• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Using the Commerce Clause to regulate the "Information Highway"..

Hicup

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2009
Messages
9,081
Reaction score
2,709
Location
Rochester, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
So, I've been reading decisions over the commerce clause, and it goes way back, but, I see no reason why the US Government cannot regulate the big tech companies on the fair and neutral flow of information, much like it does with our own highways.. No one is allowed to discriminate, in housing, on highways, travel of any kind, jobs, baking cakes, etc.. etc.. The list is lengthy. So then, why not regulate the information highway much the same way. The question is, do American's have a fundamental right to free information? Short of well defined hate speech, (Still as of yet not well defined) or incitement to criminal activity, all information should be free and neutral, should it not?

Discuss!


Tim-
 
Oh here we go, and the appeal to government to “do something” in 5... 4... 3...

(This is why we cannot have nice things.)
 


"No one is allowed to discriminate" is not a true statement.

Some types of discrimination are disallowed by law. Many types are not.
 
The Commerce Clause allows many forms of regulation.

The 1st Amendment bars the government from regulating speech, with a handful of exceptions (e.g. you can't threaten someone with imminent harm via Twitter).

Seems pretty simple to me.
 
So two years ago people were against net neutrality because it was unneeded government regulation.

Now regulate the media regulate the internet.

Big business is so unfair and has too much power
 
Amelia said:
"No one is allowed to discriminate" is not a true statement.

Some types of discrimination are disallowed by law. Many types are not.
Click to expand...

Well, what I meant was that, people are free to travel within the continental US without restrictions unless in the process of committing a crime or violation of traffic law. So I would suggest that there is little distinction between and information highway and one we are accustomed too.

Tim-
 

Nothing will happen because Big Tech has taken sides. They are on the side of the democrats, so what incentive to democrats have to cooperate in the name of free speech and unrestricted dissemination.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
So two years ago people were against net neutrality because it was unneeded government regulation.

Now regulate the media regulate the internet.

Big business is so unfair and has too much power
Click to expand...

So you don't agree with the premise? I asking for more freedom, not less.

Tim-
 
chuckiechan said:
Nothing will happen because Big Tech has taken sides. They are on the side of the democrats, so what incentive to democrats have to cooperate in the name of free speech and unrestricted dissemination.
Click to expand...

The Constitution.. But yeah, I agree, that's why I brought it up for debate, afterall, that's what we do here, right?

Tim-
 
Amelia said:
"No one is allowed to discriminate" is not a true statement.

Some types of discrimination are disallowed by law. Many types are not.
Click to expand...

#45 trying to control Google is the next step for GOOcons.
 

You're not being clear here. The "Internet" is like a highway. If you want to set up a site arguing for communism, you can, same as you can set up a racist website. What's also true is a private platform can discriminate - see, Debate Politics.
 
chuckiechan said:
Nothing will happen because Big Tech has taken sides. They are on the side of the democrats, so what incentive to democrats have to cooperate in the name of free speech and unrestricted dissemination.
Click to expand...

So you want to enforce something like the Fairness Clause? Interesting....:doh

BTW, how is Big Tech hindering your "free speech?" Is DP part of Big Tech, because our benevolent overlords on here don't allow "unrestricted dissemination," which is IMO a good thing.
 
JasperL said:
You're not being clear here. The "Internet" is like a highway. If you want to set up a site arguing for communism, you can, same as you can set up a racist website. What's also true is a private platform can discriminate - see, Debate Politics.
Click to expand...


Right, but think of it this way, the medium by which private business thrives is no different, or I argue, should not be any different than any road or highway. The big tech companies provide that medium, the ISP's provide that highway.. The question is, should they be regulated to uphold constitutional tenets, and regulatory precedence provided by the commerce clause?


Tim-
 

They hinder it, by way of selective censoring. They do not ONLY censor by obvious things such as hate speech, they are actively censoring based on political speech, and that is protected.

Tim-
 

If you want to use the highway analogy, the actual highway is almost entirely unrestricted. Porn is everywhere as are racist websites and commie websites and gambling and (I assume, but haven't looked) pro-pedophile websites, etc.

But the analogy doesn't end there because off the highway are lots of private places of business. If you go into a restaurant and start screaming obscenities at the staff and other diners, do you have some right or expectation for the owner to allow that for as long as you want to scream obscenities? No.... Although a given business can allow that if they want!

