Archives: [f] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [news / qst] [trash] Boards: [meta]
/b/stats 2.0: beta edition
since 27 Jan 2013
Please send questions/comments/spam/death threats/love letters to webmaster (at) b-stats.org
All times EST/EDT
Active development is on GitHub



Thread #244527
View on 4chan

Replies 95 (95)
Image Replies 0 (0)
Lifetime 2d 22h 32m 7s
Deleted Posts 0
the-worst-part-of-censorship-is-4.jpg (356 KB, 640x960, 1523335725867.jpgiqdb google reposts full
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/04/it-begins-california-senator-introduces-bill-to-kill-free-speech-requires-state-sanctioned-fact-checkers-to-approve-online-content/
by Jim Hoft
April 9, 2018

It Begins: California Senator Introduces Bill to Kill Free Speech, Requires State-Sanctioned Fact Checkers to Approve Online Content

Richard Pan is a far left California state senator.

Pan recently introduced legislation to crack down on free speech on the internet.

Pan’s legislation would force online publishers to utilize state-sanctioned fact checkers to approve content before it is posted online.

Jon Rappaport reported:

The bill is titled “SB1424 Internet: social media: false information: strategic plan.”

It targets social media based in California. But as you read the bill, you see it appears to define social media as any Internet blog, website, or communication.

SB1424 is brief. Read it:

cont.
>>
>>244527

This bill would require any person who operates a social media, as defined, Internet Web site with a physical presence in California to develop a strategic plan to verify news stories shared on its Web site. The bill would require the plan to include, among other things, a plan to mitigate the spread of false information through news stories, the utilization of fact-checkers to verify news stories, providing outreach to social media users, and placing a warning on a news story containing false information.

(a) Any person who operates a social media Internet Web site with physical presence in California shall develop a strategic plan to verify news stories shared on its Internet Web site.

(b) The strategic plan shall include, but is not limited to, all of the following:

(1) A plan to mitigate the spread of false information through news stories.

(2) The utilization of fact-checkers to verify news stories.

(3) Providing outreach to social media users regarding news stories containing false information.

(4) Placing a warning on a news story containing false information.

(c) As used in this section, “social media” means an electronic service or account, or electronic content, including, but not limited to, videos, still photographs, blogs, video blogs, podcasts, instant and text messages, email, online services or accounts, or Internet Web site profiles or locations.

Getting the picture?

It’s a free speech killer.

This is what the Democratic Party has become — intolerant fascists.

FIN
>>
>>244528
Show me where in these rules your work is censored outright or barred from publishing. All this amounts to is the media equivalent of 'LUNG CANCER IS BAD' stickers on cigarettes, which are still sold and bought anyway. People who want to read it won't care and aren't hindered in the slightest.
>>
>>244535
> Show me where in these rules your work is censored outright or barred from publishing.

(2) The utilization of fact-checkers to verify news stories.

> People who want to read it won't care and aren't hindered in the slightest.

(c) As used in this section, “social media” means an electronic service or account, or electronic content, including, but not limited to, videos, still photographs, blogs, video blogs, podcasts, instant and text messages, email, online services or accounts, or Internet Web site profiles or locations.
>>
False information is false information. Doesn't matter what the political position of someone who posts it is, in the end it's still misleading. Can't wait to see their censorship bill bite them in their own asses.
>>
>>244527
As a Californian I have to say this blows. Our government is made out of corrupt moralizing incompetents and there is no way they'll get this right.
>>
>>244539
>Can't wait to see their censorship bill bite them in their own asses.
Yeah I'm sure their state-sanctioned fact checkers will be fully encouraged to tattle on the hand that feeds them.
>>
>>244527
The Internet isn't a right, it's a privilege. Banning free speech on the Internet isn't against any constitution or unspoken rule. Some of you assholes need to be censored!
>>
>>244541
If I was a website operator I'd certainly mark any fake news as being that regardless of the source. Californians already deal with useless fearmongering like cancer warnings on every other product and you don't see people exempting certain products because of arbitrary reasons.
>>
>>244546
>If I was a website operator I'd certainly mark any fake news as being that regardless of the source.

But what is "fake news"?

> Trump is an asshole!

California Ministry of Truth : true news

> Governor Jerry Brown is an asshole!

California Ministry of Truth : fake news! You are banned!
>>
>>244543
> The Internet isn't a right, it's a privilege.

The internet has become a defacto “utility” like the phone or electric company and should be subject to similar regulations.
>>
>>244552
Ok. So use it as a utility, not a platform for speech or a place to share stupid pictures and dumb opinions. Those are still just privileges.
>>
>>244550
If they have the facts to back those claims up I have no problem. And if the facts were there it probably wouldn't be too hard to find them in plain sight.
but who am I kidding, this is literal fascism and it's closer than we think
>>
>>244543
>>
>>244543
Some countries are considering or have already ratified laws cementing Internet access as a right
>>
>>244556
> So use it as a utility, not a platform for speech

What kinda speech the Internet is used for is nobody’s business but your own, neither the corporations nor the government should be censoring you, just as with your cellphone.
>>
>>244566
>tell someone to plant the bomb over the phone
>get arrested
>"wahhhh censorship!!!"
>>
>>244528
>This bill would require any person who operates a social media, as defined, Internet Web site with a physical presence in California to develop a strategic plan to verify news stories shared on its Web site.
Goodbye facebook, hardly knew ye
>>
>>244543
Maybe not in the shithole country you come from, America, you have the right to publish what you want, whether in print, on the internet, or anywhere else.

Anyway, this proposed law doesn't have a chance in hell of surviving its first court challenge, and even the total retards down in the California state legislature have at least one lawyer on staff who knows this, so that'll be the end of that.
>>
>>244571
but in America*
>>
>>244528
So The Gateway Pundit wouldn't allowed to be posted anywhere without a huge sticker that says "FAKE NEWS?"

I'm okay with that.
>>
>>244575
If the government were allowed to decide what's true and what's not Donald Trump would declare everything that makes him look bad is not true and America would be over.
>>
>>244528
>Any person who operates a social media Internet Web site with physical presence in California shall develop a strategic plan to verify news stories shared on its Internet Web site.
Well I'm screwed... Though my sites are hosted in Chicago and Canada, so... IDK.

Wait a sec...

Isn't 4chan both hosted and officed in California?

Well, nice knowing ya /news/.
>>
>>244576
>(2) The utilization of fact-checkers to verify news stories.
It doesn't say that a state sponsored fact checker will be provided, just that you have to employ your own to verify stories.
>>
>>244571
I do live in america you fucking retard
>>
>>244603
Well, you'd better learn about this thing called the "First Amendment."
>>
>>244527
>See picture of Palestinian citizens being shot at by idf
>Find out from the ministry of truth that it is indeed >fake news
>Continue sipping coffee knowing all is well in the world except for Russia because they're evil
>>
>>244527
>state-sanctioned fact checkers
This bit is fake news being pushed on a lot sites (who are justifiably angry), but there is no such wording in the bill.

Does raise the question though - SFAIK there is no regulated "fact checking" industry. Who watches the watchers?

On the other hand...

>As used in this section, “social media” means an electronic service or account, or electronic content, including, but not limited to, videos, still photographs, blogs, video blogs, podcasts, instant and text messages, email, online services or accounts, or Internet Web site profiles or locations.
Sounds like they are requiring this not only of social media outlets, but end users - and e-mails and text messages to boot, and not a lot of folks are raising their eyebrows at this by comparison. It's one thing to regulate the broadcasting industry - SCOTUS already ruled this constitutional long ago (which is what makes this bill scary - precedent already supports it, so it'd be hard to fight), but regulating individual free speech, save where it entails immediate danger or direct threat to life and such, is another thing.
>>
Ted Kaczinsky was right:

