Our Sponsors
____________________
Note: Comments are moderated so be sure that your responses are expressed in a respectable and friendly way. We are here to express our thoughts toward controversial issues, not to scold or defame anyone. Watch what you say, and remember that by using this site, you agree to our Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
I think he should be able to, to a point. There definitely should be some regulation with a lot of websites, but not when we're talking about having the power to shut the Internet down.
What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." do you not understand?
The above quote is the entirety of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Barack Hussein Obama, even though he is unfortunately the duly elected President of the United States, does not, nor will any POTUS, have the authority to limit free speech in this country.
Should he, or any other POTUS, ever try to rescind the First Amendment it will only result in a second and most disastrous Civil War.
It is my not so humble opinion that the Internet should never be limited in any way shape or form. Control of the Internet should only come from those who use it – And only by what content we users wish to access. In other words, if a website is not used to the capacity that its authors want, then the authors alone have the authority to shut it down . . . just like any other business!
Nobody should be able to regulate it. It's an inherently decentralized system. Keep it that way.
What kind of regulation is supposedly needed for a lot of websites?
Content restrictions like we meekly accept on television broadcasts? What about transmission or access speeds or the types of bandwidth restrictions that we either already have or are considering (with the government's position being that it somehow owns the electromagnetic spectrum and controls its use)? How are those a good idea?
He can try, but if he thinks that the Republicans are a thorn in his side, wait till he meets the hackers.
http://www.piratpartiet.se/international/english
The hackers have a bit of a head start in Europe on being political.
I have to agree with PapaDawg on this one.
The Constitution specifically states free speech shall not be abridged.
However, there are some out there that might point out that the First Amendment says that "Congress" can not make laws that prohibit free speech and that it does not meantion a President making an Executive Order that can prohibit free speech.