JoyV

EXTREME! You mean extreme views like calling for attacks on those whose ideologies are not your own? This is acceptable on social media so long as it is for ideologies on the left. You mean like calling for destruction of Jews? This is also allowed. You mean like calling for cop k*****g? This is also allowed. Yet the comedy team of Diamond and Silk are too extreme because they support our president.

JoyV

What Obama's FCC did in 2015, imposed 1930s-era regulations (known as "Title II") on Internet service providers. These regulations made things worse by limiting investment in high-speed networks and slowing broadband deployment. Under Title II, broadband network investment dropped more than 5.6% Opens a New Window. -- the first time a decline has happened outside of a recession. The effect was particularly serious for smaller Internet service providers—fixed wireless companies, small-town cable operators, municipal broadband providers, electric cooperatives, and others—that don't have the resources or lawyers to navigate a thicket of complex rules. Removing these outdated and unnecessary regulations will create a strong incentive for companies to pour resources into building better online infrastructure across the country and bringing faster, better, and cheaper Internet access to more Americans.

So yes, Trump nixed it! Trump's FCC's Restoring Internet Freedom Order, took effect on June 11, 2018.

Under Trump the Federal Trade Commission will police and take action against Internet service providers for anticompetitive acts or unfair and deceptive practices. The FTC is the nation's premier consumer protection agency, and until the FCC stripped it of jurisdiction over Internet service providers in 2015, the FTC protected consumers consistently across the Internet economy.

And it added t***sparency. A critical part of Internet openness involves Internet service providers being t***sparent about their business practices. That's why the FCC has imposed enhanced t***sparency requirements. Internet service providers must publicly disclose information regarding their network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of service. These disclosures must be made via a publicly available, easily accessible company website or through the FCC's website. This will discourage harmful practices and help regulators target any problematic conduct.

These disclosures also support innovation, investment, and competition by ensuring that entrepreneurs and other small businesses have the technical information necessary to create and maintain online content, applications, services, and devices.

Internet Service Providers must clearly disclose their network management practices on their own web sites or with the FCC.
https://www.fcc.gov/isp-disclosures.

JoyV

Good question! I've heard of some really outrageous examples.

debeda

Sounds about right.

debeda

JoyV

Morgan

Untrue. Not under Pruit, sounds like Trump doing more of his false blaming.

Less than a week after the inauguration, the Trump administration has already gagged employees at two federal agencies. Memos obtained by various media outlets show that scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Agriculture are now blocked from communicating with the public and the press.

Scientists at the research division of the US Department of Agriculture are no longer allowed to communicate with the public about taxpayer-funded research.

http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/24/14372940/trump-gag-order-epa-environmental-protection-agency-health-agriculture

Morgan

This is more complicated then stated, as I thought, schools and states have different policies as far as free speech zones, some now implementing new policies as we speak.The subject of free-speech zones on campus remains a sore point. The zones started during the Vietnam War era, when universities needed a way to safely contain anti-war protests.

Some states and public universities are either eliminating free-speech zones or scaling back their use. North Carolina, Tennessee and Arizona recently passed laws that protect the rights of speakers of all viewpoints and restrict the use of free-speech zones.

Colleges try and steer clear inciteful speeches, in order to avoid conflict.

Common_Sense_Matters

The cases of which you speak, 7 in total, comes down to 2 that were NOT whistle blowers but merely individuals leaking classified information NOT related to any wrong doing, 2 carry overs from the previous bush administration which leave just 3 initiated during Obama's term that may have qualified as whistle blowing. There is also a difference between tapping a phone line and subpoenaing a phone's toll log, something that merely shows calls going in and/or out to/from what numbers the duration of the calls. Tapping a line let's you hear/record the conversation, toll logs don't. My research has yet to make clear what the extent of the last 3 cases were about or the final outcome of those investigations/court decisions were.

