×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Republican Platform To Include Internet Freedom Plank

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the puppies-are-definitely-good dept.

Republicans 459

First time accepted submitter jay.madison writes "The new Republican Party platform includes language which promises action to promote freedom on the Internet. The move is being driven by Rand Paul's libertarian wing of the party. The text, which is still in draft form, says Republicans will work to guarantee that 'individuals retain the right to control the use of their data by third parties,' and that 'personal data receives full constitutional protection from government overreach.' Republicans would resist moves toward international governance of the Internet, and seek to 'remove regulatory barriers that protect outdated technologies and business plans from innovation and competition, while preventing legacy regulation from interfering with new technologies such as mobile delivery of voice and video data as they become crucial components of the Internet ecosystem.' The platform is due to be adopted at the Republican National Convention next week."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

459 comments

Look at ninety percent of the effort towards gov't (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41121813)

They'll spend most of the language attacking the evils of government data collection and storage, to the point where they only mention private actors off-hand.

They might even just say the contractors aren't responsible for government abuses of it simply because they've been paid.

Oh wait, they're already seeking to remove regulatory barriers. You know, the ones that keep companies from screwing their customers.

I'm sure they're really looking out for our freedom.

Re:Look at ninety percent of the effort towards go (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year and a half ago | (#41121913)

They might even just say the contractors aren't responsible for government abuses of it simply because they've been paid.

That would be an iffy defense for the contractor to make. The "But I was just following orders", doesn't seem to work that well, but maybe it'd fly in a courtroom.

Re:Look at ninety percent of the effort towards go (1)

number11 (129686) | about a year and a half ago | (#41122435)

They might even just say the contractors aren't responsible for government abuses of it simply because they've been paid.

That would be an iffy defense for the contractor to make. The "But I was just following orders", doesn't seem to work that well, but maybe it'd fly in a courtroom.

It works fine, just so long as you're working for the (US) government side. (How many of the guys who murdered 250 people at My Lai did time for it?)

And we've already got precedent, with the law that was passed saying that whatever ATT had done, it was ok even if it was illegal, because it was for the government.

Re:Look at ninety percent of the effort towards go (3, Insightful)

khallow (566160) | about a year and a half ago | (#41121933)

Oh wait, they're already seeking to remove regulatory barriers. You know, the ones that keep companies from screwing their customers.

It's worth remembering here that customers should be working to avoid getting screwed. Say like using competitors who don't screw them? Classic examples are the huge banks with the ridiculous fees.

Re:Look at ninety percent of the effort towards go (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41122067)

Or by having legal protections against that screwing, not to mention mechanisms that lead to competition not collaboration.

See the banks aren't struggling against each other. Thery're working together to get what they wasn't from the government. All in the name of freedom and liberty.

Re:Look at ninety percent of the effort towards go (5, Insightful)

bhagwad (1426855) | about a year and a half ago | (#41122093)

This sounds suspiciously like an attempt to get rid of net neutrality laws. "Remove government regulation" indeed!

Re:Look at ninety percent of the effort towards go (2)

tmosley (996283) | about a year and a half ago | (#41122225)

What net neutrality laws? I thought those were never implemented.

Re:Look at ninety percent of the effort towards go (4, Interesting)

DJRumpy (1345787) | about a year and a half ago | (#41122291)

My thoughts exactly. I would be more intersted in a plank that promised net neutrality rather than protecting users data.

The remainder of the Repbulican plank reads like something from the 1800's.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/opinion/what-the-gop-platform-represents.html [nytimes.com]

Vaguely promising to protect your personal data, while including language that puts the police state in your bedroom isn't exactly what I would call a fair trade.

Re:Look at ninety percent of the effort towards go (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year and a half ago | (#41122297)

There are no neutrality laws. And they fear them for good reason. It's a bitter pill to take, but out internet connections can either be controlled by those who covet power, or those who covet profit. Personally, I think profit driven individuals are far more predictable and less likely to throw me in prison for saying the wrong thing.

Re:Look at ninety percent of the effort towards go (1)

bhagwad (1426855) | about a year and a half ago | (#41122313)

How about having NO ONE control them? That would be a good law to put in place.

Decoding the code speak (5, Insightful)

goombah99 (560566) | about a year and a half ago | (#41122103)

No net neutrality is what this means:
" 'remove regulatory barriers that protect outdated technologies and business plans from innovation and competition, while preventing legacy regulation from interfering with new technologies such as mobile delivery of voice and video data as they become crucial components of the Internet ecosystem.' "

Re:Decoding the code speak (1, Interesting)

iluvcapra (782887) | about a year and a half ago | (#41122311)

"Legacy regulation" isn't what keeps FaceTime off AT&T's network; throttling and QOS disparities are as much a product of too few competitors in the market and barriers to entry erected by the participants.

I don't believe network neutrality is a Good Thing, because I recognize that most people's definition amounts to price fixing of bandwidth. But I do know the barriers to it are not primarily state-imposed in the US, and countries that have more liberalized Internet access regimes have them because of laws, not because of the absence of laws.

What's so difficult? (4, Insightful)

microbox (704317) | about a year and a half ago | (#41122383)

I don't believe network neutrality is a Good Thing, because I recognize that most people's definition amounts to price fixing of bandwidth

You /know/ that net neutrality has nothing to do with bandwidth. Carriers cannot discriminate on content, source and destination. What is so difficult to explain. There's nothing about bandwidth in there.

And the public has a moral right to this, since the government paid for most of the infrastructure anyway, in huge corporate giveaways.

Re:Look at ninety percent of the effort towards go (1)

fa2k (881632) | about a year and a half ago | (#41122183)

Well they would be the government if they win the election, so it's good that they're *gah* can't remember the idiom. They're correcting their own behaviour before trying to change others behaviour.

Re:Look at ninety percent of the effort towards go (0, Flamebait)

Skapare (16644) | about a year and a half ago | (#41122217)

The problem with the choice between Democrats and Republicans is that it is a choice between what mechanism of destroying people's freedom we get. With Obama we get more of the same broken promises from the current kleptocracy. With Romney we get a new set of broken promises leading to a plutocracy. We get no other choice.

Re:Look at ninety percent of the effort towards go (1)

guises (2423402) | about a year and a half ago | (#41122369)

Speaking of political double-think, I think it's funny that this story about a Republican platform for Internet freedom comes right after a story titled "Why WikiLeaks Is Worth Defending From Grandstanding Politicians Who Only Occasionally Care About Freedom, Particularly on the Internet." (Okay, I may have modified the title slightly.)

Re:Look at ninety percent of the effort towards go (-1, Flamebait)

jo42 (227475) | about a year and a half ago | (#41122401)

I'm sure they're really looking out for our freedom.

Republicantards are looking out for their freedom to charge people for anything and everything (just look at the United States of Dumbtardia's health care system) so that they can pad their offshore bank accounts with even more zeros...

AS LONG AS WE CAN'T ALLOW BABY KILLING !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41121819)

I think it's okay to do whatever you want, but if you kill a baby, rape, incest, or just fucking did't care, then that's not good.

Mitt Romney Can Have My Baby !!

Not so fast (5, Insightful)

bl968 (190792) | about a year and a half ago | (#41121831)

They also claim they are going to make the Internet Family Friendly, ban internet gambling, require ISP's to monitor their users for sexual deviancy, and require laws against pornography and obscenity to be vigorously enforced. You can't have it both ways but that is what this article is claiming.

Re:Not so fast (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41121849)

With apologies to Margaret Atwood...

"There is more than one kind of freedom, said Aunt Lydia. Freedom to and freedom from. In the days of anarchy, it was freedom to. Now you are being given freedom from."

Re:Not so fast (1)

tmosley (996283) | about a year and a half ago | (#41122245)

If you are being given freedom, then you are by definition not free. Further, anything that is given can be taken away. Think about that next time you are being groped by the TSA. Especially if it is not in an airport.

Re:Not so fast (1)

Skapare (16644) | about a year and a half ago | (#41122265)

Someone always has freedom from and someone else has freedom to. Change the party in power and those roles are reversed.

Re:Not so fast (5, Insightful)

DiamondGeezer (872237) | about a year and a half ago | (#41121851)

Seems legit to me. After all it wasn't the Republicans who missed the 9/11 threat, passed the Patriot Act, created the Dept of Homeland Security, created an enormous deficit, greatly increased the size of Government and sleepwalked the economy into the greatest clusterfuck since the 1930s...that was obviously the Democrats.

Not.

