United Nations to Regulate the Internet?

United Nations to Regulate the Internet?

politics.blogs.foxnews.com

FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell suggests that is a real possibility. Chris Stirewalt and the Commissioner discussed the subject today on Power Play Live.

Read more: politics.blogs.foxnews.com...

(visit the link for the full news article)

Mod Edit: Comprehensive 'Breaking Alternative News' Forum Posting Guidelines – Please Review This Link.

I know this subject has been talked about on ATS before, but I thought this video was very informative, presenting opinions from both sides on the matter. I think "net neutrality" would be disastrous, let me know what you think.
Part of the video includes Senator Al Franken, who has been a long time proponent of turning over internet regulation to the United Nations. Basically he claims that by doing so, it would actually increase our rights to freedom of speech. I wholeheartedly disagree. I think if regulation was turned over to the UN, it would be just one more way they control information to hide their secret agendas.

politics.blogs.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

nothing to worry over the u.n holds the record for being incompetent twits..
Then again maybe should worry they make a mistake and the web revert to being slower than the old dialup services...

You know what it means? The CIA spooks will have diplomatic immunity to hack people's computers all over the world. Not that they already don't do it, but probably if the internet becomes regulated by UN, people all over the planet will have to worry about black vans stopped in front of their doors, not only the Americans.

reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard


they have been do it for a long time already ,get kapersky and load it up come here and type in jfk assassination and their tie in,jfk said they were a national disgrace 2 weeks before his untimely death. and the little box on the bottom left pops up and say the cia is hacking your computer -- allow or disallow.they already did it to me.
freedom of speech no all freedoms will disappear -why are they building all of these new super jails here in canada and the us ,how about the rest of you ,as they say it is for the criminal element and yet they are all passing these new laws saying speak your piece against them and go to jail directly for 30 days with no charges and no phone calls.
RIGHTS FREEDOMS they are already gone and we the people of the world let them away with this . as they never said a word until after the fact and most people are worried about everything else .
it seems the knife is their favorite weapon,,, backs getting sore yet people.

reply to post by picratus


OK, i use Kaspersky. I copied this text string from your prior post:

jfk assassination and their tie in,jfk said they were a national disgrace 2 weeks before his untimely death

pasted into search on ATS, and all I got was:

powered by

Custom Search
Web
(0)




No Results

Meanwhile, in my system tray, Kaspersky just sat there twiddling his thumbs and thinking about making the viruses in quarantine play gladiator again.

reply to post by MitchL61


Its both a good and bad idea. I would like to see some of the finer details worked out, specifically what would be allowed and what would be censored. What about media broadcasting that usues both non biased as well as opinion based?

What about religious websites? NeoNazi websites? Communist, Democratic etc websites. Just because we dont agree with capitalism or communism or New Nazi doesnt mean they should be censored. That alone would fly in the face of some fundamental laws in the US.

Which is the next issue, allowing an outside entity with no direct accountability to the people of the US or other countries for that matter, making decisions for the whole.

If this occurs without those basic questions being asked, arent we setting up he precedent to allow the UN a little more control of other areas? I know the UNhas been hot on pushing for complete weapon bans / sales when it comes to civilians owning them.

To me this is a slippery slope issue waiting to happen. As I said, im not completely against it, but I want to see the fine print before this goes anywhere.

The UN is not a democratic entity and it does not have independant oversight. We do not get to vote for our UN reps, nor are we able to hold them accountible, let alone fire them if they chose to act in an interest that runs counter to the US Constitution and will of the people.

Its both a good and bad idea. I would like to see some of the finer details worked out, specifically what would be allowed and what would be censored. What about media broadcasting that usues both non biased as well as opinion based?

reply to post by Xcathdra


Good comment. I agree with you. I don't think all the proposed ideas are bad, I am however, opposed to the United Nations being the overseeing body. I would prefer it be an elected body. But, I'm with you as far as we would need to iron out all the specifics.

I am vehemently opposed, as I do not believe the internet needs regulating. Why do we think everything needs regulating? Because there are things we don't like?

We have laws in place, in each nation. Just let those laws cover it, and leave it alone.

There is enough regulation in my life.

the un should never ever be able to regulate JACK S*** in the u.s.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

reply to post by MitchL61


The UN is a joke and a diaster. They are nothing but of overpaid psycopaths leeching off the entire planet. Now they want to watch me take a shower or what goes on in my bedroom among other things. Why in the world are the people paying money that they work for to support this criminal buncg?

reply to post by MitchL61


Who says they are allowed to ?

Originally posted by violence=answer
the un should never ever be able to regulate JACK S*** in the u.s.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

While I understand your argument, I dont think it applies in the manner you are suggesting.

People have the right to freely travel within as well as across state lines. The method of transportation though is not a protected method.

Freedom of Speech has basic limitations placed on it - IE cant yell fire in a crowded theatre. This website is an example as well. Since its a private entity the owners of this site can place restrictions on what people can talk about - as an example drug use is against the T and C and can result in being banned from the site for violating it.

That action and site policy is not a violation of a persons 1st amendment right.

Anyways, like I said I want to see all the details for this.

reply to post by MitchL61


They already are as far as I'm concerned.

reply to post by MitchL61


i have a few questions for all here .
pass them on.
why should they be allowed to censer the net?
where is the freedom of speech in this?
is this another way of controlling the populace world wide?
is this a way to silence those who do not agree with them-those who think outside of the box?
is the voices of the people`s discontent being chocked off so that they can continue to control this our world with an unseen iron fist?

and we wonder why they have meetings behind closed doors,considering that they are supposed to work for us as we pay their wages?
any one else want to contribute to this small list.please feel free to do so ,and start talking globally not just in your own countries as we are seeing their forceful oppression taking place in other nations whose people are disgusted with the mindless mind set of the governments and the corrupt banking system of the world.

How about the news networks?

reply to post by eyespying

the news networks ,what a joke they are .in all reality they are nothing more than propaganda puppets for the governments ,banks and all the rest of them,as gw bush said the unholy trinity.i say take a look at themselves ,cause they all smell like a kettle of bad fish. phew.

Oh crap, if the United Nations gets their dirty little banker-controlled fingers on this, then it'll be truly official once and for all... We'll all be up a creek without a paddle, globally !

This could be bad, really really bad.

UN don't trump 1st Ammendment.

The 2nd Ammendment guarantees that.

Originally posted by beezzer
UN don't trump 1st Ammendment.

The 2nd Ammendment guarantees that.

If the FCC squeeks through various regulation laws and then hands over the power of policing to the UN, you can kiss any 1st amendment declarations goodbye.

For every law, there can be another one implemented to overrule the first one by way of "exception". The constitution and its amendments are not infallible.

Just sayin'