As for "Trying to change a law through legal means, whether you agree with it or not, or whether the law itself is in violation; is NOT violating the 1st amendment. It is a legal recourse.". it IS legal to alter/modify a law if one feels it needs altering/modifying, yes, just not ethical to do so for the reasons Trump had in mind, to make it easier to sue for libel when media reports the t***h about him. As it sits, he can't sue successfully for libel if what they report is the t***h, that has never sat well with him. He wants to be able to successfully sue whether or not what was said was the t***h, to discourage negative coverage. Something that I believe Nixon considered as well.

As for the similarities between Trump and Nixon, sure, the specifics are quite different, but otherwise many similarities, including what he thought of the media. There are differences of course, the fact that Trump is the one attacking the media and not Pence, as Nixon had Agnew speak out against the press all the while playing the "victim of the press" role himself. Nixon cried about his own "witch hunt" just as Trump is crying about his proclaimed "witch hunt", both have done their best to obstruct justice. How can you NOT see the similarities? That previous question is rhetorical, no need for you to answer, I know the answer already.

Yes, on several occasions Trump has openly done things of questionable legality, but just as often he has attempted to hide his corrupt actions. Whether he does something out in the open or behind closed doors is irrelevant, the action alone is relevant. As he stated during his campaign and it is becoming painfully obvious since "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose v**ers.". He was right, he could openly break the law and he won't lose his supporters. If he were to set out to prove what he said on the campaign trail and actually pick a random target in the middle of 5th Ave., that would be legal because he did it openly?

I do see some similarities between Trump and Roosevelt too. Blustering, yes, outspoken, yes, politically incorrect, definitely, outwardly crude, without a doubt, America first, obviously, "generous and quick to help others on a personal level", Roosevelt, yes, Trump, not so much. Most of Trump's policies are anti-individual but very much pro-corporate. I also wouldn't consider Trump a very good negotiator, I haven't seen him doing a very good job negotiating. Negotiations are about give and take, you try to give as little as possible while gaining as much as possible, but that only really works if you are open to some amount of compromise if needed. Trump tends to be fairly inflexible in negotiations, though he does seem more willing to give when dealing with hostile nations than when dealing domestically. The rest of the similarities you see between Roosevelt and Trump I see too.

Common_Sense_Matters

Going back to putting words into another's mouth again? Err... Fingers I should say. I am not FOR banning a site over first amendment issues. As I pointed out, sites aren't bound by the first amendment, only the government is. It would seem many conservatives on this site can't seem to grasp that concept.

It would seem you need to work on your reading comprehension.

Common_Sense_Matters

Moot point as the sites they are referring to don't get government funding.

Common_Sense_Matters

Since I haven't seen any of which you are crying about, I can't speak on any of that. Perhaps I need to be more extreme and go looking for extreme content, nah, not a big fan of fringe crap, you go ahead and fringe away buddy.

Abel

Good for Texas! Now if they would just get serious about illegal migration we would all be better off.

debeda

JoyV

Inciteful speeches?

You mean like Brown University shutting down The TV host and t*********r-rights activist Janet Mock from a speaking event after students protested, not because of the content of Mock's speech, but because pro-Israel group Hillel cosponsored the lecture?

You mean like the University of California at Berkeley's stand down order to campus police to allow students to disrupt a speech by the Chancellor of Berkeley? What was the inciteful topic? The value of higher education.

You mean like the University of Chicago shut down of the speech of the political analyst and human-rights advocate Bassem Eid who made comments that were seen as pro-Israel? (Bassem Eid is Palestinian by the way.)

You mean like Hampshire College revoking its request for the physician at Massachusetts General Hospital's to give a commencement speech? The incitefulness was that it did NOT mention t***sphobia or r****m but talked to all students as equals!!!

You mean like San Francisco University shutting down a speech by Nir Barkat? There was no complaint about the topic but only that he was the Mayor of Jerusalem.

You mean like Virginia Tech shutting down The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) columnist Jason Riley because he stands for all races being treated as equals? (He is black by the way.)

You mean like Williams College shutting down the speech of author of "Why men won't marry you." Suzanne Venker? Her incitement is that though she writes on women's issues as pro women and their strengths, she admits she is against the feminist movement.