Re:Not so fast (4, Informative)

inthealpine (1337881) | about a year and a half ago | (#41121957)

Bill Clinton passed on Bin Laden after the first trade center attacks.(after 4 years you wont blame Obama, but less than a year for Bush and blame blame blame).
Obama re-signed the Patriot Act and the NDAA.
Obama has deficit spent at twice the rate of GWB.
The 2008 economic decline was from......the housing bust. Government mandating home loans be provided to people who couldn't pay them back.


There is a lot of blame for both parties, but only one place where both those parties cause most of the trouble. =====>DC

Re:Not so fast (3, Interesting)

ubrgeek (679399) | about a year and a half ago | (#41122049)

All of those may be true but not the first. Look through he 9/11 report and intelligence folks who were in the business when it happened. His senior _military_ advisors said (a) they couldn't confirm there were no civilians, but more so (b) they didn't think he would still be there when the missiles reached the target. Everyone blames him for "not taking the shot." The people who he relies on to advise him on when to pull the trigger said not to. (And btw, let's not forget it was a Dem who ultimately did get him.)

Re:Not so fast (5, Informative)

DiamondGeezer (872237) | about a year and a half ago | (#41122079)

"Bill Clinton passed on Bin Laden after the first trade center attacks."

No he didn't. In 1996 Clinton authorized the use of a Cruise missile aimed at Bin Laden's satellite phone signal. Clinton was then lambasted for wasting money by the Republican Congress, especially Trent Lott (remember him?). And it was GWB just a year after 9/11 who said that he didn't know where bin Laden was and wasn't interested. It was Obama who finished the job.

"Obama re-signed the Patriot Act and the NDAA" - that doesn't absolve the Republicans any.

"Obama has deficit spent at twice the rate of GWB" - that doesn't absolve the Republicans any either.

"The 2008 economic decline was from......the housing bust." - and the housing bust was caused by the Housing Boom caused by the securitization of mortgages on GWB's watch while the Glass-Siegel act was gutted into uselessness

There is a lot of blame for both parties, but to absolve the Republicans and just blame the Democrats is just pathetic. And twisting history to fit your political beliefs is beneath contempt.

Re:Not so fast (1)

andy1307 (656570) | about a year and a half ago | (#41122081)

Before 9/11, Ashcroft actually requested a lower level of funding for the DoJ's anti-terrorism efforts.

Re:Not so fast (2, Informative)

Gr8Apes (679165) | about a year and a half ago | (#41122309)

Obama has not deficit spent at twice the rate of GWB, but, instead, has slowed deficit spending. See the slope of the deficit chart [usgovernmentdebt.us] over the past 13 years. It's most informative. You'll learn several things, namely that GWB and the republicans (remember, they started with a super-majority IIRC) put in motion actions that doubled our debt in 8 years. Another thing to note about said debt is that Obama inherited 2 wars from GWB and the republicans, as well as the prescription medicare piece, which were all unfunded and added to the deficit during his term. The last thing to note is that after his first year, in 2010, the slope starts to decline. Everything before that is GWB/repub doing.

Now for the 2008 economic bubble crash - this was not merely the result of the housing bust. If you bought that, I have some ocean front property in Montana to sell you. The housing bust was the trigger, the real cause was CDS's, which were banned until 2001, when Republicans, under the guise of removing "excessive" regulation, undid the last major piece of legislation enacted to prevent a repeat of the 1929 stock market crash. CDSs are essentially bets on whether something will go up or down, nothing more, and nothing less. IOW, it's gambling. AIG was left holding the bag, and that's when everything crashed. You could also consider it a Ponzi scheme if you'd like. As long as the music keeps playing, everyone gets to "reap" the rewards. But at some point, the music stops, and everything crashes back down to reality. Goldman Sachs, naturally, with government backing and a substantial presence of former partners in the regulatory pieces of government, kept its "rewards", and managed to take out a competitor at the same time.

Re:Not so fast (2)

schwit1 (797399) | about a year and a half ago | (#41122059)

How many Democrats voted to deauthorize the DHS and patriot act when they had the House, Senate and white house?
What did the democrats do to reign in deficit spending when they had the House, Senate and white house?
Please explain how Dodd and Frank aren't equally responsible for the banking collapse?
Financial Fraud Conviction Scorecard: Bush: 1300+, Clinton: 1000+, Obama: 0.0

Re:Not so fast (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41122303)

Well, even if a political party has all three, then one can always resort to blaming filibusters in the Senate (whether real, threatened, or simply conveniently theoretical). Cloture is that seldom used anti-filibuster weapon that permits inaction to a party even though it has the a straight path for a slam dunk.

