Sen. Al Franken: We Have a Free Speech Problem
By Tim Karr, August 20, 2010
Sen. Al Franken (D.-Minn.) warned a packed house Thursday night in Minneapolis that the corporate takeover of our media, and the government's failure to stop it, is one of the most important issues of our time.
Franken said our media system is at risk everywhere we turn -- from our free speech online to the growing power of companies who own a massive number of media outlets.
Franken was speaking during a hearing featuring Federal Communications Commission Commissioners Mignon Clyburn and Michael Copps.
He spoke about recent efforts by Verizon and Google to push a "policy framework" on Washington that transfers control over Internet content from the people who go online into the hands of a few powerful corporations.
|
Franken: "We have a problem" |
"We can't let companies write the rules that they're supposed to follow," he said. "Because if that happens those rules are going to be written only to protect corporations."
He also warned of the looming merger between cable giant Comcast and NBC-Universal, urging Copps and Clyburn to oppose the merger and enforce Net Neutrality rules that would protect free speech online.
With the Internet "We don't just have a competition problem we have a First Amendment problem" Franken said. He then quoted Justice Hugo Black, who warned against letting companies have the power to prevent people from publishing.
In a Thursday Minneapolis Star-Tribune editorial, both Copps and Clyburn said that the power of the Internet must remain in the hands of consumers, "because corporations will press their advantage if they can."
"History teaches us ... that when technological capability to exercise control combines with a financial incentive to do so, some will try to turn this power to their own advantage, " they wrote.
In reference to the Verizon and Google deal, they wrote: "This new framework is not what the American people have been waiting for, not by a long shot."
Companies like AT&T, Verizon and Google would like to resolve this issue by creating policies in closed-door meetings with regulators. But the hundreds of people who packed the hearing in Minneapolis made it clear that this issue demands public participation.
Commissioners Copps and Clyburn and Sen. Franken are strong supporters of policies that would make Net Neutrality the rule of the road. President Obama has called protecting Net Neutrality a top priority. But FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has been reluctant to move forward to create a lasting rule.
You can change that. Watch the video of Franken's speech and take action at SavetheInternet.com.
Free Press is a national, nonpartisan organization working to reform the media. Free Press does not support or oppose any candidate for public office. Through education, organizing and advocacy, we promote diverse and independent media ownership, strong public media and universal access to communications.
Tim Karr
Timothy Karr oversees all Free Press and Free Press Action Fund campaigns and online outreach efforts, including SavetheInternet.com and Free Press' work on public broadcasting, propaganda and journalism.
Read Tim's full bio »
Comments
Businesses exist to make
Businesses exist to make profits. If enough consumers decide that the products and services being provided are not adequate, the company will either change its business model or fail.
I am disagree - it is
I am disagree - it is businessess which exist no tfor profit only!
regard Adventure tours
The Necessity of Net Neutrality
To say that "those that favor this type of legislation, want to control the assets of these companies and dictate how the companies should operate." is nothing but misinformed nonsense. Net Neutrality is not about controlling companies, it is about preventing companies from controlling accessible information as well as access to that information. As you know "Stop Collectivism" democracy does not work when their is only one candidate to vote for. The same is true of the free market, if their is only one product available and only one store selling it can you really "vote with your dollar"?
Of course not. We need Net Neutrality. Not to control the internet or personal computers. We need Net Neutrality to keep private business from consolidating control over the internet. We need Net Neutrality in order to maintain a free and open internet useable by all people.
Because a neutral internet is the purest form of democracy.
Who Is Misinformed?
I have read the proposed legislation. Your characterization of my view as "misinformed nonsense" is false and your reply is an attempt to discredit an opposing point of view out of hand without having to provide a counterargument of substance.
Let me ask a question. How does the way Verizon (or Google) chooses to operate its business have anything to do with the first amendment? The first amendment right to freedom of speech is intended to prevent the federal government from denying you and me the right to voice our opinions.