So why should any given website not be allowed to set and enforce standards of behavior? If I start calling you names, DP will ding then ban me if I don't step back in line. I'm OK with that. Should the government tell DP that they cannot ban me, in the interest of promoting 'free speech?'
 
Hicup said:
They hinder it, by way of selective censoring. They do not ONLY censor by obvious things such as hate speech, they are actively censoring based on political speech, and that is protected.

Tim-
Click to expand...

"Hate" speech isn't actually "obvious" at all, and it's also protected.

And who is censoring? I'm not on Facebook more than once or twice a year, but spend a fair amount of time on Twitter. Lots of conservatives on Twitter... DP censors based on protected political speech. Should they be required to allow openly racist political speech?
 

I'm still not clear, but overall, yes, the ISPs should be entirely neutral as to content, neither favoring or hindering it. But if I set up a cooking website or handyman website, I can allow or ban anyone from commenting, for any reason including arbitrary or bad reasons - if I just don't like what someone says because IMO that person is a stupid bore, I can ban him. If my political lean is conservative, I don't have to put up with a bunch of stupid liberals polluting my site with their drivel, and vice versa.

What you're suggesting is something on the order of - "Trolls have rights,TOO! Government should prohibit you from banning trolls!" Not just them but obviously including them, and racists, and people who scream obscenities, and who try to sell get rich quick schemes, and those who are just rude, stupid assholes, etc.
 


You're missing the point. It's not the end user destination that requires regulation, it is the medium by which they operate. I can set up a white supremacist storefront downtown if I like, but my clientele will decide if they wish to "shop" there. Just like DP, or anywhere else.. Pedophilia sites, or chat rooms are shut down as quick as they pop up, just like sites that offer criminality.. Hate speech, although protected are ignored mostly, and the consumer has choices. As we move up the layers of the medium, the choices become limited, and it is this that needs to be regulated neutrally.

Net Neutrality was mostly about the speed at which the information can flow, and ISP's throttling back or forward what they deemed proper, but usually by way of "if you pay more, you get more". NN wanted this gone, but the legislation was defeated. All I'm calling for is congress to look at what I'm suggesting and decide if it needs to be more open and neutral. Many questions to ask, do search engines or ISP equate to highways of information, and should that information be regulated or not.


Tim-
 

No, I agree with entirely, even though you're missing my point, but that may be my fault in articulating my argument. Storefronts, like what you're suggesting here are free of regulation, and are right to ban or censor anyone they choose, based on speech, but not the constitutionally protected rights and freedoms.


Tim-
 

What exactly are you talking about?
 

We're somehow not connecting here. I'm not sure what you propose, exactly - who would be regulated, how, what would change. Maybe an example here would help. Facebook should be regulated to require______ that is not now required by government?
 

Does Google, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook prevent you from going to any other website on the information superhighway?

If I want to read something on Commondreams.org I can find it quite easily. I do not recall ever seeing a link to it on Facebook, or in the Apple store or Twitter. If I want to read or see something from Infowars I can do so by typing it into the webbrowser and bam it shows up. No restrictions to prevent either my accessing either sites content.

Now if the ISP, the Comcasts, the AT&T's of the US decided to block access to Infowars, or to Commondreams then I would agree with you. The ISP's need to be regulated to ensure access to the internet, and to prevent actual restrictions on content. The ISP's are the Highways of the internet, the Google, the Apple, the Facebook are just stores situated on the highway trying to sell you stuff, just like Infowars and Commondreams.

The Google can not control the internet (at least until it controls ISPs) and can be replaced if it was doing a poor job. Just like yourYahoo was replaced by Google, just like Facebook took over from Myspace. That change of course can only happen if the ISP's can not control what people can access on the web through their actual control of what gets sent to your device. The ISP's have limited actual competition because of the actual cost of laying cable, and setting up towers (etc). They require a contract, which can be expensive to break, while I can switch from Google to Bing with typing 7 characters on my web browser. That does not provide much monopoly control in comparison
 

I have not heard this argument advanced before, but I think it's an excellent idea. In the way that utilities such as sewer, water and electricity are regulated on the local level for the benefit of the public, the same could be done with the internet.

The trouble is that today's federal government is so damn corrupt in so many ways that we effectively have a fascist model. That would likely make any such effort to work against the people and in favor of the corporations involved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…