilfare
Will Hurd
William McBridge
Xi Jinping
Yvonne Prettner Solon
Zygi Wilf
powered by

Rudy Takala's Columns

President Obama's Cohorts Working to Censor the Internet

Authored for United Liberty.

Earlier this month, President Obama called for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to unilaterally declare “net neutrality.” It would ensure a “free and open Internet,” he  stated.  “There should be no gatekeepers between you and your favorite online sites and services.”

Ironically, there has never been anything other than a free and open Internet. No one has ever proposed anything less –outside of President Obama’s own staff and Democratic academics who cover the telecommunications industry. 

One example is Cass Sunstein, who President Obama appointed as the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs – or “regulatory czar.” Sunstein, who worked with the President as a law professor at the University of Chicago’s Law School, has written copiously about the need to regulate the Internet.
 
“Citizens are often aware that their private choices, under a system of limitless options, may lead in unfortunate directions, both for them as individuals and for society at large,”  Sunstein wrote  of the Internet in his book,  Republic 2.0.  One solution he proposed was forcing Websites to link to other Websites with which they disagreed.
 
How are the limitless options of the Internet leading us in an “unfortunate direction”? Ample academic literature provides insight into the mindset. In his book  True Enough,  journalistFarhad Manjoo summarizes one study conducted by Stanford Communications Chair Shanto Iyengar: “[Iyengar] discovered that Republicans were far friendlier to Fox than were Democrats to either CNN or NPR; Republicans showed, in other words, a much greater propensity toward giving in to their bias.”
 
Manjoo provided his own conclusion: “The greater Republican bias is in keeping with numerous psychological studies that show conservatives to be much more willing to consume media that toe the ideological line. This phenomenon… helps explain, in no small degree, the amazingly successful right-wing pundit factory.”
 
So they believe that too much access to information helps conservatives while hurting liberals. That is happening, these academics argue, only because liberals are too open-minded and conservatives are not. As liberals consume more conservative content, they too presumably become more conservative and less open-minded, and are trapped into the wrong set of ideas by the ruthless market of free speech enabled by the Internet.
 
Sunstein, Iyengar, Manjoo and others in the academic community do not view access to information as a positive thing for democracy. They believe that if government agencies do not filter the news that consumers see or read, they are not going to choose to consume the “correct” news.
 
The federal government has even allocated grant money to research how all of this subversive speech can be put down. The National Science Foundation, a federal agency whose mission is to “promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity and welfare; and to secure the national defense,” gave $1 million to researchers at the University of Indiana to examine speech on Twitter.

Specifically, the researchers are  looking at how  to “mitigate the diffusion of false and misleading ideas, detect hate speech and subversive propaganda, and assist in the preservation of open debate.” So to assist in the preservation of open debate, the researchers are looking at how to put down what they deem subversive propaganda. By taking free speech away, they argue that we will actually have more of it – or at least more of the “right” kind of free speech and less of the “wrong” kind.

What qualifies as subversive? Like Manjoo and Iyengar, the Indiana team believes that the Internet has been polluted by too much conservative content. Ajit Pai, a member of the FCC,  wrote  an op-ed for the Washington Post on the topic last month. In it, he recounts a 2012  paper  that the Indiana researchers had written in which they complained of a “highly-active, densely-interconnected constituency of right-leaning users using [Twitter] to further their political views.”

Net neutrality does not call for unfettered access to the Web so much as it calls for equal access. Equal access is worth little if it is simply an excuse for federal agencies to determine what consumers are permitted to read and believe.

No private providers have called for the censorship of political content on the Internet. A number of liberal academics have called for censorship, including President Obama’s own regulatory czar. If President Obama wants to protect freedom on the Internet, he should begin by keeping his associates away from it.

0 Comments to President Obama's Cohorts Working to Censor the Internet:

Comments RSS

Add a Comment

Your Name:
Email Address: (Required)
Website:
Comment:
Make your text bigger, bold, italic and more with HTML tags. We'll show you how.
Post Comment
Website Builder provided by  Vistaprint