site Search:


 
   
story category
Cable Industry Gets Confused By First Amendment
Apparently, anti-competitive behavior is a constitutional right
by Karl Bode Friday 11-Dec-2009 tags: business · bandwidth · Op/Ed · Oddities · net-neutrality
The cable industry's chief lobbying organization, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA), believes that violating network neutrality is their First Amendment right. Or at least that's the gist from a recent speech by NCTA CEO Kyle McSlarrow, whose organization's fighting the FCC's decision to more strictly codify network neutrality protections for consumers. The neutrality debate has been nothing if not colorful, so McSlarrow's claims that neutral networks somehow mystically violate First Amendment rights joins a proud history of arguments on both sides that make no particular sense. Enter McSlarrow:

Almost every net neutrality proposal would seek to control how an ISP affects the delivery of Internet content or applications as it reaches its customers. This is particularly odd for two reasons: First, there is plenty of case law about instances of speech compelled by the government – "forced speech" -- that suggests such rules should be scrutinized closely. Second, and perhaps more importantly, it is an almost completely unnecessary risk. All ISPs have stated repeatedly that they will not block their customers from accessing any lawful content or application on the Internet. Competitive pressures alone ensure this result: we are in the business of maximizing our customers’ choices and experiences on the Internet.

Unfortunately for fans of logic, McSlarrow doesn't really explain how any of the FCC's currently rather wimpy proposals would threaten First Amendment rights, though he hopes you won't notice that beneath his oddly joined smattering of loosely-related concepts. McSlarrow also tries to argue that neutrality rules aren't needed because "competitive pressures" will ensure good behavior by carriers. Of course distorting the First Amendment for argumentative effect and pretending there's robust competition is about par for the course for the network neutrality "debate" the last few years, especially in lobbying circles.

Granted not everybody believes there's a need for network neutrality rules, an argument supported by the fact that few people can even seemingly define the concept. That said, the threat of network neutrality rules have proven to be rather handy -- Comcast's migration from packet forgery for all to intelligent throttling for some was a prime example of the power such a threat holds. The more men like McSlarrow wiggle, the more you know that threat remains intact -- and that's a good thing. When McSlarrow stops pulling bizarre arguments out of his digital nether regions, then you should start worrying.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

view: topics flat text 
Post a:

Matt
All noise, no signal.
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12

Sick of the idiocy

Why are the people with the most warped sense of the Constitution always the first to invoke it? At least this guy didn't get the Constitution and the Bill of Rights confused.

Regardless, wouldn't net neutrality, with respect to treating all traffic the same, be more in the spirit of the 1st Amendment? If you want to stifle one type of traffic but allow another to pass, that seems like the violation of the 1st Amendment to me; if he really wants to draw that absurd parallel between speech and various types of internet data transfer anyway.
--
trafficcloak.com - pptp/sstp vpn services
nasadude

join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

Re: Sick of the idiocy

said by Matt:

Why are the people with the most warped sense of the Constitution always the first to invoke it?

...
because that's the way we roll these days in the U S of A.
gorehound

join:2009-06-19
Portland, ME

Re: Sick of the idiocy

greedbag companies who want to rip us off.
i read this before on another site and it is disgusting.
slime warner and others are bs

ARGONAUT
got ping?

join:2006-01-24
New Albany, IN
Reviews:
·Insight Communic..

Re: Sick of the idiocy

said by gorehound:

greedbag companies who want to rip us off.
i read this before on another site and it is disgusting.
slime warner and others are bs
Instead of tea bagging it's greed bagging.
--
PentiumD 930 DC 3.0GHz - 4GB PC2-4200 - 300GB SATA - BFG Nvidia 7950GT OC 512MB
- Hauppauge WinTV-HVR-1600(1101MCE) - Win7 Ultimate 32bit

ArkhmAsylm
Evrythng I need isn't really what I want

join:2006-02-22
Saint Paul, MN

Re: Sick of the idiocy

THAT might hurt!!

tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Fairpoint Commun..
·Hollis Hosting
said by Matt:

Why are the people with the most warped sense of the Constitution always the first to invoke it?
What I find fascinating is the Orwellian aspects to these types of arguments. At its core Network Neutrality attempts to decouple delivery from content. How mandating first-mile providers cannot promote or discourage certain types of content becomes an infringement of the First Amendment eludes me.

Corporate outrage over possible legislation is always countered by saying we would never do it anyway so there is not need for the regulation.

