Opposition to Net Neutrality from Tea Party

http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/08/13/the-tea-party-hates-net-neutrality-because-its-an-affront-to-free-speech-umm/

The Tea Party believes that Net Neutrality is an "affront to free speech," and believes that the government regulation of the internet against things such as the Google-Verizon deal will lead to things such as internet censorship, when the very definition of Net Neutrality is exactly the opposite.

Thoughts?

government regulation of the internet ... will lead to things such as internet censorship
That's one of those "taken to its logical conclusion" things, not grounded in reality but not entirely inaccurate.  Direct government regulation of the Internet must necessarily include some form of censoring but that is why I would rather companies perform it if they must or choose: at least if each company chooses whether or not to and what to and what not to regulate and censor, I have variety as a consumer and can still choose to some extent.  If the government "must" do it, my choices become less flexible.

I still see Net Neutrality mainly as a solution looking for a problem, however, so my opinion on this matter is obviously biased against.  Would government regulation stop rampant spam and phishing? probably not but, if it does, it will be at a un-returnable cost.  Would government regulation stop viruses and companies withholding critical patching and security updates? no, there would be no way to do that as no system can be made incorruptible and, as for the latter, do they?

I ask that question as virus definitions for two scanner programs are updating and a HP program is alerting me to two driver updates I have been procrastinating to download.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=12767

The Internet is not public property.  It is a free, voluntary, and private association of individuals and groups who create it by connecting together equipment that is their private property in order to use it for private purposes and private goals.

The government needs to get its long, unlovely, hooked nose out of places where it is neither needed nor wanted nor welcome nor nice, rather than spend trillions of dollars on so-called "studies" to devise new excuses to intervene.

>>3
>>2
You're saying government regulation is worse than the Google-Verizon deal?

>>4
I believe that the whole "Net Neutrality" issue is being blown way out of proportion, and the FCC doesn't need to be involved with making sure that ISPs make sure to keep them from manipulating customer's bandwidth. We've already had cases with AT&T and Comcast meddling with their services (remember that BitTorrent fiasco?), and people found out, and it made a big stir, they were taken to court where judges are obligated to interpret the laws (including the Constitution) and they (the ISPs) had to mend their ways because of it.

All this happened in the absence of "Net Neutrality" laws and regulations, so tell me how Net Neutrality will improve this situation to which the courts had perfectly managed such cases already with no problem?

Hmm, this is a good debate, and not the first time on /newpol/ either. Here's some relevant older threads to peruse through:

http://dis.4chan.org/read/newpol/1149998256 - Save the Internet (seriously)
http://dis.4chan.org/read/newpol/1151983399 - net Nuetrality (lol, this is the thread where Ted Stevens made his famous "series of tubes" speech)
http://dis.4chan.org/read/newpol/1235847893 - Net Neutrality is a lie

I dont want obaMAO turning my AOL communist this is an OUTRAGE!

>>7
>AOL

LOL

NET NEUTRALITY BAAAD

You fat "anarchist" nerds need to realize that you are not magically granted some sort of immunity to the law when you sit your fat ass on a chair and lean over in front of some monitor.

>>2
I agree with this man.

>>Fuck you. I don't accept your tyrannical laws.

>>10
that was at you by the way asswipe. Fat? nerds? fucking dumbass. You have no idea who is on the other end, do you?

>>7
obaMAO? Really? No real objections, so you just call him names? We need to eliminate the FCC

>>14

No, not eliminate it.

Instead, we need to make sure the wired businessmen don't control the content. We need to make sure that we can have a neutral internet.

>>15
Do we not have one right now?
Are we in fear of losing its "neutrality" any time soon?

>>16

Actually, until now, businesses were allowed to regulate what we could and couldn't do on the internet

>>17
That intentionally sidesteps answering the question >>16 asked.

>>18

Well, I was trying to show why it isn't neutral now

>>19
"Net Neutrality," however, does not specify that the Internet will be neutral and what is meant by "neutral."  At its basic form, it is merely replacing the physical access and perhaps policy maintained by various portal services with a single portal administration run by the government.  Okay, probably not directly the government, either; it will most likely end up being a committee chosen by other government officials, obfuscated by bureaucracy and subject to recess appointments.  The people in the government believe you can't actually run something without actually constantly doing something.

I'll grant you, though, that your post addressed the first question of >>16.  What about the threat unto the Internet as it currently exists as opposed to how it has existed a few years ago or how it has always been considered to exist? is there some new threat that did not exist previously?

Well, now it's garnering serious discussion.

I am not a tea party goer. Regardless I do not support web neutrality only because it will do no such thing. It will see stormfront as a racist site but not the hundred of other sights that actually call for violence and organize against whites.