219. Leftism is a totalitarian force. Wherever leftism is in a position of power it tends to invade every private corner and force every thought into a leftist mold. In part this is because of the quasi-religious character of leftism; everything contrary to leftist beliefs represents Sin. More importantly, leftism is a totalitarian force because of the leftists’ drive for power. The leftist seeks to satisfy his need for power through identification with a social movement and he tries to go through the power process by helping to pursue and attain the goals of the movement (see paragraph 83). But no matter how far the movement has gone in attaining its goals the leftist is never satisfied, because his activism is a surrogate activity (see paragraph 41). That is, the leftist’s real motive is not to attain the ostensible goals of leftism; in reality he is motivated by the sense of power he gets from struggling for and then reaching a social goal. [35] Consequently the leftist is never satisfied with the goals he has already attained; his need for the power process leads him always to pursue some new goal. The leftist wants equal opportunities for minorities. When that is attained he insists on statistical equality of achievement by minorities. And as long as anyone harbors in some corner of his mind a negative attitude toward some minority, the leftist has to re-educated him. And ethnic minorities are not enough; no one can be allowed to have a negative attitude toward homosexuals, disabled people, fat people, old people, ugly people, and on and on and on. It’s not enough that the public should be informed about the hazards of smoking; a warning has to be stamped on every package of cigarettes. Then cigarette advertising has to be restricted if not banned. The activists will never be satisfied until tobacco is outlawed, and after that it will be alcohol, then junk food, etc.
>>
Ted Kaczinsky was right

216. Some leftists may seem to oppose technology, but they will oppose it only so long as they are outsiders and the technological system is controlled by non-leftists. If leftism ever becomes dominant in society, so that the technological system becomes a tool in the hands of leftists, they will enthusiastically use it and promote its growth. In doing this they will be repeating a pattern that leftism has shown again and again in the past. When the Bolsheviks in Russia were outsiders, they vigorously opposed censorship and the secret police, they advocated self-determination for ethnic minorities, and so forth; but as soon as they came into power themselves, they imposed a tighter censorship and created a more ruthless secret police than any that had existed under the tsars, and they oppressed ethnic minorities at least as much as the tsars had done. In the United States, a couple of decades ago when leftists were a minority in our universities, leftist professors were vigorous proponents of academic freedom, but today, in those of our universities where leftists have become dominant, they have shown themselves ready to take away from everyone else’s academic freedom. (This is “political correctness.”) The same will happen with leftists and technology: They will use it to oppress everyone else if they ever get it under their own control.
>>
>>244550
absolutely this 10000%
literally 1984
>>
>>244623
>>244624
Sadly, I wouldn't be surprised to see this same bill come from the right in another state under different circumstances. They pushed for the end of the Fairness Doctrine that gave us fake news in prime time networks to begin with, killed net neutrality, etc. etc. Regardless of wing, flight plan seems to be the same.

This is still a special kind of retarded, however, even for California. If it only affected industry, I suspect Cali would be risking its entire Silicon Valley cash cow in the processes (simply move your offices). As it affects individuals as well, I don't see how it can hope to stand up in court. If it's merely a symbolic gesture, I fail to see it can possibly give any positive message.
>>
>>244604
It doesn't apply to the Internet stupid
>>
>>244668
thats arguable.
it could be argued that US citizens have the unalienable right under US law to speak or publish whatever they wish, orally, in print or digitally according to the first amendment.
The only exceptions made so far is if you try to digitally publish something on a website that is not owned by you (facebook, twitter, etc) then the website owner has the right to filter what they want.
but arguably, if a US citizen were to start their own website, the constitution protects just about anything they want to publish on it
>>
>>244668
It applies to any and all communication mediums, and also includes false speech:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Alvarez

But the government can regulate broadcasters:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_v._Pacifica_Foundation

God help us all if we have a SCOTUS decision that declares all public posters "broadcasters".
>>
The founding father NEVER imagined that something like the internet could exist.
Freedom of speech only applies to soap boxes in the town square and freedom of press only applies to manually operated moveable type presses.
>>
>>244682
Doesn't matter - Marbury v. Madison means the Supreme Court fixes anything that comes along they couldn't have foreseen in the spirit of the Constitution as they interpret it. Founding fathers didn't imagine nukes or satellites either. It's not like the Constitution was just suddenly frozen in time in 1776 (or that it even really serves as letter of the law, so much as spirit, given that it can't stand as a legal document as written).