/tom

patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1

Re: Sick of the idiocy

Because I [the telecom] have a right to not be forced to pass on a message between 2 acquaintances [customers].

DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

Wish I could cancel.

I would say F the cable industry and just cancel, but I have no other choice for internet where I live.

They really have my balls in a blender...

TSWYO
Premium
join:2003-05-03
Cheyenne, WY

Re: Wish I could cancel.

Hmm... Cancel my cable internet advertised at 8Mbps (real world 2.5mbps) or switch to the phone company advertised 20Mbps (upon signup, only offers 1.5Mbps)...

I at least have the option, screwed either way.
k1ll3rdr4g0n

join:2005-03-19
Homer Glen, IL
said by DataRiker:

I would say F the cable industry and just cancel, but I have no other choice for internet where I live.

They really have my balls in a blender...
Thanks for the visual.
You could have stopped at "balls".

karlmarx

join:2006-09-18
iraq

Americans have gotten too Greedy

The Bill of Rights is just a guideline, not the law. By now, every American should be thankful that the corporations still give them the right to drive on their corporate roads, and be double thankful the corporations ALLOW them to use their internets. When did Americans become so stuck on this concept of free speech? Sure, it was a great idea, until we became the target of all the terrorists. Network Neutrality will allow the terrorist to spread their propaganda, and that will harm the children. Won't anyone please think of the children? The only way to protect the children is to submit to the all powerful, infallible rights of capitalism. All our current problems can be traced to too much government interference in our lives. Take away the government oversight, and not only will the terrorists lose, our children will be safe.
--
Remember 1 in 4 people are retarded. 25% of Americans are Republican. Coincidence? I don't think so.

John McClane
yippee ki yay
Premium
join:2005-03-19

Re: Americans have gotten too Greedy

you have the subtly of a ninja.

ThrowDemsOut
If you can't convince 'em, confuse 'em
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4

1 edit
More propaganda from the spokesman for a fascist society ruled by gov't. bureaucrats and functionaries.

karlmarx

join:2006-09-18
iraq

Re: Americans have gotten too Greedy

Fascism? Fascism is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism with a corporatist economic system.
That's the EXACT opposite of what I propose. It's better to call my beliefs socialism. Socialism is society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended. Socialists share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through exploitation, creates an unequal society, does not provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximize their potentialities and does not utilize technology and resources to their maximum potential nor in the interests of the public.

So, no, I'm definitely not a fascist.
--
Remember 1 in 4 people are retarded. 25% of Americans are Republican. Coincidence? I don't think so.

DrModem
Premium
join:2006-10-19
USA
kudos:1

Re: Americans have gotten too Greedy

True socialism is an unrealistic utopia that never can nor will be.
matrix3D

join:2006-09-27
Middletown, CT

4 edits
Socialism is about fairness and equality, yes? At least, from what I can tell, that's the spin you're trying to put on it. However, in a socialist economy, skill or achievement are not recognized, period. A highly skilled computer scientist who spends years paying for higher education would therefore have the same "equal access" as somebody who decided they did not want to pursue higher education and instead works full-time in a less skilled position simply because they have no personal motivation, skill or drive. One chooses the long and hard way and one chooses the easy way... why is the person who chooses the easy way owed the same "equal access" as somebody who chose the hard way? Socialism and communism do absolutely nothing to promote the general welfare of a society in the long term because nobody will have any incentive or drive to do a damn thing.

EDIT: Also, I'd just like to point out that what you described ("Socialism is society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended.") is actually capitalism. You have the opportunity for equal access in this country. Your compensation is determined, to a large degree, by how much time you invest in yourself and your own ideas ("amount of labor expended" as you put it). So what's the problem with the system? Just because certain people want to sit on their ass and leech off the system doesn't mean the rest of society owes it to them to let them continue to do so.

Perhaps a new DNS redirect is necessary? www.communismreports.com or www.socialistreports.com anybody? I've always been amazed at how political this site is considering it's supposedly "technology focused." But now it makes a lot more sense...

Also, I really hope you were being sarcastic when you said the Bill of Rights were not laws but "guidelines." If you were not sarcastic, it shows it's not the view of people who invoke the Constitution that is warped, it is your own. The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the Constitution which is the supreme law of the United States. Or is the Constitution now just "guidelines" as well?

karlmarx

join:2006-09-18
iraq

Re: Americans have gotten too Greedy

Wow.. umm, I don't really know how to respond.