"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." - U.S. Constitution Amendment I
Do you see anything in the first amendment that says Verizon and Google are obligated to provide you something just because you want it or because you say it should be a certain way? No. It is to prevent the federal government from oppressing our rights as individuals and nothing more.
You imply that somehow Verizon and Google have a monopoly on Internet content and access or are colluding to make it so. Well, I guess companies like Time Warner, AT&T, Sprint, Yahoo, Cisco, Apple and Microsoft just don't exist in your world. You see competition does exist. In addition, the Internet is being used by people across the globe. Do you think other international companies might want a piece of the American market? Your view that we don't have choices is false. In addition, there is nothing forcing you to spend your money on Internet access. You have made the choice to have that access. Having that access is not a right any more than having any other service provided on the open market.
Your fear of companies is odd to those of us that see the very things you claim to fear being done by large governments. Governments have absolute power to make rules and to enforce those rules. Governments have the power of coercion and can punish us when we step out of line. I am guessing you won't agree with me on this point and I would guess it is because you admire big government's ability to protect us from the evils of the world. But in that belief you have chosen to ignore the harms that government have perpetuated throughout time. Governments have caused more suffering, death and destruction in the world than all of the companies you fear combined. And that is because the same power hungry and greedy humans you fear running companies are also running governments. Those in government are no more intelligent, compassionate are perfect that those in private industry. Less government is what provides for maximum individual freedoms.
Net neutrality is unnecessary.
Big Business owns this country
The government that has caused all the destruction is controlled by the big businesses of the world. The rich OWN this country and now they are coming for the internet too.
A supporter of your point of view
May I commend you on your eloquent retort to the madness of net neutrality? Your sentiment that governments "...have caused more suffering, death and destructions in the world than all the companies ... combined" expresses my view exactly. It is a faint hope, but a hope nevertheless, that your words may penetrate the minds of some of your readers here.
I would disagree with you on just one point, that net neutrality is merely "unnecessary." It is far more than that. It is a sinister plan to control and ultimately silence one the of few sources of uncorrupted information, in contrast to the traditional channels of TV and newspapers that have all but abandoned their mission to protect the public in seeking the truth.
You're kidding me, right?
Read up on the United Fruit Company and then tell me just how benign corporate America is. They're the reason most of South America hates this country with a passion. That contempt is not misplaced... democratically elected presidents throughout South America were ousted and replaced with ruthless dictators, all for the sake of some banana crops. It's hardly the only example of corporate abuse (nearly everything BP has done lately could qualify as examples), but one of the most egregious.
Net neutrality supporters aren't stupid. We know full well what corporations are capable of doing, and we know what they'll do with their oligarchies once net neutrality is repealed. (Just how well does the "free market" work when there's almost no competition in a given market? You don't need a degree in economics to figure out the answer.) Your kind will be laughing all the way to the bank, and we won't have a chance to tell the world that we warned them of your plans.
Not Kidding
I didn't say all companies operate honestly. I am trying to point out that trusting government to act better than companies is misplaced trust. We should have a healthy amount of skepticism about both. I would say your example of dictatorships supports my argument. When governments are given more and more control, those in power will abuse it.
I never said Net Neutrality supporters are stupid. I understand the concerns expressed and I share some of those concerns. I just don't believe government intrusion is the answer.
I find it humorous how some, like yourself, will make blanket statements in an attempt to discredit me and my point of view. "Your kind will be laughing all the way to the bank." What do you know about me? Nothing.
What about the tyrannical nature of government? That could never happen here, right? The government would never destroy cattle and crops when people are suffering. The government would never throw people in jail because they charged too little for a product or service. The government would never put people in prison camps because of their race or heritage. The government would never lie to us, deceive us or abuse us. And government would never collude with business. You don't need a degree in U.S. or world history to know that all of the above have happened, do happen and will continue to happen as long as mankind exists.
