FCC 1st Amendment Censorship Whoredoms

Of the Satanic Fascist Socialist
Saboteurs & the Global Commie
Fabian Progressive Unionist
Corporate Criminal Regimes ;

Keeping with
President Obama's
big government ambitions,
the Federal Communications
Commission has announced a
plan to control the internet -

Agendas were revealed this week
by two separate FCC commissioners,
Michael Copps and Julius Genachowski,
who was crowned agency chairman
by Obama.

The agency wants to control cyberspace
with yet-to-be-disclosed rules -

Genachowski announced
that a draft of the secret rules
is complete, but the proposed
regulations are being kept from
the public until commissioners vote
on them later this month.

In fact,
a newspaper report reveals that
Genachowski's draft document
is stamped "non-public, for internal
use only" to ensure nobody outside
the agency sees it until the
rules are approved.

Also this week,
Copps threatened free speech
and enterprise with an outrageous
proposal that's clearly aimed at
conservative stations viewed as a
threat to the administration's
liberal agenda.

To "help media help democracy"
the FCC should conduct a "public
value test" of every commercial
broadcaster before renewing their
license and the process should occur
every four years instead of the current
eight, according to the plan
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2010/dec/fcc-wants-more-ethnic-diversity-airwaves

Speech Redistributionism

The cyber-collectivists -

Just as they call for a redistribution
of wealth to rectify the supposed injustice
of unequal incomes, so too they call for
"something to be done" to "balance"
outcomes and ensure "fairer" outcomes.

We might call this
"media redistributionism"
or even "speech redistributionism."

Consider, for example,
a proposal set forth by Cass Sunstein,
the prolific University of Chicago law
professor (and now Obama
Administration official).

In his 2001 book Republic.com,
in which he suggests that government
should consider requiring "electronic
sidewalks" in cyberspace to encourage
more balance on Internet websites.

The state would impose
the equivalent of "must carry"
mandates on popular or partisan
websites, forcing them to carry links
to opposing viewpoints.

In the name of "media access"
or "fairness," Sunstein and others
are apparently willing to let the state
impose tyrannical mandates on private
website operators, forcing them to open
their private property to use by others.

Essentially it's a
Fairness Doctrine for the Internet Age.

Elsewhere Sunstein has argued
in favor of greater "public interest"
regulation to actually change public
attitudes and tastes, claiming that there
"is a large difference between the public
interest and what interests the public."

He and many other cyber-collectivist
scholars claim that they have a better
idea of what interests the public.

Essentially,
the public doesn't know
what's best for them, so someone
else must tell them-and potentially
even force supposedly better choices
upon them.

For example,
Ellen P. Goodman
of the Rutgers-Camden
School of Law, and currently an
adviser to the Federal Communications
Commission, believes that, "a proactive
media policy must not only correct a poorly
functioning market, but also provide diversions
around existing media markets and tastes.

Proactive media policy
can do this by changing consumer wants"
http://mediafreedom.org/2010/07/the-battle-for-media-freedom-part-3-a-conflict-of-cyber-visions/

Exposing
The Satanic Fascist World Order
http://sovereigntysrealms.blogspot.com/