Of course, if my username was tkjunkmail, it probably wouldn't be sarcasm. But, yes, the original post was SUPPOSED to be a sarcastic remark about how much power the corporations have over use.

And, btw, socialism, as I see it, means universal health care, it means government ownership of the backbone of the internet (BUT NOT THE SERVICES). It means that like electricity and water, every household in American has a RIGHT to a fiber connection. It means that we have GOOD public schools to teach science and math and birth control, with no religious interference. It means separation of church and state. It means the end of tax exempt status for religious organizations. And what it REALLY means, is that we bring manufacturing BACK to the US. It means we severely punish any company that moves jobs offshore. It means we set reasonable limits on executive compensation, and and end to market manipulators. It means big oil can make a profit, but NOT $40 BILLION DOLLARS every quater. I means a progressive tax system, where those who make under 50,000 pay no income taxes. It means a national sales (consumption) tax. It means a return to the 90% top tax tier for those making over 5 million.
--
Remember 1 in 4 people are retarded. 25% of Americans are Republican. Coincidence? I don't think so.

crookedtrail

@dslextreme.com

approval from:
ThrowDemsOut See Profile

Re: Americans have gotten too Greedy

Unfortunately that dream will never be realized, because we live in a world economy, where if you do many of the things you are proposing, we would be breaking free trade agreements with other nations, and incur their wrath. Also, many of the things you propose would probably screw our nation and its innovative spirit, as anyone with an active brain cell and a good idea would leave for somewhere they could actually earn a profit on their invention. Also, separation of church and state is good and all, but your interpretation of it is actually counter to the founding fathers original concept. The Constitution is actually meant to protect the church from undue government interference. Many people say negative things about religious organizations and such, but forget that many times during natural disasters and the like, they are the largest non-government giver of aid received by those affected by such disasters.

karlmarx

join:2006-09-18
iraq

1 edit

Re: Americans have gotten too Greedy

I beg to differ. Lets be honest, the US is one of the VERY few countries in the world that has all the natural resources we need to be self sufficient. I'm all for free trade with Europe, but I think China is the biggest threat we will face over the next 25 years. When you say the constitution is meant to protect the church from the government, it actually goes both ways. I firmly agree the right wing nut cases have every right to elect their radical type congresscritters. And, again, you are right, religious organizations are the largest non-government givers, but know this. As my nickname is often quoted "Religion is the opiate of the masses". The vast majority of americans are afraid of death, and that's why religion exists. I have no problem with the concept of 'it's over' when you die. We are just the end result of a random chemical reaction that occurred billions of years ago. We exist, quite simply, because statistically, we SHOULD exist (see: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation ). I don't subscribe to any belief except those I can measure and test. I was raised Catholic, but once I reached the age of reason (about 13), I realized it was all a great big scam.
--
Remember 1 in 4 people are retarded. 25% of Americans are Republican. Coincidence? I don't think so.
patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1

Re: Americans have gotten too Greedy

Click for full size
sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
said by karlmarx:

Wow.. umm, I don't really know how to respond.

Of course, if my username was tkjunkmail, it probably wouldn't be sarcasm. But, yes, the original post was SUPPOSED to be a sarcastic remark about how much power the corporations have over use.

And, btw, socialism, as I see it, means universal health care, it means government ownership of the backbone of the internet (BUT NOT THE SERVICES). It means that like electricity and water, every household in American has a RIGHT to a fiber connection. It means that we have GOOD public schools to teach science and math and birth control, with no religious interference. It means separation of church and state. It means the end of tax exempt status for religious organizations. And what it REALLY means, is that we bring manufacturing BACK to the US. It means we severely punish any company that moves jobs offshore. It means we set reasonable limits on executive compensation, and and end to market manipulators. It means big oil can make a profit, but NOT $40 BILLION DOLLARS every quater. I means a progressive tax system, where those who make under 50,000 pay no income taxes. It means a national sales (consumption) tax. It means a return to the 90% top tax tier for those making over 5 million.
I totally agree with everything you said, except for the part about outsourcing. I don`t think you fully understand the necessity and usefulness of outsourcing matured industries to developing countries, in terms of aiding the global economy by increasing global specialization and efficiency.