They did, however, have writing, pamphlets, newspapers, mail, et. al, and thus "any and all forms of communication" became the standard interpretation of said court right quick.

So the Internet's well covered. Private enterprises can regulate free speech on their websites however they choose, just as any question collum or call-in show can, but the government cannot curtail individual free speech on the Internet anymore than they can from a soapbox... Unless, of course, SCOTUS declares all internet users incorporated broadcasters and subject to regulation as such (or a lower court does, and SCOTUS lets it stick).
>>
>still photographs can be false information
lel
>>
>>244732
Well, yes, even without Photoshop, and I'd post an example, but meh, /news/.
>>
>>244668
It does because it's still speech. And also for press, your publishing your opinion online, so this whole thing is unconstitutional. Don't worry, this isn't gonna happen (I'm pretty sure).
>>
>>244738
you must be retarded. link me to a single photograph thats nod doctored that is false.
>>
>>244742
First, I dunno why "nod doctored" would be a requirement. Secondly, crazy info images are all over this board, find one yourself. Thirdly, it's pretty simple to make a suspicious looking photo by taking a scene out of context, or crop one to do the same. Fourthly, why am I even responding to something that you could resolve for yourself by thinking about it for two seconds that's dragging the whole thread offtopic anyways?

Fine...
http://media.fakeposters.com/results/2009/07/17/1utdrg3est.jpg
>>
>>244745
>thats not a photo of some black kids and a soldier looking downward sometime in the evening
10/10 nice false photograph
>>
>>244689
>wtf is sarcasm
>>
>>244761
I'm sorry, I deal with people who are actually this stupid every day. Sometimes they aren't even on 4chan.
>>
>>244749
>used as proof the military is child molesting darkies
>>
>>244741
I really wish it would happen, but it won't. This shit would get shot down in court before it even went into effect.
>>
The Supreme Court would be really slow if it wasn't for Democrat fascism
>>
>>244567
> tell someone to plant the bomb over the phone

Even then, the cops should have get a court order to tap your phone.

Technology shouldn’t lead to the loss of our human and civil rights, just because it’s easier for the government to abuse them.

And Facebook, Twitter, etc. should be treated as utilities and not allowed to censor users due to their political beliefs.
>>
>>244571
>Anyway, this proposed law doesn't have a chance in hell of surviving its first court challenge

it shouldn't even have to get anywhere near a court room, the state legislator who proposed this ought to be tarred and feathered and ridden out of town a fuck rail.
>>
>>244582
>>(2) The utilization of fact-checkers to verify news stories.
>It doesn't say that a state sponsored fact checker will be provided, just that you have to employ your own to verify stories.

The “fact checker” has to be approved and verified by the State, otherwise what’s the point?

“Hillary Clinton is actually Bat Boy!”

Fact checked by: Me
>>
>>244631
> They pushed for the end of the Fairness Doctrine that gave us fake news in prime time networks to begin with, killed net neutrality, etc.

The “Fairness Doctrine” was simply an earlier version of this retarded legislation; mandating “fact checkers” in the form of granting access someone opposed to whatever it was you just said, effectively paying for someone to talk shit about you.
>>
>>244782
How is facebook or twitter a utility? What unique service do they provide that you can't get from some other knock off?

The utility argument works with power, water, etc because it is physically and economically infessable to have multiple companies servicing one area. There is nothing stopping you from using the thousands of of not facebook apps and sites.
>>
>>244797
>economically infessable
take the dick out of your brain, it's impairing your ability to communicate
>>
>>244797
> How is facebook or twitter a utility?