Re:Not so fast (1, Troll)

lightknight (213164) | about a year and a half ago | (#41122087)

Are you implying that the Democrats, in any way, shape, or form, are any different from the Republicans? I see an immense division over trivial issues. It's like having a world war over 'what color barns should be painted, pink or orange?'

I have to give a round of applause *golf clap* to whoever orchestrated this little design here; I'd want to shake his / her / their hand, buy them a drink, and possibly have my photo taken with them, because it's a f*cking class act. Of all the things in this Universe two parties of a small country, on a tiny planet, orbiting an almost non-existent star could argue about, it's this. That's some top of the line social engineering; you fight over trivial battles that mean nothing, and the rest of the country continues on auto-pilot. Let's face it people, the Earth is the B-Ark.

I'm going back to drinking. I hate being sober during election years, it's too f*cking depressing.

Re:Not so fast (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41122111)

With help from a considerable number of Democrats. Your argument has failed.

Re:Not so fast (1)

Skapare (16644) | about a year and a half ago | (#41122307)

It was neither. It was both. Do not look north to the Whitehouse to find the failures. Instead, look east to the Capitol.

Re:Not so fast (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41121867)

Please cite your sources that 'they' are going to do this.

Re:Not so fast (1)

inthealpine (1337881) | about a year and a half ago | (#41121877)

So you don't support internet freedom, language mostly taken from Libertarian Ron Paul, because of language you disagree with that is actually NOT part of the platform?

The platform is against the internet being co-opted into a central regulatory body.

Santorum Declares war on porn (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41122035)

Not part of their platform????

Oh no sir, what you mean is that it's not part of THIS DOCUMENT. Santorum declared war on Internet porn/obscenity and Romney signed up to it. Putting out documents aimed at the Slashdot crowd that are different to the platform put out to the American Taliban does not mean both platforms don't exist.

They can't legalize ATnT domestic spying and then turn around and say they're against surveillance!

GP is right, they can't have it both ways.

Re:Not so fast (4, Interesting)

OzPeter (195038) | about a year and a half ago | (#41121911)

They also claim they are going to make the Internet Family Friendly,

Maybe somewhat off topic but I saw a humorous story on CNN this morning. They did a piece on the strip clubs in Tampa getting ready for the Republican convention this coming week - including one club owner who said he spent $1.5 million on upgrades. Apparently strip clubs do well at these events, and CNN quoted some informal poll that suggested Republicans spent 3 times as much on "Adult" entertainment than Democrats at the last two national conventions of each party.
 
Other fun facts include a club bringing in a Sarah Palin look-a-like stripper and comments from another stripper who hoped to be making $1000/hr.

Re:Not so fast (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41121937)

forbidden fruits taste the sweetest.

Re:Not so fast (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41122045)

Yeah, but they are not bringing their families to the exotic dance establishments. They are at home reading the bible and drinking the kool-aid.

Re:Not so fast (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41122249)

a club bringing in a Sarah Palin look-a-like stripper

They got Tina Fey to come in? :)

Re:Not so fast (1)

tapspace (2368622) | about a year and a half ago | (#41121919)

They also claim they are going to make the Internet Family Friendly, ban internet gambling, require ISP's to monitor their users for sexual deviancy, and require laws against pornography and obscenity to be vigorously enforced. You can't have it both ways but that is what this article is claiming.

I'm going to have to disagree, at least in theory. I think we have a real problem where privacy advocates want to stop any legislation whatsoever, when the real problem is the massive collection and collation of our data with no possible opt-out by both the government and the private section. I see no theoretical reason why stopping that government over-step (and, ideally, the private sectors addiction to our data) conflicts with the social conservative goals of "cleaning up the internet. Of course, practically speaking, laws to clean up the internet could provide a very nice avenue for creating an ecosystem which is conveinently exploited for goverment overstep.

Again, there is no conflict here necessarily if we can get good laws written by technically competent people who care about our privacy and rights. So, in theory at least, you CAN have it both ways.