Outsourcing normally incentivizes a developed country to invent new industries and pool money into advanced collaborative scientific research and development. Think about the manufacturing industries. First came the mechanical revolution in the `60s and `70s, where factories went from predominantly humans using their hands to create things, to humans using machines.

That was outsourced, and `80s ushered in the computer revolution, where many of those machines started to be more efficiently controlled by software.

That techology was eventually outsourced, and manufacturing eventually ushered in robotics.

Why do you think a country like Japan, with practically no natural resources, an ever shrinking population, and constant outsourcing to an extremely close China, doesn`t have an issue with losing jobs overseas? Because they lead in the manufacturing of advanced materials like fiber optics, things that can only be manufactured in a developed economy with the proper infrastructure and human expertise.

Our main problem of the 2000s was that we had no innovation and development of new industries. The Bush administratino eliminated a great deal of government funding and support for research in various fields, and people instead found new jobs in the very low-paying retail sector.

Basically neoconservatives since the `80s have caused the US to fall behind in many research and development areas where it used to lead.

badtrip
I heart the East Bay
Premium
join:2004-03-20
Albany, CA
said by matrix3D:

EDIT: Also, I'd just like to point out that what you described ("Socialism is society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended.") is actually capitalism.
Sorry, that is not true. Back to Wikipedia with you!

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

Capitalism/Socialism/Communism has little to do with compensation. It has everything to do with ownership. Further, compensation is only marginally tied to "time invested".

Yes capital can be in the form of "money" but often times it is not. Please try not to spout the government line unless you know what the government line means....

Bor

@telus.net
said by matrix3D:

However, in a socialist economy, skill or achievement are not recognized, period.
Wrong. That's communism, not socialism, and it's the primary difference between the two.

Capitalism without inherited wealth could arguably be described as being moderately similar.

But, as it is, your compensation is determined, to a large degree, by who your parents were, or more bluntly, the luck of the draw. Which is not to say there is no social mobility, just not nearly as much as some people like to think.

digitalfreak
Premium
join:2005-12-09
Blacklick, OH
said by ThrowDemsOut:

More propaganda from the spokesman for a fascist society ruled by gov't. bureaucrats and functionaries.
As opposed to your wet-dream fascist society ruled by multi-national corporations?
Mr Matt

join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
kudos:1
Reviews:
·CenturyLink
·Comcast
·Embarq Now Centu..
·Millenicom

1 edit

Did McSlarrow sleep through history class in Junior High?

Obviously McSlarrow does not remember why the Interstate Commerce Commission was formed in 1887! Here is an excerpt from an article in Wikipedia:

"The creation of the Interstate Commerce Commission was the result of widespread and longstanding anti-railroad agitation. Western farmers, specifically those of the Grange Movement, were the dominant force behind the unrest, but Westerners generally — especially those in rural areas — believed that the railroads possessed economic power that they systematically abused. A central issue was rate discrimination between similarly situated customers and communities. Other potent issues included alleged attempts by railroads to obtain influence over city and state governments and the widespread practice of granting free transportation in the form of yearly passes to opinion leaders (elected officials, newspaper editors, ministers, and so on) so as to dampen any opposition to railroad practices. Some behavior was presumably less common; the reporter Charles Edward Russell claimed that the railroad that served his hometown had refused to ship newsprint to a newspaper editor because the editor had attacked the railroad in print."

See complete article here: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate···mmission

Sounds familiar does it not. Just change the word railroads to cable companies and yearly passes to campaign contributions and you will find many parallels with present day issues with the broadband ISP's. All we need now is an agency that is not subservient to the industry that it regulates, and will put their charges on a short leash.
patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1

Re: Did McSlarrow sleep through history class in Junior High?

said by Mr Matt:

Sounds familiar does it not. Just change the word railroads to cable companies and yearly passes to campaign contributions and you will find many parallels with present day issues with the broadband ISP's. All we need now is an agency that is not subservient to the industry that it regulates, and will put their charges on a short leash.
But 80 years later they destroyed/reduced to mass bankruptcy the industry that they regulated.
Samsonian

join:2007-06-15

Re: Did McSlarrow sleep through history class in Junior High?

said by patcat88:

But 80 years later they destroyed/reduced to mass bankruptcy the industry that they regulated.

It's a sad story, and not one many seem to know about either.

The railroad barons were hardly innocent (they weren't called barons nothing), but what the government did to railroads in the second half of the 20th century was unconscionable.