The size and scope of their operations (and the wealth and power that comes with it) has moved them well beyond just some run-of-the-mill Internet app, they’ve become global communications corporations, (Facebook has over a BILLION people across the planet signing in everyday) to the point that some companies nowadays flat-out won’t hire you if you refuse to give them access to your Facebook page or claim you don’t have one.

It’s ridiculous to claim that the same run-of-the-mill business regulations that apply to a mom & pop corner restaurant, ought to just as equally apply to Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc.

It’s the equivalent of saying that someone keeping a Bengal tiger as a pet, is no different then their neighbor who has a house cat.
>>
>>244785
>The “fact checker” has to be approved and verified by the State, otherwise what’s the point?
Bill says no such. News organizations used to be required to have a fact checking mechanism, but it could be internal, independent, or what not. It was only that if they got caught spreading misinformation via broadcast they could be sued or prosecuted. Now they can't even be sued for liable or slander, and can say whatever the hell they want - the only risk being that it could hurt their reputation. Which isn't a problem, if you tell people the lies they want to hear.

And that *should* change, the News broadcasting should be held to some standard, but this... This not only forces private industry that has no journalistic branch to fact check people who are basically writing on a wall they provide, it also prevents the people themselves from even telling lies in the most commonly used communication mechanism on the planet. You're basically just outlawing lying, or even unknowingly repeating misinformation, and that's all kinds of fucked.
>>
>>244787
>The “Fairness Doctrine” was simply an earlier version of this retarded legislation; mandating “fact checkers” in the form of granting access someone opposed to whatever it was you just said, effectively paying for someone to talk shit about you.
Which prevented you from broadcasting whatever lopsided narrative you wanted without being contested, and literally kept things "fair and balanced". It didn't prevent you from having some leftwing/rightwing show, but it stopped you from pretending your political pandering bullshit was actually news.

A free press isn't much use as a mechanism to maintaining democracy, if it can't remain neutral. Even if you have competing viewpoints on different networks, they just become echo chambers, instead of sources of information, presenting what you want to hear, instead of the truth. That's fine for entertainment, not for news.
>>
>>244527
Goddamn this state is determined to drive away the middle class citizens and replace them all with illegals who don't care about he state so long as they get gibs. I need to g eat out of this state if I want to keep my rights.

President trump, please sue/arrest every politician in Sacramento who treat California like their own tyrannical fiefdom.
>>
>>244527
Really?
My god
>>
Will the fact checking entity be called Ministry of Truth?
>>
>>244527
Do you Operate websites within California?
>>
>>244557
This. It will hold the media to a higher standard. Instead of throwing stories out to the public that may or may not be true which is what the media dose now. It will hold the media SOURCE accountable if anything is a miss.
>>
>>244850
Are you posting on one? Yes, yes you are.

>>244853
Except now anyone that uses 4chan is part of "the media".

I've no issues regulating official news organizations to some degree, maybe simply by given them an approval stamp they can display, or maybe even requiring a disclaimer if they fail to meet the standard, rather than shutting them down - but:

>As used in this section, “social media” means an electronic service or account, or electronic content, including, but not limited to, videos, still photographs, blogs, video blogs, podcasts, instant and text messages, email, online services or accounts, or Internet Web site profiles or locations.

