This is really scary! Of course, this is politically motivated right now, but what about later when they have accomplished the take-over? Will they control our right to use the internet to spread the word on healthy alternatives to medical care??? You know Big Pharma would LOVE that!
Net neutrality, the FCC, Wikileaks and the future of internet freedom
<http://www.naturaln
http://www.naturaln
(NaturalNews) Regardless of what you think about the Wikileaks
release of state secrets, there's no debating the astonishing fact
that the internet made these leaks possible. Without the internet, no
single organization such as Wikileaks would have been able to so
widely propagate secret government information and make it public. In
the old model of information distribution -- centralized mainstream
media newspapers and news broadcasts -- such information would have
been tightly controlled thanks to government pressure.
But the internet allows individual information publishers to bypass
the censorship of government. In the case of Wikileaks, it allowed an
Australian citizen to embarrass the
a laptop computer in the
Governments don't like to be embarrassed. They don't like their
secrets aired on the internet. Sure, it's okay for governments to tap
all of your secrets by monitoring your phone calls, emails and web
browsing habits, but every government seeks to protect its own
secrets at practically any cost. That's why the upshot of this
Wikileaks release may be that governments will now start to look for
new ways to censor and control the internet in order to prevent such
information leaks from happening in the future.
What governments around the world are suddenly beginning to realize
is that a free internet is ultimately incompatible with government
secrets, and secrets are essential to any government that wants to
remain in power. That's because, as even Noam Chomsky stated in this
DemocracyNow video interview
(<http://www.democrac
most government secrets are based on information governments wouldn't
want their people to discover -- secrets that might threaten the
legitimacy of government if the people found out the truth.
How the FCC plans to seize authority over the internet
As part of a long-term plan to control content on the internet, the
FCC is now attempting to assert authority over the internet in the
same way it has long exercised content censorship authority over
broadcast television and radio.
The reason you can't say those seven dirty words on broadcast
television, in other words, is because the FCC controls broadcast
television content and can simply revoke the broadcast licenses of
any television station that refuses to comply. This is the same
tactic, in the internet world, of yanking a web site's domain name,
which the Department of Homeland Security has already begun doing
over the last several weeks
(<http://www.naturaln
The FCC also controls content on the radio and can yank the broadcast
licenses of any radio stations that refuse to comply with its content
censorship. This is why operators of "pirate radio stations" are
dealt with so harshly: For the government to allow any radio station
to operate outside its censorship and control is to invite dissent.
The internet, of course, has been operating freely and without any
real government censorship for roughly two decades. In that time, it
has grown to be what is arguably the most influential medium in the
world for information distribution. Most importantly, the internet is
the medium of information freedom that is not controlled by any government.
The
the FCC to reign in the "freedoms" of the internet.
How to crush internet Free Speech
The first step to the FCC's crushing of internet freedom is to assert
authority over the internet by claiming to run the show. The FCC, of
course, has no legal authority over the internet. It was only granted
authority in 1934 over broadcast communications in the
electromagnetic spectrum -- you know, radio waves and antennas, that
kind of thing.
There is nothing in the Communications Act of 1934 that grants the
FCC any authority over the internet because obviously the internet
didn't exist then, and it would have been impossible for lawmakers in
the 1930's to imagine the internet as it operates today.
So instead of following the law, the FCC is trying to "fake" its way
into false authority over the internet by claiming authority in the
current "net neutrality" debate. By asserting its authority with net
neutrality, the FCC will establish a beachhead of implied authority
from which it can begin to control and censor the internet.
This is why "net neutrality" is a threat to internet freedom. It's
not because of anything to do with net neutrality itself, but rather
with the FCC's big power grab in its assertion that it has authority
over websites just like it has authority over broadcast radio.
The FCC may soon tell you what you can post on the internet
Where is this all heading? Once the FCC establishes a foothold on the
'net, it can then assert that it has the power to tell you what to
post on the internet. Here's how it might unfold:
First, the FCC will simply ban what it calls "information traitors,"
which will include people like Julian Assange (Wikileaks) who publish
state secrets. (Technically Julian Assange can't be a traitor since
he's not even American in the first place, but don't expect the FCC
to care about this distinction.
Once the public is comfortable with that, the FCC will advance its
agenda to include "information terrorists" which will include
anything posted about Ron Paul, the federal reserve and the
counterfeit money supply, G. Edward Griffin, or anything from true
www.LewRockwell.
time to time) would also be immediately banned because its
information is so dangerous to government control.
After that censorship is in place, the FCC will likely begin to push
the corporate agenda by banning websites that harm the profits of
large corporations. This will include, of course, websites like
NaturalNews.
cures, natural remedies and alternatives to Big Pharma's high-profit
pharmaceuticals.
The way this will come about is that the FCC may require a license to
publish health information on the web, in much the same way that
states currently license doctors to practice medicine. This is how
conventional medicine has operated its monopoly for so long, by the
way: By controlling the licensing of doctors at the state level. Any
doctor who dares prescribe nutritional supplements or suggest that
medication might be harmful to a patient immediately gets stripped of
his license to practice medicine (and thereby put out of business).
The FCC will likely do the same thing across the internet. Sites that
publish health information without a license will be deemed "a threat
to public health" and be seized by the government.
The first target? Anti-vaccine websites. Vaccines are so crucial to
the continuation of disease and medical enslavement in
any site questioning the current vaccine mythology will be deemed a
threat to public health -- or perhaps even a "terrorism" organization.
Essentially, once the FCC has gained power and authority over the
internet, it will use that power to push a Big Government / Big
Business agenda that censors the truth, keeps people trapped in a
system of disinformation, and silences anyone who challenges the status quo.
The FCC is poised to become the FDA of internet information, banning
alternative speech and enforcing an information monopoly engineered
by powerful corporations.
Think of the FCC as the new the Ministry of Truth from George
Orwell's novel 1984
(<http://en.wikipedia
This is not about net neutrality, it's about the FCC power grab
Remember, I am not arguing here for or against the principle of net
neutrality itself, but rather warning about the FCC's imposition of
false authority over the internet in the first place. The idea of net
neutrality has merits, but granting the FCC the power to control the
internet is a disastrously bad idea that will only end in censorship
and "information tyranny" -- especially now that governments around
the world are witnessing the "dangers" of information freedom via the
Wikileaks fiasco.
If there's one thing governments hate, it's real freedom. Sure, they
all talk about freedom and publicly claim their allegiance to it, but
behind the scenes what they really want is total information control.
That's because freedom gives people the ability to say what they
want, to whomever they want, and even to oppose the doctrine of the government.
Just look at
where you can't even log in to Facebook from that country.
Governments hate freedom because freedom threatens centralized power
and control over the People. And because governments hate freedom,
they also hate the internet as long as it's free. This is why
bloggers and internet journalists are right now imprisoned all over
the world for merely posting the truth
(<http://www.cpj.
As Noam Chomsky said in his DemocracyNow interview (link above), what
the recent Wikileaks releases really show is that the
has "a profound hatred for democracy."
It also happens to have a profound hatred for actual freedom, because
people who are free to think for themselves and write whatever they
want are always going to be a threat to a government that wants
people to conform, obey and acquiesce.
All government agencies seek to expand their power
What do the FCC, FDA, TSA, DEA, FTC and USDA all have in common?
They all want more power. They want more authority, bigger budgets
and more control over the world around them. They are like cancer
tumors, growing in size and toxicity while they consume more and more
by stealing resources from a healthy host. The bigger these cancer
tumors become, the more dangerous they become to the health of the
host body, and the more urgently they need to be held in check or
excised from the body entirely.
There is no such thing as a government agency that wants to be
smaller, with shrinking budgets and fewer employees on the taxpayer
payroll. Government departments -- just like people -- incessantly
seek more power even at the expense of freedom among those they claim
to serve. And this move by the FCC to assume control over the
internet is one of the most dangerous power grabs yet witnessed in
the short history of the information age.
By the way, one of the reasons we created and launched
www.NaturalNews.
be turned off by YouTube. You've probably heard the horror stories of
famous content producers like Alex Jones having their YouTube
accounts suddenly terminated. NaturalNews.
alternative health content that cannot be turned off by a large
corporation that doesn't recognize the value of health freedom.
Feel free to participate by uploading videos or viewing the many
thousands of free videos available right now at www.NaturalNews.
By the way, I recommend reading another outstanding article on this
topic written by John Naughton at The Guardian
(<http://www.guardian
Here's a taste of what he writes:
Consider, for instance, how the views of the
changed in just a year. On 21 January, secretary of state Hillary
Clinton made a landmark speech about internet freedom, in
been so free," declared
information networks are helping people discover new facts and making
governments more accountable.
She went on to relate how, during his visit to
2009, Barack Obama had "defended the right of people to freely access
information, and said that the more freely information flows the
stronger societies become. He spoke about how access to information
helps citizens to hold their governments accountable, generates new
ideas, and encourages creativity." Given what we now know, that
Read the rest at:
<http://www.guardian
Learn more:
<http://www.naturaln
http://www.naturaln
Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
Vaccination Information & Choice Network,
Vaccines - http://vaccinationd
http://homeopathycu
Vaccine Dangers, Childhood Disease Classes & Homeopathy Online/email
courses - next classes start December 2 & 3, 2010 and January 6 & 7
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.