We once had world's greatest rail system. It had over 300,000 route miles, and reached every major part of the country. And with the exception of a lot of free land to build it out (not that big of a deal, those areas gained far more value by receiving rail service), it was paid for with largely private money. Railroads are the only form of transportation to pay their own way.

Today we only have about 147,000 route miles, and much of what remains is in piss poor condition. Think about that, almost half of the rail network since its peak has been abandoned. Branch lines jettisoned, communities no longer receive service. All those important rail corridors are gone for good. We'll never have a rail system that big again.

Much of this is due to ICC/STB rules and federal law concerning railroads, but also unprecedented government intervention in the market. The Federal, State, and Local governments have collectively spent trillions of dollars over the last 60 years financing, building, owning, maintaining, and subsidizing an aviation and road system.

No privately owned mode of transportation can compete with that. Why would anyone sane person replace the most efficient form of transportation ever created and paid for itself with private dollars, with something that was less efficient, had higher environmental and financial costs, and required untold public subsidies?

No other country has done anything quite like this. Most other countries publicly own their railroads, and its considered a first class mode of transport along with aviation, roads, and waterways. And thus, deserving of capital investments by the public.

Europe and Japan had their rail systems destroyed by WW2. Yet they systematically rebuilt their rail system, while we dismantled ours. As a result they have extensive electric high speed rail lines throughout, and we don't. All in the name of progress.

China is going through the biggest rail boom in the world in over a century. They're spending ~$1 trillion building about 10,000 miles of new rail lines over the next 20 years, including thousands of miles of high speed rail (HSR). Their HSR network will reach almost all their major regions, and will soon have more miles of HSR than the rest of the world combined.

It makes me wonder what could have been.
Mr Matt

join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
kudos:1
Reviews:
·CenturyLink
·Comcast
·Embarq Now Centu..
·Millenicom

Re: Did McSlarrow sleep through history class in Junior High?

Sadly the Cold War was a major cause of the failure of the US Railroad System. General Dwight Eisenhower spent a lot of time in Germany after WWII and saw the advantage of the Autobahn. When he became President he remembered of how the Nazis used the Autobahn to move troops and munitions efficiently. Railroads were easy to disable, roads on the other hand were not. In the event the cold war turned into a hot war, the government could nationalize the airlines and use the highway system to move troops and munitions where needed.
chronoss2009
Premium
join:2008-09-23
kudos:2

he didnt gt confused

hes just testing the POWER he has

baineschile
2600 ways to live
Premium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI

TV is not utiliTY

Any company has a right to defend its assets, as long as its not illegal. Cable companies have small overbuilders, fiber, satellite, and copper for a competitive environment.

Capitalism has nothing to do with the first amendment.

tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Fairpoint Commun..
·Hollis Hosting

Re: TV is not utiliTY

said by baineschile:

Capitalism has nothing to do with the first amendment.
I disagree. When a company or group of companies become a dominate force in society it is proper government implement rules to maximize the public good.

We seem to have forgotten Capitalism is a means to an end, not the end in and of itself. Capitalism is the best way we have found to mobilize capital and labor. Unfortunately we seem to have turned it into a religion making all other human activity subordinate.

/tom

vzw emp

@qwest.net
said by baineschile:

Any company has a right to defend its assets, as long as its not illegal.
True, but they are not out to defend their assets. Their (future) profits are what they are trying to protect.

castsucks

@sbcglobal.net

comcast wants to make nbc comcast only and maybe even

comcast wants to make nbc comcast only and maybe even force you have comcast HSI and cable to get nbc stuff.

They also force you to have cable tv and HSI to use Remote DVR control.

Dish, Direct tv, and u-verse don't force you in to 1 isp to use there DVR control system.

Ebolla

join:2005-09-28
Dracut, MA

Re: comcast wants to make nbc comcast only and maybe even

Both products are Comcast's own system, it is their choice to enable it this way. This has nothing to do with Network Neutrality, your comment only serves to bash Comcast for something you just want to QQ about. The article isn't even specifically about Comcast.

woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA

hmmmmm....

"More propaganda from the spokesman for a fascist society ruled by gov't. bureaucrats and functionaries. "

Call me old fashioned, but I would rather be ruled by the govt, than be subservient to corporations and their stooges


--
BlooMe
walterj5

join:2007-07-18

Corporations have no 1st amendment rights

The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution and is law. The original 10 amendments were included to protect individual citizens from the "tyranny of the majority" amongst other things. The only business interest included was the press and applied to "political speech" in particular. We see legitimate limitations on "free speech" from the founding of the nation - the classic instance being "no one has the right to yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre. We have law that covers slander and libel and apply to individuals and even the press. We have laws regulating advertising; i.e. cigarettes and alcohol.

