Already a member?
Sign in
Welcome! This is a website that everyone can build together. It's easy!
Location: wiki GOP: The Republicans' Guide to 2008
Discussion: Internet Oversight- For or Against?
Keyword tags:
None
Watch
 ACottrell |
Internet Oversight- For or Against?
May 23 2007, 10:28 AM EDT Well, if you are a Ron Paul supporter then I know where you stand, lol. Seriously, though, we have some modicum of oversight for television and radio, why not the Internet? Discuss. 4 out of 6 found this valuable. Do you? |
 Freedomparty |
RE: Internet Oversight- For or Against?
May 25 2007, 7:51 AM EDT "Well, if you are a Ron Paul supporter then I know where you stand, lol. Seriously, though, we have some modicum of oversight for television and radio, why not the Internet? Discuss."You got me confused here. WHAT? 1 out of 3 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
ACottrell |
RE: Internet Oversight- For or Against?
May 28 2007, 11:30 PM EDT I'm talking about some sort of policing of the Internet, something that is hotly debated right now. The ACLU actually defended NAMBLA's right to have a Web site that gives tips to fellow pedophiles on how and where to find young victims. There is absolutely no oversight and "organizations" like this get away with some heinous stuff! 0 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Freedomparty |
RE: Internet Oversight- For or Against?
May 29 2007, 8:03 AM EDT "I'm talking about some sort of policing of the Internet, something that is hotly debated right now. The ACLU actually defended NAMBLA's right to have a Web site that gives tips to fellow pedophiles on how and where to find young victims. There is absolutely no oversight and "organizations" like this get away with some heinous stuff!Oh, thats what you're talking about. Well, in a sense, it is very hard to police the internet. not only is it so very large, being filled with information and all, that it would take a few hundred people to police it. besides that is the fact that some people make there websites anomynously and so are hard to track down. And if they are real computer whizz'es, they can release a virus to cover there trail. I think the best thing is to just let it be. I did have the sudden thought of telling people to make there own viruses to destroy sites like that but then the creator might do the same and we don't need viruses rampaging across cyberspace. 1 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you? |
 J-Me |
RE: Internet Oversight- For or Against?
May 29 2007, 6:24 PM EDT "I'm talking about some sort of policing of the Internet, something that is hotly debated right now. The ACLU actually defended NAMBLA's right to have a Web site that gives tips to fellow pedophiles on how and where to find young victims. There is absolutely no oversight and "organizations" like this get away with some heinous stuff!I think to some degree, the internet is already being policed (hence the need for the ACLU to defend NAMBLA). Although, I don't think it's being done very well. There are several pro-NAMBLA sites out there. There are even several sites (that are easily accessible to children who are able to check a box stating that they are 18, even if they are not), that feature some of the most disgusting and detestible acts (namely, voyeurism and rape). I think that there is a need to police the internet. While information should be free, and individuals should retain their first amendment rights, I believe the line is definitely drawn (or at least should be), when those rights inhibit the safety and well-being of others. In reality, speeches, protests, etc., are policed or prohibited when they are thought to incite violence. The same rules should apply to the internet. (and that is why To Catch a Predator is totally my favorite show) 2 out of 3 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
ACottrell |
RE: Internet Oversight- For or Against?
May 29 2007, 7:45 PM EDT I see so many liberal sites with these banners saying "Save the Internet" because they think any kind of sanctions will infringe upon their freedom of speech. Like you said, though, you can't run into a theater and yell "Fire" and you can't incite violence with hate speech without being arrested. Wasn't there a bill turned down recently proposing that all pornographic sites be given a ".xxx" domain name? How does that infringe on anyone's rights? Why was it shot down? Oh, and I totally agree about To Catch a Predator. While I am too sensitive about the subject to watch it myself, I'm glad it's there. 1 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Freedomparty |
RE: Internet Oversight- For or Against?
May 30 2007, 8:03 AM EDT "I see so many liberal sites with these banners saying "Save the Internet" because they think any kind of sanctions will infringe upon their freedom of speech. Like you said, though, you can't run into a theater and yell "Fire" and you can't incite violence with hate speech without being arrested.Didn't know there was a bill like that. I don't get why they would shoot it down either. Maybe part of the reason is that if a kid or teenager really wanted to get on the site they wouldn't car if there is an ".xxx" Besides that it would be too small of a change to be effective... maybe thats why it got turned down. 1 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
safefoods safefoods |
RE: Internet Oversight- For or Against?