Your kind sat and wondered how the governments "for the people" could have resulted in mass starvation, torture and genocide. People like me yell at the top of our lungs; protecting INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM, not the greater good, is what would prevent such horrors. You'll say that I'm being extreme. Yet, you preach fear of corporations just the same. Anyone of even limited intelligence sees the irony.
I won't be responding on this site any further after tonight. I am sure that will make some here very happy.
Why Franken is Wrong
This issue has nothing to do with free speech. This issue is about private property. Senator Franken, and those that favor this type of legislation, want to control the assets of these companies and dictate how the companies should operate. This is the equivalent of the government telling us how to use our personal computers and wireless devices. In order to protect free speech on the Internet, you are now required to provide other people use of your computer or wireless device whenever someone requests such use. How does that sound? You pay for it, but if someone else wants to use it, you have to let him/her do so.
Businesses exist to make profits. If enough consumers decide that the products and services being provided are not adequate, the company will either change its business model or fail. The free market is the purest form of democracy. We each vote with our dollars. Once the government takes control, our ability to influence the outcome becomes almost non-existent.
It is time for people to realize that centrally controlled societies are by their very nature oppressive. You may not like corporations, but they have no control over you unless you choose to buy their products or services. You have no control over government bureaucracies and cannot rid yourself of their rules once they are in place.
Net Neutrality is unnecessary.
Monopoly. Look it up.
Monopoly. Look it up. That's not freedom of choice.
Where is the monopoly?
You have a choice to buy a product or not buy it. That is choice. And to claim there is a monopoly on the Internet is plain wrong. There are companies across the globe providing such access. In America, we have companies like AT&T, Verizon, Time Warner, Sprint, Microsoft, Yahoo, Google and Apple.
A few problems there, Jack.
Google only offers internet access in a few select areas. Time Warner has regional monopolies, as does Comcast and Charter... if you want cable, you have ONE choice for wired broadband access. Last I checked, neither Microsoft, Yahoo, or Apple were internet service providers.
As for this nonsense that you can either buy a product or not buy it, let's try turning off your water and see if you consider going without it a choice. In the information age, internet access is as much a necessary utility as water and electricity. Some countries recognize it as one... somehow, it's no surprise that the United States, currently ranked 30th in worldwide broadband speed tests, isn't one of them.
Why?
Did the government have anything to do with those regional monopolies you speak of? I suppose not. They occurred naturally. I thought there was this regulated utility thing that might have happened.
I'm sure there are some areas where limited access exists. There are also areas where Verizon, AT&T and Time Warner all compete for business. I know because I live in an area where all three are after my residential business.
I used Microsoft, Yahoo and Apple to point out that Google is not the only player that wants their content to get priority. There are choices for consumers.
Turning my water off is nothing like turning off Internet access. I actually need water to remain living. I've known people who didn't have Internet access and remained living. Weird. By the way, if I don't pay my water bill the city shuts my water off. Those greedy bastards. Funny, the electric company does the same thing.
I'm moving on. Have a blessed life.
Where is the monopoly?
You have a choice to buy a product or not buy it. That is choice. And to claim there is a monopoly on the Internet is plain wrong. There are companies across the globe providing such access. In America, we have companies like AT&T, Verizon, Time Warner, Sprint, Microsoft, Yahoo, Google and Apple.
The Necessity of Net Neutrality
To say that "those that favor this type of legislation, want to control the assets of these companies and dictate how the companies should operate." is nothing but misinformed nonsense. Net Neutrality is not about controlling companies, it is about preventing companies from controlling accessible information as well as access to that information. As you know "Stop Collectivism" democracy does not work when their is only one candidate to vote for. The same is true of the free market, if their is only one product available and only one store selling it can you really "vote with your dollar"?
Of course not. We need Net Neutrality. Not to control the internet or personal computers. We need Net Neutrality to keep private business from consolidating control over the internet. We need Net Neutrality in order to maintain a free and open internet useable by all people.
Because a neutral internet is the purest form of democracy.
What it could be like
We have the technology (think of libraries as you read this) to offer unlimited access to every kind (without practical exception) for single monthly access fee that is sometimes waived but always provides and add free experience with strong privacy and anonymous speech.
On the other hand we have industries that are in the way of this and in the way of the nations future and even the world's future. What is their profit in comparison to this potential and this need. Why would we not replace them and their business models by making uses of infrastructure and technologies that cut them out of the loop. The continued existences of the approach used by these firms and possibly appear to represent an incredibly serious threat to our state and our society. In answer to their claims of being owed a return on investment or equity we can soundly say that gouged the public and that equity belongs to the public.
These firms are not citizens and they don't represent the interests of citizens. These firms represent the interests of those who are so bent on keeping an unsustainable status quo in place that they are puttting society at risk. The internet is at the very least a way around sponsorship based censorship, its something that has given the people a voice and allowed them to engage their roles as citizens.
The Lure of Collectivism
Imagine a world where the government confiscates private property in order to deliver it to the collective. We could all share in the fruits of another’s labor. We could trample over every business, church, private organization or individual standing in the way of our pursuit of the greater good. If you oppose our view and the goal of accomplishing the utopian society, you are surely uneducated, misinformed or just evil. Taking things from people (or companies and other entities) is okay as long as it is done in the name of the greater good. Forget about the evil company’s rights or a person’s rights if they are standing in opposition to our superior view of the world.
The above view is tyrannical in nature and resembles what you seem to be promoting. Yet these are the ways of communism, fascism, Marxism, progressivism and socialism. All of these –isms fail to recognize that an important point; Government is run by people just as companies are. Government doesn't attract more intelligent, more compassionate, more altruistic or more just people than private industry does. Government can’t fix everything that ails a society. Government can and does impose its will with the power of coercion that cannot be rivaled by any individual or entity. Study history and you will see that once governments are given (or take) absolute power, oppression of its people will occur.
Net neutrality does nothing to enhance freedom in our society. It is exactly the opposite. It increases government power and expands government’s control over private industry. Corporations don’t have the power to censor society. Government does.
stop following me around
coporations can sensor l33t objectovist just think about the fuox newz company
sayn the massacre at malmady wuz u.s.e. led foolz it were tha germanz "big smile"
google should know better and verizone can shovel ihe net neutral iran needs the net neutral and so do i my plc's be hoppin bandwith on oil sites OIL SITES BP bitches remember oil spills on land suck too i needs my bandwidth the wayz it iz i am a small company man and i want a clear line for automation IMPORTANT STUFF IZ BEING MESSED WITH HERE
btw atlas shrugged was wrong about capatalism srry objerktavist
I Tried
I tried to get this...but I just don't.
Okay...
Just put down the Ayn Rand book and slowly back away...
Of course corporations have
Of course corporations have the power to censor society... they've been doing it for decades. It is either naive or deceptive to propose otherwise. Fox does it all the time.
Net neutrality clearly enhances our freedom as it helps to inform and empower all people. The internet is our greatest single source of knowledge today... so the benefit of a free and unfiltered exchange is self evident.
The government may not be the panacea but it is subject to the will of the people, when we choose to use that power. It has been successfully enforcing neutrality in the use of the telecommunications network for decades so their track record of success exists. Corporations on the other hand, have repeatedly shown that their only real concern is their profit.
Certainly, I don't believe we should take the property of others without just cause... but the free exchange of ideas, information and communication are inalienable rights for all people. "Imminent Domain" has been used to confiscate property when the need of the people is greater than the need of an individual or group, so corporations that want to be a part of the internet should keep that in mind when they seek to own that which they did not create.
If a corporation owns all of the food, do you still have a right to eat?
Censorship and Just Cause
Companies can only censor information to those that choose to use their services/products. They have no ability to censor on a scale any wider than their customer base. If you believe Fox News censors information, you can choose to access news elsewhere; CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, New York Times, Wall Street Journal and all of the others. If you are a Verizon customer and they are providing Google with priority on their network and you don't like it, take your money and spend it with AT&T or whomever else you choose. We can starve a business simply by taking our money elsewhere. Tell me how this is either naïve or deceptive.