Corporations are not citizens. Only a citizen can vote or join the armed forces, etc. Only citizens died for this country. And only citizens give up their children for the defence of corporations as well as the nation. That is a moral argument but it is what the founders intended and Americans fought for in the revolution.

In fact, only citizens have the right to petition the government (lobby). Therefore, corporate lobbying is unconstitutional but corporate money has overpowered our political/legal system on that front.

In short, democracy and capitalism are not related. Just as no business is a democracy (ask any manager or owner) this government is not a business. We use capitalism because it serves the needs of our society. Our government is a democracy of citizens who have the right to thwart the abuses of capitalism any time need arises. Corporations benefit from the armed forces, laws protecting patents and property, a court system to settle disputes, ... Citizens get jobs and means for an economy to function.

The last 8 years prove unfettered capitalism, corruption and greed can destroy this nation.

And quit hiding behind "the children" to push your fascist agenda. The ends do not justify the means. Without the Bill of Rights we fight for nothing, It is the only thing that separates our society from a terrorist society.

DaveDude
No Fear

join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1
Reviews:
·ViaTalk
·Vonage
·Comcast

Re: Corporations have no 1st amendment rights

unfettered ? What are you talking about ? It was the CRA which forced banks to make unsecured loans. Oh btw instead of playing partisan , notice this is the highest unemployment, and inflation has ever been. So keep blaming freedom. Just brush off corruption. Thats how we got here.
patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
said by walterj5:

Corporations are not citizens.
Yes they are.
said by walterj5:

Only a citizen can vote or join the armed forces, etc.
A corporation can be a defense contractor to protect the country.
said by walterj5:

Only citizens died for this country.
Lehman Brothers died for this country.
said by walterj5:

And only citizens give up their children for the defence of corporations as well as the nation.
Corporations give up their sole gain in life, profit, to pay for the defense of this country.
sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1

Re: Corporations have no 1st amendment rights

said by patcat88:

said by walterj5:

Corporations are not citizens.
Yes they are.
said by walterj5:

Only a citizen can vote or join the armed forces, etc.
A corporation can be a defense contractor to protect the country.
said by walterj5:

Only citizens died for this country.
Lehman Brothers died for this country.
said by walterj5:

And only citizens give up their children for the defence of corporations as well as the nation.
Corporations give up their sole gain in life, profit, to pay for the defense of this country.
I can`t tell if you`re being sarcastic or not.

Lehman brothers the name died, but the people running the show still got their multimillion dollar bonuses and have since gone on to greener pastures.

Corporations apply for defense contracts because it is a huge boon to their bottom line. If it wasn`t for the incredible profit opportunity, they wouldn`t even bother.

Corporations do not pay for the defense of the country. They do research and development, manufacture goods, and sell those products for the sole purpose of making a profit.
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
just remember one thing about Net Neutrality, while you obsess over it just remember that in the name of it the value added services of your ISP such as online backup, in house streaming video, etc all count against your cap because of NN. on the flip side without even modern NN we would have totally tiered internet with the ISPs expecting protection money from google and the like.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports

DaveDude
No Fear

join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1

Happens at most colleges too

Amazing how a college campus, and Comcast have so much in common..
ame101

join:2002-05-02
Southington, CT

Re: Happens at most colleges too

Utility's should be publicly owned/controlled. Deregulation has been a joke. Are you paying less? Phone/internet, water, etc. Should be a public trust. Open network, etc, we paid for most of it why the hell should it be pvt owned?

GlobalMind
Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy
Premium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL

Awesome....

A corporation is guaranteed First Amendment rights (in their minds at least) yea that's great!

SLD
Premium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA

Making the argument again...

This makes the argument that corporate "person-hood" should be revoked, immediately. The last thing we need are these mega-sociopathic "persons" exercising their "rights" to "free speech" against net-neutrality, for donations to politicians, to sue the pants of anyone who gets in their way.

Saturday, 11-Feb 22:05:06 Terms of Use & Privacy | feedback | contact | Hosting by nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo
over 12.5 years online! © 1999-2012 dslreports.com.