Maximum PC

Glenn Beck has opened a fire storm of controversy surrounding efforts by the White House to limit the speech that they don't like. I went to Media Matters and the article that Glenn Beck was quoting, was only available for a fee (so much for opposing view points).
They deny the White House wants to enact such tactics, but do they explain what they really want to do, and if it violates the rights of Americans?

Rather than entangle you in that goo of worms, let me say this, requiring that a Web Master post links to anything, amounts to demands for free advertising. That's a pretty cool tool, if your product is not worth buying. Why, that's almost like planting money trees?

Free speech is free speech, and as a Web Master, or even posting a message in a blog, I have no way of knowing what viewpoint you will walk away with, if one at all. I'm not going to pretend to read your mind, and I'm not going to sit on my hands while you demand that the government seize (control) my private property (rented web space) to post links that you want people to see without compensation.

You want an opposing view point, as though I understand what makes your brain tick? No problem, the opposing view point is Google. It's Bing. It's Dogpile, it's called the search engine. I also never hear the White House post opposing view points, only that they think other viewpoints are less than truthful, or to be discredited for some other reason, rather than let the people make up their own minds, by echoing the articulation of those viewpoints, and not spin them with clever buzz words.

Not sure what they are worried about, if a web site master only has a 100 visitors a month, and he gets frustrated and stops using the internet, only now he is passing out his web site on compact discs, leaving them on car windows in parking lots, which would trigger massive email campaigns, is that what they want?

The same thing goes with net neutrality, forcing private companies to provide free internet access is not a good idea (especially if you hate wireless cameras everywhere) simply because it gives a monopoly and the possibility for censorship that can spiral into society being afraid to say anything out of fear of reprisal, and if you are afraid to talk, you become afraid to learn?

It doesn't happen the next day, but over months and years, and think about this, net neutrality, or giving away free internet access -- is going to violate someone's 5th Amendment rights, electricity to broadcast signals is not free, if the government does not compensate that loss of control. Nothing is free, and the United States is broke people, stop day dreaming?

I apologize if the article offends you, it is not meant to do that, but to wake people up, and to make people think about the questions. Trampling on 5th Amendment rights is like putting the American Flag in a mud puddle, and stomping on it, and I am not anti-government, I am pro-government, by the People for the People.

This has been known as the fairness doctrine, and such cases have repeatedly been struck down by the Supreme Court. Not to say it isn't something to worry about (which it is) such doctrines or requirements dont last.

The Fairness doctrine made the assertion that radio was state of the art, when in fact it ignored the impact of other mediums, and of course the distribution of recordings on other mediums such as tape, one could think that a different lawyer would have stopped the Fairness Doctrine from even being enacted in the first place.

Infringement of speech is what it is. There is talk today about taxing people based on content of speech -- which is infringement. Giving away free internet opens the door to things like monitoring all your activities (by criminals, or anyone) by camera, gps devices, and even your wall socket and electricity use -- all with no liability to those who create these policies, either in or outside the government?

No one wants to trash the planet, yet the African continent has been made into a desert, centuries before man even discovered fossil fuels, and politicians should not demand that we live in misery, based on fear mongering of scientists who are disputed?

When ever there are requests for comments by members of Congress, please take a few minutes of your time to comment on proposed regulations. Success takes decades and hard work, not free internet access that defies the principals of American values -- based on civil rights concerning private property.

When you live in a rich country, it is easy to forget the things you did not have to fight for? I doubt many of us would want to get a phone call at 2:00 am to give a free taxi ride to your neighbor down the street, in the name of some "fairness doctrine"?

Sadly, that's where such talk eventually leads, when you ride around in limos and make laws out of boredom? Go back to gridlock, and playing golf, and leave us alone?

umm... I don't think you know what net neutrality is. because it's not that.

net neutrality simply states that ISP's cannot give bandwidth priority to certain types of data over another.

it has absolutely nothing to do with forcing companies to provide free internet access. it also has nothing to to do with content of websites and certainly doesn't force web masters to put things on their sites. I suggest you do a bit of reading on what net neutrality actually is because nothing you wrote makes any sense