That equates to any internet or phone user. If anyone who posts on the internet or texts can be regulated like a broadcaster, that's all kinds of fucked.
>>
>>244850
>>244854
I'm asking if you're from California.
>>
>>244850
Not OP, or either of the people you were talking to, but I have websites hosted in California.
>>
>>244859
I'm not OP, but yes, I am currently in Commiefornia - and I own websites. Albeit, they aren't actually hosted here.
>>
holy fuck how was this not just thrown out. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB1424
>>
>>244892
The tab marked "History" shows that it was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, where hopefully at least one person knows what the First Amendment is and allows it to die a sad death.
>>
>>244899
They have been actively editing it (the reded out sections) as in someone somewhere is giving this serious consideration so much that formal edits are being recorded and considered.
>>
>>244901
It's got one amendment, but that amendment consists of throwing away a completely different bill and replacing it with this one.
>>
>>244538
Fine, so a bunch of civil servants mark your poorly sourced speculative piece as 'fake news'. Again, how does this stop you from publishing it anyway for your target audience, who will ignore it anyway (or even see it as verification they're on the right track)?
>>
>>244907
The law prohibits you from publishing false information - and not just media companies, but individual users.

>Prohibits a person, among others, from making or disseminating in any advertising device, or in any manner or means whatever, including over the Internet, any statement concerning real or personal property or services that is untrue or misleading, as specified.

Though it would put an interesting twist on that whole "You really think someone would do that? Just go on the Internet and tell lies?" meme. It'd literally be illegal.

...and not just in California, but for any site hosted or headquartered in California. Meaning, yes, you might be safe shitposting on 4chan from Australia (which as a native you are genetically predestined to do), but the site could be shut down as a result, "Everything here is lies" disclaimer be damned.

And if it goes to SCOTUS, and SCOTUS declares that everyone on the internet is a broadcaster, it could stick.
>>
>>244535
>posts a satirical piece
>forgets to label with "This is satire"
>gets slapped with a fine for "fake news"

>Hit with a fine for posting non-state sanctioned controversial studies

>Fined for using data that is not state sanctioned to prove/disprove a story
>>
>>244907
Forcing you to mark everything the state doesn't like as "fake news" is compelled speech, and compelled speech is a violation of the First Amendment.
>>
>>244911
I'm not seeing anything in the law that'd let you get away with marking things as "fake news". It just seems to say any false or misleading information at all.
>>
>>244909
>everyone on the internet is a broadcaster
Might happen. Microsoft has already declared they won't allow George Carlin's seven words on any of their communication services or games. Wouldn't be much of a leap to regulate everyone on the net as if they were broadcasters.

Granted, I've been swearing up as storm on Skype, and they ain't shut me down yet.

I have always suspected this bit where www stands for wild wild west nature of the Internet was a limited time deal. Net neutrality is dead, so the ISPs can kill anything they want, and eventually some security issue is going to cause governments to force up an IP system that forces you to log in from something with a verifiable identity, with various legislation and devices already waiting.

Enjoy the Internet while you can.
>>
>>244907
>Fine, so a bunch of civil servants mark your poorly sourced speculative piece as 'fake news'.
Anon we have recently seen a massive upset where a change in leadership lead to a sweeping realization of how badly giving the government any new powers can go. Try this little thought experiment to see why thats retarded.

>Civil servants mark what is and isnt fake news
>They are appointed by Jon Q. Representative
>2 years pass
>Reelection
>They are now appointed by Donald Trump
>4 years pass
>They are now appointed by Liz Warren
>4 years pass
>They are now appointed by Senator James T. Diametrically-Opposed-to-your-Beliefs lV
>>
>>244603
then you're just a retarded bootlicker.
how about you stop posting to back up your shit claim?
>>
>>244527
Please trump, save California from the dems!
>>
>>244977
Califag here, we're far too late and I say this as someone who thinks far left and far right are equally deplorable. It just so happens that this time it's the lefties being the fascists.
>>
>>244915
>>They are now appointed by Senator James T. Diametrically-Opposed-to-your-Beliefs lV

lol
>>
>>244909
>The law prohibits you from publishing false information - and not just media companies, but individual users.

No it does not, the 1st Amendment is not limited to factually true speech. It's perfectly legal to lie.

"The sky is red."

Go ahead and try to prosecute me.
>>
>>245097
No one's saying the law isn't blatantly unconstitutional, we're talking about the content of the law itself.

