[ExI] internet regulation as a public utility
William Flynn Wallace
foozler83 at gmail.com
Tue Nov 11 19:38:03 UTC 2014
Whose free speech, corporations? I'm one of those anarchist/libertarians
who thinks personhood for corporations should be abolished, so they can no
longer claim protection under the Constitution.
I am not an anarchist but fully agree with the above. And if that's what
you want, you need Democrats to fill courts incl. the Supreme Court, and if
you want that you'll have to vote for Democrats. Chances of taking away
anything from corporations under
Repubs is zero. (can a probability be less than zero? If any can, this
one can.) bill w
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 7:32 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 2014 5:07 PM, "spike" <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> > I read up on it and I come away with little doubt: any attempt at
> regulation is a bad thing. It sets up too many risks for violation of free
> speech enforced by the IRS.
> ...at least target the right agency, please! The IRS wouldn't be
> regulating this, but the FCC, and they are directly about regulating the
> things that speech happens via.
> Also, in this case it's not a question if if there will be regulations but
> just of who will create and enforce them. If the FCC does not, then the
> Internet service companies will reserve most to all of their bandwidth for
> the large media companies who pay them the most.
> Or did you want this email list to become undeliverable because you didn't
> pay their $1,000 annual fee - and then $2,000 the next year, up to however
> much they can squeeze you for, and then a little more as you become that
> lowest paying customer who is no longer profitable and therefore dropped?
> Because that is basically the alternative that was being set up before the
> FCC said, "Hold on, we might have a problem with that."
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat