. . . to have this authority. A bill has been introduced that would authorize the President to shut down the internet in the event of an "emergency". Does this seem like a good thing to you?

This is nothing new and I believe it is not going to happen because it hasn't got out of committee.

nope it doesnt

Hi, Dragoness. I was beginning to think there were only the same 5 people in this forum.

Hi.

A lot of people stay out of the political threads.

I have heard of this since almost right after the election and nothing has happened with it so far so I don't think it will happen.

I agree with you, nobody should have that power. The freedom on information should not be abridged. But I don't agree that this is "nothing new", as it absolutely is new. This legislation was first drafted in August of 2009.

I'm wondering if we may be confusing this with the Net Neutrality issue.

Ahh. I found this article from 2009. That one got right past me.

Any good Extremist Progressive Liberal wants the Gov. to babysit all aspects of their lives.
I think they refer to it as, preventive measures.
That's in case they may have almost dissed their messiah-in-chief, they'd get reminded BB knows what's best.
The Looney Left are some kind of strange critters.

So, if the internet could be shut down, what is next? Shutting down cellphone service? And after that, the press?

Sure there are some dangers present on the internet that could equate to cyber-terrorism against the government, but it is also a communications medium. Given the Patriot Act, cyber-space can be monitored just like phone calls. So any communication can already be conceivably be intercepted by the government. That cuts down on the element of surprise in an "emergency" situation.

Therefore, the root of my question is: Wouldn't such a power impinge upon or limit Freedom of Speech and maybe even Freedom of the Press, and even in extreme cases the Right to Free Assembly?

And besides, didn't Lincoln already set the precedent for Presidential abilities during an active rebellion? Much of what he did was controversial at the time....just look at what happened in Baltimore in 1861.

With the Patriot Act, they probably don't need this bill to shut everything down anyway. All they have to do is call it a threat to National Security and all civil rights are thrown out the window,

I think this bill is not really a concern.

You mean the riot. (I had to look that one up Apparently, it's the only thing that happened in Baltimore that year). I think the Government already has substantial control of communications systems to do with as it pleases. This bill would just be window dressing. Presidents are going to do what they want to do. President Bush had no Constitutional authority to declare a war, and his compliance with UN resolutions is in serious question. (In other words, what she said).


The concern is that a president would have the authority to prevent dissidents from being able to communicate in times of unrest. Just like in Egypt.

It's important to understand what this means before jumping to unfounded fear.



There are many fascists (layers) of the INTERNET.
Their is this one.
and many that you and me, normal folks, don't have access to and don't use. They are for government and private transfer of secure data. We don't have any business using them and most all of us wouldn't understand how to use or obtain access to them.

Freudian slip? I think you meant "facets".

Most of us understand so little about this that we hear the statement,



and immediately jump to the conclusion that this means they won't be allowed to access Mingle. LMAO

That this would mean the same thing that the Egyptian government did to it's people.

It doesn't.

okay! my bad!

A superbowl Budweiser slip.
Go Pack!

HTTP is not a critical information network.

A lot was said in the movie, Good Morning, Vietnam about censorship and what news can be reported.

Remember the twins with the black markers?

After Nam, you don't see much as far as action taking place in war zones or the bodies being placed on the planes.

They are keeping them on the other side of the globe for a reason. They don't want us to know the truth.

The messiah-in-chief is in on it.

Had he not agreed to play the game, you would not be seeing a mulatto president.

You see now, MSM is not showing real choices for our next pres.

IMO, it's because they know who it will be. And, the one after that one is already being groomed for the buy-in.

Go ahead and call me nuts, liar or no-nothing nobody. I understand the play. I'm just attempting to predict the next act.

We, the people, have no power over the 2%ers manipulating the game.