For those of you not up to date, a few of the major internet providers were wanting to be able to regulate what their customers could and could not view on the internet. This included blocking certain sites, throttling torrents, etc. The FCC recently took them to court trying to legally prohibit them from doing so, and won.
The phrase "net neutrality" means quite literally keeping the internet neutral. That means unrestricted. So anybody who says "net neutrality" is referring to the concept that the internet should be unrestricted to all. If they do not mean that, they are getting the term wrong.
This is a clip from Fox News about that recent court ruling and they get it entirely wrong. They believe (incorrectly) that the FCC is trying to regulate the internet, when in fact the FCC is trying to PREVENT the internet providers like (Cox and Comcast) from regulating the internet. The FCC is trying to keep the internet free and unrestricted by stopping the corporate internet providers by blocking things from customers and/or charging for different parts of the internet. The FCC is the good guys in this one.
Fox News not only got this outright wrong, but blatantly stopped the guy from defining it and then closed the segment. They spun it off as some kind of difference of opinion, but in reality they simply got their facts completely and utterly wrong. Fox News has always been insanely biased and full of shit, but apparently they have now stopped even attempting to hide their disregard of facts and logic.
It's just... WOW. "Wow" is the only appropriate word for it. Well that and "disturbing" and "dismaying" I suppose.
Remember, BOTH people on the two "sides" of this want unregulated internet. One simply doesn't know that that's what he's getting and is upset due entirely to his own misunderstanding (and refusal to take the time to understand).
Jesus Christ. It's amazing.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Monday, May 3, 2010
Plutonomy, poker, imigration
Plutonomy/Plutocracy: goo.gl/BmdL
Poker over the past few days 4-tabling: goo.gl/cjLv
Immigration Effects: goo.gl/d3ag
.
Poker over the past few days 4-tabling: goo.gl/cjLv
Immigration Effects: goo.gl/d3ag
.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
How crazy would Americans today get if they heard these verdicts?
Edit: These have nothing to do with my thoughts on immigration; I just laugh thinking about how crazy people would get if these laws were recent. Also, as a note, just because they aren't recent doesn't mean they aren't Supreme Court rulings.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)
"Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," applies to all persons "without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality," and to "an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here."
Wong Wing v. U.S. (1896)
Citing the first case I listed, in the case of Wong Wing v. US, The Supreme Court further applies the citizenship-blind nature of the Constitution to the 5th and 6th amendments, stating "... it must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection guaranteed by those amendments, and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."
Plyler v. Doe (1982)
In Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law prohibiting enrollment of illegal aliens in public school. In its decision, the Court held, "The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a 'person' in any ordinary sense of that term… The undocumented status of these children vel non does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents."
Thanks to this page, made by the research of Robert Longley for pointing these laws out.
How outraged would modern Americans be...???
.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)
"Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," applies to all persons "without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality," and to "an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here."
Wong Wing v. U.S. (1896)
Citing the first case I listed, in the case of Wong Wing v. US, The Supreme Court further applies the citizenship-blind nature of the Constitution to the 5th and 6th amendments, stating "... it must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection guaranteed by those amendments, and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."
Plyler v. Doe (1982)
In Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law prohibiting enrollment of illegal aliens in public school. In its decision, the Court held, "The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a 'person' in any ordinary sense of that term… The undocumented status of these children vel non does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents."
Thanks to this page, made by the research of Robert Longley for pointing these laws out.
How outraged would modern Americans be...???
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)