But, as I've said elsewhere, SCOTUS already ruled that it is perfectly constitutional to regulate broadcaster - and if every public internet post is deemed to be a broadcast, a law like this could easily become constitutional, and it could spread.
>>
>>245026
>Both sides are awful!
>It's too late!
>The lefties are the fascists!
>I'm totally at the center
Kay, cuck lol
>>
>>245101
I consider myself moderately conservative, unlike cucks who can't understand that there's a spectrum between the two extremes.
>>
>>245098
It is only constitutional to regulate broadcasters because there are effectively a finite number of airwaves. Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC established that you could regulate broadcasters for fairness because "the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a radio frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens."

The same type of regulation is not constitutional with respect to book publishers or newspapers, because with broadcasters, the government is essentially dicing out a finite number of airwaves and rationing them out. In this regard the internet is far more like the publishing industry than the broadcast industry. It's broadcasting here that is the exception - internet speech is as free as speech anywhere else.
>>
>>245106
>It is only constitutional to regulate broadcasters because there are effectively a finite number of airwaves.
Not since FCC v. Radio Pacifica, sadly. You can regulate broadcasters to protect the public from whatever, including George Carlin.
>>
>>245103
>Calling lefties the fascists after it's already been determined in this thread that the legislature is more or less an extension of the previously established fairness doctrine
>I consider myself moderately conservative
Kay, cuck lol
>>
>>245107
>>It is only constitutional to regulate broadcasters because there are effectively a finite number of airwaves.
>Not since FCC v. Radio Pacifica, sadly.

It still only applies to broadcasters, cable tv networks for example can show what they want without restriction.
>>
>>245115
That's only true because cable is a subscription service. You don't get their programing unless you pay for it. Thus, they are not broadcasters.

Reading this post is free.

Not that you couldn't see a similar argument in court. With Net Neutrality dead, an ISP can block any webpage they choose, so, should they start doing that more blatantly before the case hits the court, one could argue that, similar to cable, you are paying for a customized package of channels. However, free Internet is even easier to acquire than free TV, and is a public service in many cities.

Alternatively, every site goes behind a pay wall.
>>
>>245119
>That's only true because cable is a subscription service.
No, it's not. The Supreme Court makes it extremely explicit the only reason they are allowed to regulate broadcast media is because airwaves are finite and licensed.

There is literally zero court precedent for your notion that free = regulation. You've completely made that up just now.
>>
>>245121
>FCC: Cable television system operators generally make their own selection of channels and programs to be distributed to subscribers in response to consumer demands. The Commission does, however, have rules in some areas that are applicable to programming -- called "origination cablecasting" in the rules -- that are subject to the editorial control of the cable system operator. The rules generally do not apply to the content of broadcast channels or to access channels over which the cable system operator has no editorial control.
Less about it being free, more about the viewer specifically requesting the content, rather than being randomly assaulted with.

Though you do have to enter the URL, so even though it is free, it could be considered requested. Then again, the way Congress pulled Zuckerberg into court, as if Facebook is some sorta public utility people had to use to live, that could go either way.

On the other hand, the FCC *does* regulate cable providers in a lot of different ways ("equal opportunities" clause, political advertising rate restrictions, child advertising restrictions, notification and identification, variations of the slander exposure rules, editorial rules, various advertising restrictions unique to cable, sponsorship identification, etc. etc.)
>>
>>244527
Can we rename this fucking state to the Socialist People's Republic of California.

At this point the only good thing about living here is the weather. All of the insane commies, sjws, industry of any kind hating, totalitarian pricks.
>>
>>245123
> > It still only applies to broadcasters, cable tv networks for example can show what they want without restriction.
> The rules generally do not apply to the content of broadcast channels or to access channels over which the cable system operator has no editorial control.

So like I said; cable can do as it pleases because it's not broadcast over the air.
>>
>>245216
https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Cable+Communications+Policy+Act+of+1984&item_type=topic
>>
>>245188
true enough let's just have another alabama or mississippi america can't get enough flyovers

page took 0.0334 seconds to execute