Oct 11 2007, 6:18 AM EDT "Seriously, though, we have some modicum of oversight for television and radio, why not the Internet? Discuss."Obviously we (maybe me, not decided yet who to support) need to have a more active presence on the Net by engaging in debate and posting our own wikis and sites. I do have some political wikis and blogs here and there. Check this one out... a challenge... going to the middle... http://independentcentrist.wetpaint.com/ Check out Fred Thompson's page here on wiki GOP. His campaign is attempting to come up on speed for their main site and related sites. Fred is trying to get his video clips distributed on the Net. I note the Fred Heads have gotten him posted on uTube. http://www.wikigop.com/page/Fred+Thompson I must admit I haven't checked into the other Republican players such as Rudy and his effectiveness on the Net. Very interested in learning more. I do believe candidates still do not understand that the Internet really can make or break their successful run for the Presidency. So many people, myself included get most of our news from the Net now. We have a chance to participate in debates and research at our leisure. The lil guy can indeed have a voice. I am rooting for Fred or Rudy personally or a combo of them for President and Vice President. Mitt Romney though the perfect "look" for Presidency just feels wrong at least for me. I think Romney would have a more difficult time defeating Hilly. Just my humble opinion. Apologies to those of you supporting other candidates going to the primaries. To each his or her own of course. What do the others of you think? Which GOP candidate seems to be effective using the Net the best? Which GOP candidate doesn't seem to get it yet? Which GOP candidate and his supporters do a good job countering Dems on the Net? 2 out of 3 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
safefoods safefoods |
RE: Internet Oversight- For or Against?
Oct 11 2007, 6:44 AM EDT "Well, if you are a Ron Paul supporter then I know where you stand, lol. Seriously, though, we have some modicum of oversight for television and radio, why not the Internet? Discuss."Check this out... Notable Quotes Read quotes from Independent thinkers Center For Individual Freedom (CFIF) http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/flash_2.htm Founded in 1998, the Center for Individual Freedom is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with the mission to protect and defend individual freedoms and individual rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. This is a highly effective site! Very much for independent thinkers and does not follow the usual kneejerk reaction of either party. For instance, they are very active in their denouncing of Bush for not pardoning the 2 Border Control Agents. In my opinion Republicans will not be successful pandering to the very conservative right (that is complete opposite of the far left). Women are pivotal. Winning the over 30s crowd. More women use the Net than men! Women read more rather than look at the pictures LOL like that magazine... So we need active counter sites. Women are more apt to contact their direct Representatives. Women are very disturbed over the family food poisonings. Something none of the Republican Candidates get yet except for Mr. Paul. No kidding! I have been prodding Fred and his Fred heads to pay attention. Women hold the key to this next election. Hilly may get the under 30 women vote but it's the over 30s the candidates must attract and keep. Once again Ohio and Florida will be the deal breaker states. Hilly will get the usual entitlement blue states. She must not be able to flip a Republican state. Look for her to tap Richardson to go after that obvious vote and get that swing state. Republicans will need to counter to take the midwest. Hilly has little or no chance to flip a Southern state. Males can't stand her and most women don't like her one bit. 2 out of 3 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
safefoods safefoods |
RE: Internet Oversight- For or Against?
Oct 11 2007, 8:28 AM EDT Another group to keep up with: Congress.org http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/ 1 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
safefoods safefoods |
RE: Internet Oversight- For or Against?
Oct 12 2007, 6:37 AM EDT RE: Bring the Broadcaster Freedom Act to the Floor Congressman Mike Pence has 203 supporters for his Broadcaster Freedom Act, which would ring down the curtain on one of the most outrageous attempts to suppress free speech in American history -- the so-called “Fairness Doctrine.” Bill Ruder, President Kennedy’s Assistant Secretary of Commerce, tells us how the Fairness Doctrine really worked: "Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue." Why is the Broadcaster Freedom Act NOT of the floor of the House right now? Could it be possible that our elected officials loath and fear free speech? This cynical suppression of opposing opinion is not only dishonest, but is contrary to both the intent and letter of the First Amendment. Let the American people choose what they want to hear. I certainly expect you and other fair-minded public servants to support the Constitution as you swore to do when you took the oath of office. Put the Broadcaster Freedom Act up for a vote, today! Sincerely, http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/fairnessdoctrineiii.html 2 out of 3 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
safefoods safefoods |
RE: Internet Oversight- For or Against?
Oct 16 2007, 6:37 AM EDT Another important site link to pass along counters Hilly's and MoveOn's Media Matters. Visit you will find some links to blogs that don't spew liberal cr@p to the masses. Media Research Center http://www.mrc.org/ 2 out of 3 found this valuable. Do you? |
