Reply With Quote
This image and that legislation should concern us all...
Yes
No
Well said Yoni. I agree that ACCESS isn't a right (ie you are not granted access if you don't have it) but unlawful RESTRICTION of said rights shouldn't be legal. It's an interesting question.
This image and that legislation should concern us all...
even if that were true, if the internet were shut down, it wouldn't shut down the press.
We would be reading the newspaper the next day about how the internet was shut down.
Most presses are operated by a very few printers that receive content...yep...over the internet.
Today's press files their stories from laptops, blackberries, etc... They wouldn't be back to the "presses" the next day.
Mere inconvenience is not an argument for it being a human right.
I don't think I was making such an argument. I was arguing that I don't think the press will be back up and running as quickly as was being suggested.
Who suggested that it would be up and running quickly?
I guess I did. Touche.
Edit:
We would be reading the newspaper in the following days about how the internet got shut down.
Somehow, I think the internet shutting down in the US would involve some form of rioting/protest before we got to the "reading from the newspaper" phase.I guess I did. Touche.
Edit:
We would be reading the newspaper in the following days about how the internet got shut down.
I think that there would be somebody out there printing the story.
I'm too lazy about this issue to riot myself.
My lazy self will probably read about the internet getting shut down one day and read about the rioting the next day.
I'll probably also read the funny pages. I haven't read Dilbert in years.
and TV news? Will broadcast news take a few days to recover as well? I honestly don't know.
Warning to spittle-flicking retrogrades, New Deal mentioned below as moving America forward.
Stimulus funds help wire rural homes for Internet
Bolstered by billions in federal stimulus money, an effort to expand broadband Internet access to rural areas is underway, an ambitious 21st-century infrastructure project with parallels to the New Deal electrification of the nation's hinterlands in the 1930s and 1940s.
President Barack Obama emphasized the importance of Internet access in his State of the Union address last week.
"To attract new businesses to our shores, we need the fastest, most reliable ways to move people, goods, and information — from high-speed rail to high-speed Internet," Obama said.
In the Depression, it was power to the people — for farm equipment and living-room lamps, cow-milking machines and kitchen appliances. Now, it's online access — to YouTube and digital downloads, to videoconferencing and Facebook, to eBay and Twitter.
"Rural areas all across the country are wrestling with this, somewhat desperately,"
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...nd-rural_N.htm
I didn't say YOU would be rioting... just that somebody would be. Probably all the people who work for businesses that make most of their money off the internet.
I know.....my point was that there will be at least one person involved in the "reading from the newspaper" phase.I didn't say YOU would be rioting... just that somebody would be. Probably all the people who work for businesses that make most of their money off the internet.
I didn't say there wouldn't be. I just said that the rioting/protest phases would probably be well underway before you read about the internet being shut down in a newspaper.
In other words, you wouldn't need to read about the internet being shut down in a newspaper, because if it was, government officials would be talking about it that night on TV.
Yeah, I figure that we would for sure be watching it on TV first, but that was part of my earlier question. How much would it affect TV news if the internet was blocked?I didn't say there wouldn't be. I just said that the rioting/protest phases would probably be well underway before you read about the internet being shut down in a newspaper.
In other words, you wouldn't need to read about the internet being shut down in a newspaper, because if it was, government officials would be talking about it that night on TV.
I think the internet has become more pervasive than you might imagine. Much of broadcast television has infrastructure segments that are reliant on the internet. Particularly now that the government has completed it mandated conversion to digital television.
It wouldn't be total [and, quite frankly, I don't know to what affect it would be] but, a shutdown of the internet will affect broadcast television in many markets.
CNN couldn't exist anymore without Twitter.
So then by that thinking you're not being discriminated against by having to have an ID card to vote, right? I agree with you.
There would be a tenfold increase in the lies by FOX, without access to the correct information on the internet.
But where would Fox News and Rush get their news from if not the chain email?
You think so? Wouldn't it be mildy humorous to see more urban cities looting TV's to prove there point about media being shut down?
I'd have a hard time believing that the U.S. could every pull off a protest like Tunsia did and only riot/protest to prove their point.
so everybody should be provided internet access (free of charge) 24/7?
There are quite a few things that we would differ on what "should" be a human right. Now I agree that all people of the would should have unrestricted access to such information. That, simply isn't practical though. Sovereign nations will treat their people as they will.
Your Bamabuddy doesn't seem to think it's a first amendment right for us. He wants a law to allow him to shut it down. What do you think of that?
I would say it is a right to have access to it, not to have it, here in the USA. Our cons ution doesn't apply to the rest of the world though.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions