0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
A court in Washington, D.C., is pondering a challenge by Verizon Communications Inc. over the “net neutrality” rules imposed by the Federal Communications Commission.Verizon has questioned the FCC’s right to regulate the internet, seeking to overturn a 2010 order that internet service providers and mobile broadband providers could not block lawful websites....The company also argued that its First Amendment rights were being contravened because it was stripped of the power to choose what content would be carried on its network.
It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?
Being required by someone else’s religious beliefs to behave contrary to one’s sexual identity is degrading and disrespectful.
That said, I've stopped trying to anticipate what people around here want a while ago, I've found it makes things smoother.
For I was an hungred, and ye told me to pull myself up by my bootstraps: I was thirsty, and ye demanded payment for the privilege of thine urine: I was a stranger, and ye deported me: naked, and ye arrested me for indecency.
When the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted the Open Internet Order in 2010—forbidding Internet Service Providers from blocking services or charging content providers for access to the network—there was one thing the commission was careful not to do.What the FCC did not do is declare that Internet service providers are "common carriers," a classification that could have opened the door to even stricter regulations. Pre-dating the Internet by centuries, common carriage is "this age-old doctrine that says the person doing the shipping for you can't mess with the contents," said Matt Wood, policy director for Free Press, a group that advocates for "universal and affordable Internet access."The FCC has avoided calling ISPs common carriers for more than a decade, favoring a "light touch" regulatory approach that could protect consumers while (hopefully) appeasing political foes of net neutrality, Wood said.That approach may be backfiring. Verizon recently challenged the legality of the Open Internet Order, and yesterday the company argued its case in front of a three-judge panel at the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. A Verizon win would allow ISPs to block content or charge providers for a faster lane to customers.