I contest your assertion that the government is subject to the will of the people. Do the bureaucrats answer to you and me through elective processes? Do these government bureaucracies operate with transparency? Throughout history, have governments that became more centralized, improved or degraded the condition of the societies they were supposed to serve? I am not suggesting government has no role in a society, but it must have a very limited role or it becomes the beast you seem to fear. This is exactly why our founders created different branches of federal government and placed limits on each of them. They understood the truths of government and of human nature.
Yes, companies exist to make profits. There is nothing inherently evil in this concept. Profit motivation has driven innovation. The drive of people to want more has improved our quality of life. It is why you and I have the ability to exchange these ideas from different parts of the country.
Imminent domain is a bad idea. It has been used abusively in society. I’ve seen it used to take peoples homes so a bigger mall could be built in the name of increased sales tax revenues. Basically, it becomes a debate of what “just cause” is. Is it just, to a person that raised a family in a home (and perhaps more than one generation), that the government can simply condemn his/her property and force him/her out in order to accomplish this greater need? What you are promoting is the confiscation of private property in the name of the collective. It sounds real nice until they come and confiscate your property, by force if necessary, in the name of the greater good.
I have read this proposed legislation (more than once) and it does give the government increased power to dictate to companies what they must do; not just what they can’t do. This site has a link to the bill, if you haven't already read it, I would recommend it. Most of it appears to be fairly innocuous, but I find some of it disturbing.
I will answer your last question and ask you one. The right to eat comes from my right as an individual to pursue my own happiness. It comes from the right of private ownership. If I am allowed to own my own property and pursue my own dreams, I will be able to hunt, fish or farm if needed. In this way, a company could never have the control your question presumes. And of course the limits of my individual rights end where I begin to infringe on your individual rights.
My question to you is this. Do you believe in the rights of individuals or do the rights of society trump our individual rights?
Its not about the next Google!
We always see the issue being framed on terms favorable to industry. This not about innovation or the lack there of and industry establishing a right to determine what we pay for innovation or even how much there will be. The issue is speech and power and these are prior to any economic concerns.
The issue is whether the lobby/sponsorship systems retain the power that allow elites to force you to look at things or keep you from seeing other things and thereby control the political discourse, whether this system of propaganda is going to be allowed to survive. Its clear to the opposition that the propaganda system can't survive the continued unfettered growth of a healthy internet. So this issue is really about democracy vs plutonomy.
For bargaining purposes the FCC needs to reframe the question along these terms: If our speech isn’t protected why should certain business get such protections or get priority in speech? If the internet were to be converted to the equivalent of cable TV where we pay to watch propaganda then why continue to honor the patents and copyrights of corporations? Why should the territorial agreements that protect telcos from having to compete be honored? Why should the spectrum licenses be renewed?
If our complaints and concerns can't be heard or addessed why should there's be addressed?
If sponsors are going to be allowed to drown out the public and compromise public life then why should the public honor the protections afforded to these corporations? The public tolerates the imposition of the state, its laws and these corporate entities only because they exist to serve the pubic.
Free Speech Is Not The Issue
I previously addressed this concept. This is not a free speech issue. Nothing is being done to prevent your ability to speak your mind. You can express your opinion in public, you can print your own fliers and distribute them, you can call into a radio talk show, you can put an ad in the newspaper, you can join a group and protest in front of the company's building, you can write a book, you can write a song, you can create a theatrical production and you can talk to your neighbors.
It seems to me, you are interested in wielding the force of government to get something you want, not something you are entitled to.
Are we on the road to serfdom?
The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to excersie it. -Adam Smith
Don't lay down to the powers that be or this great Republic is done! God Bless America and the free market.
Yes
Shhh. Trying to protect your individual freedom is selfish. Just play your role and all will be fine.