4 ms·
> balance free speech needs -- to prevent ISPs and Backbone providers from censoring the content they carry Unless it's not deemed "legal." And I'm not talking
by tertius 12y ago
> balance free speech needs -- to prevent ISPs and Backbone providers from censoring the content they carry
Unless it's not deemed "legal." And I'm not talking about torrenting.
- cratermoon 12y agoThe big media companies have almost nothing to worry about when it comes to the legality of the content they sell. It's the individual user or small dissident group that would be harmed by repressive censorship rules. Those same interests would fair no better under corporate-controlled internet, because their views would be blocked or crowded out of access by the companies protecting their own interests.
- tertius 12y agoExcept when their own interests do not clash with that of those trying to exercise free speech. Which is pretty universally the case. Regulation will now make it harder for those persons who value free speech, we only have "legal speech" left.
- Karunamon 12y agoIs there a substantive difference between the two? Free speech has always been subject to a handful of legal regulations. In any case, this is a red herring.
- pjc50 12y agoWhat are you referring to? And surely this is orthogonal to whether it's Title II or not; not being title II does not magically prevent anything.
- chetanahuja 12y agoCalling FUD here. Do you have any precedent or any other legal basis for imagining that this reclassification will somehow allow FCC to regulate content on the internet.