I think the reason the internet has effected so much change (a lot for the good; some, not so much) is because of vox populi and nothing else.
I know this seems like a fairy tale for a lot of us in North America and Western Europe (let alone China, the former U.S.S.R., most of Africa, and so on) but to differentiate between the governments and us regular folk is what fails us as people.
The Federal government (and the State/Provincial government, the City/Township government, etc.) is not separate from you and I and everyone else. We
are the government(s).
Polls like this, while acknowledging that I might be one of the few that thinks Rasmussen does an ok job with their cross-slices, are always structured to further the idea that the government is some huge, outside force that we are either with, against, or subject to. It's just not so. The real crime is in the groups that hire companies like Rasmussen, Gallup, CNN, et. al., to frame the question.
The question that
should be put to an informed populace that is politically engaged in any way would be----"Should we, as Americans (or whomever else around the globe according to their articles), task the 3 branches of our government to apply Constitutional principles to the Internet and Internet Service Providers within our borders?"
Ok, I'm off my soapbox now.
Having said that, this question was asked, and answered, many times over our history with regard to radio, television, print, and everything else. Depending on your political stripe, we're either doing ok or failing miserably. Or somewhere in between. I think that some Federal regulation of the net is necessary as a safeguard against the obvious---kiddie porn sites, libelous sites, etc. And the service providers need the Feds to make sure there isn't any kind of anti-trust crap or 1st amendment violations. We hear arguments in the news that Comcast and Cox and the others should be allowed to regulate their network in any way they see fit. I agree with that argument to a point. However, knowing that the net isn't just about P2P and is, I believe, more active in the free flow of communication than anything else, the rules that apply to our TV and radio channels should apply to the internet. In other words, it's not just about why the Radio Act of '27 was enacted. The internet almost negates the reasons for that act because of ICANN's role and the fact that, when you type a domain into your browser, you don't have to worry about interference from another domain blocking you from resolving the hostname. But a big part of the R.Act is that communication is
in the public interest. The fact that the original channels were public domain (air, light, and water) shouldn't preclude us from giving copper or fibre the same rules. No matter who lays it down.
Lastly, the government (we) should not interfere with lawful commerce unless that commerce violates Constitutional principles. At that, the regulations end.
At least here in the States, we have a pretty damned good blueprint for applying and crafting laws and regulations----are they, or are they not, Constitutional? imho, answering that question honestly has served us well for a long time. It's when we bend and allow dishonest answers to that question that gets us in trouble.
0
This topic is locked