Re:Not so fast (1)

kbdd (823155) | about a year and a half ago | (#41122259)

there is no conflict here necessarily if we can get good laws written by technically competent people who care about our privacy and rights

Is that supposed to refer to our elected officials?

I hope everyone sees the funny part in that statement.

Re:Not so fast (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41122005)

Well of course, the only 'Plank' is the one they make you walk into the Ocean of Bureaucracy.

Re:Not so fast (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41122283)

There's no confusion - the republicans and the democrats, along with the IT companies are going to make sure you have a TPM in your machine. And connecting to the internet will only be done via an "approved" software stack... and it will be tied to you. The use of data by third parties is about piracy - but phrased in way that it sounds like it's consumer friendly.

DRM is not about control of music and movies you know. It's about controlling software.

Take responsibility for who you vote for (2)

microbox (704317) | about a year and a half ago | (#41122413)

I cannot believe that sensible people vote for these guys at all. How bizarre does the GOP platform have to be before the GOP-faithful put the breaks on and reclaim their party from the fundies.

Regarding the deadlocked congress on the debt ceiling, Bill Clinton pointed out that the public should not be so upset with congress, but instead take responsibility for who they vote in.

VOTE

And if congress deadlocks over fiscal policy, forks over truckloads to seniors in entitlement programs and the 1% in tax cuts, enacts medieval social policies, breaks the internet, slashes science programs, gives a free hand to the banking sector and anybody who wants to treat the atmosphere, land or waterways as a trash can, then YOU are responsible if you voted for the GOP.

Ooops (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41121835)

You have a $political_party and "promises" in the same sentence bud.

Grasping for straws (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41121843)

Come on, I'm not USian but their whole platform is based around "folk morality" of the worst kind. They're outright talibanesque on some fronts. People talk about Sweden like we're the Saudi Arabia of Pegg^M^M^M^MFeminism but the US Republicans seem like the Saudi Arabia's uncultured cousin sometimes. This is just a feint.

Election promises.... (2)

InspectorGadget1964 (2439148) | about a year and a half ago | (#41121847)

Didn't Obama say that would close the concentration camp in Guantanamo Bay?

Re:Election promises.... (1)

wezelboy (521844) | about a year and a half ago | (#41121949)

He certainly did. The Paulies of the Republican Party are like the Deanies in the Democratic Party. They are pushing for reform in the party, but end up getting crushed by the party machine. The only thing they get in return is token lip service.

All I can say to the Paulies is keep it up. Every once in a while they'll throw you a bone.

I honestly did not intend to fill this post with double entendre.

Re:Election promises.... (1)

tmosley (996283) | about a year and a half ago | (#41122293)

I was both, and I can say with certainty that you are absolutely right. Rand Paul looks like he is going to fold over just like Dean did after he got his position as chairman.

This is why I am moving my family out of this country. I will be following once I have saved a predetermined amount of money, or when these idiots make it impossible for me to save any more money.

Re:Election promises.... (2)

wezelboy (521844) | about a year and a half ago | (#41122001)

It should also be noted that Obama's moves to close Gitmo were opposed by Congress.

Re:Election promises.... (0, Troll)

anagama (611277) | about a year and a half ago | (#41122295)

What should actually be noted by Obama apologists, is that his plan to "close" Guantanamo was not a plan to stop the practices of Guantanamo, but to move those practices to a Federal prison in Thompson IL. Many in congress, including liberals Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders, voted against Obama's plan not because they're neocon authoritarians, but because it made Gitmo worse by importing its unconstitutional practices to the US at great expense.

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/23/the_obama_gitmo_myth/ [salon.com]

So yeah, Congress interfered with Obama's plan to spend lots of money importing Gitmo to the states. This really doesn't mean however, that Congress interfered with his liberal motives, as is so often implied by Obamabots. Kind of like how they give him credit for ending the War in Iraq, when what actually happened is that despite intensive lobbying of the Iraqi government, he failed to extend the expiration of SOFA beyond the Dec 2011 deadline GWB established, and as a result, his choice was to leave soldiers in Iraq subject to local prosecution for crimes, or pull them out. Obamabots give him credit for ending the war when he only deserves credit for failing to extend the war.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/26/obama-iraq_n_1032507.html [huffingtonpost.com]

Re:Election promises.... (1)

tmosley (996283) | about a year and a half ago | (#41122299)

Doesn't matter. As commander in chief, he can close it with a penstroke. Dump em all in Somalia if no-one else will take them.

Re:Election promises.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41122353)

In order for him to do that, there would have to actually be concentration camps in Gitmo.

Equating everything you don't like to the Nazis isn't a convincing debate tactic, it only serves to make you look like an idiot with no perspective.

You need a schism (3, Insightful)

ryzvonusef (1151717) | about a year and a half ago | (#41121857)

Both the US parties (Dem and Rep) need major schisms to break their stronghold, and thus usher in change, may be accompanied by a more democratic electoral system then FPTP.

Re:You need a schism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41121953)

No. Just no. Look, the problem is that you have a political culture where emotion and appearances have abstracted away absolutely everything of value. You don't need more fragmentation, you don't even need an educated populace, you just need a calmer and dare I say more boring populace.

Re:You need a schism (1)

lightknight (213164) | about a year and a half ago | (#41122125)

We've had the calmer and more boring populace. They whine more, and you can really feel it in your eyes. It's like having the Monarch (Venture Brothers) screaming at you after a hangover; you want him to kill you, just to make it stop.

Re:You need a schism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41122285)

Bleeding eyeballs or starving to death from watering your garden with Brawndo. I know what I'd choose.

Re:You need a schism (1)

lightknight (213164) | about a year and a half ago | (#41122335)

Because the options are Brawndo with bleeding eyeballs, or Brawndo with bleeding eyeballs. Prove me wrong.

Re:You need a schism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41122411)

I live in Sweden. No Brawndo, no bleeding eyeballs, and engineers and scientists get more respect than capitalists. Finland is even better, esp. if you're more of a libertarian. Having a culturally homogenous population of ~9 million people might make that easier though. I don't know how you'd translate that to the US but I think the key is to make people more prone to communicate in a direct manner and actually discuss the issue at hand.

Remember the oil leak when the swedish boss made a speech calling the gathered Americans "little people"? That'd be okay in Sweden, because what he actually meant there was "okay, we could fuck you over here since we're a large corporation but we won't". Over here people where utterly confused as to why the americans reacted as they did over something completely irrellevant when he was just being honest.

Re:You need a schism (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41122229)

The Akin debacle is opening up such a schism now on the right.
Many slashdotters will be unaware of the Conservative "hierarchy of hell", so here's a rough map:

Akin and his die-hard defenders represent the Social Conservative (upper-case, noun) wing of the Republican party.
Romney and Ryan are both personally socially conservative (lower-case, adjective) Fiscal Conservatives (upper-case, noun).
While they are conservative (lower-case, adjective) in their personal lives, their only interest in other people's personal choices is to ensure that the rest of us don't subsidize them.

This means that they share common ground with the Social Conservatives on issues like avoiding Federal subsidy of abortion and preserving a distinction between marriage and gay civil unions. They would not, in general support, e.g., a blanket Federal ban on abortion or gay civil unions.

Most Tea Party supporters are also socially conservative, Fiscal Conservatives. Historically they have distrusted Romney because of his past support for big-government, big-spending policies. So, both Social Conservatives and Fiscal Conservatives have regarded Romney as a RINO - but for very different reasons. The choice of Ryan as a running mate has finally convinced the Tea-Partiers that he's serious about addressing the existential fiscal problems facing the country.

Just when the Tea-Partiers had got on board, Akin came out with his throwback nonsense. Since then, other SoCon throwbacks like Huckerbee have come out in his defense.
Romney, Ryan, Tea-Partiers and Libertarians (fiscally conservative Social Liberals and socially liberal Fiscal Conservatives) are burning with anger and hatred for Akin and co at the moment: the kind of lynch-mob mentality you usually only see on the left or far (Socon) right.

I'm hoping that this anger is harnessed to lock the crazy uncles in the attic one and for all.
Creationists and Absolutist Pro-Lifers will never be cleansed from the Republic Party (their votes are needed), but they may be more firmly sidelined.
This should make Republicans less susceptible to lobbyist influence (bribery), as SoCons have historically been happy to sell their votes on any issue they regard as unimportant (basically anything except abortion or teaching evolution). Take the RIAA money out of the equation and, yes, the Libertarians' platform element may mean something - particularly as internet freedom is a concern shared by all Tea-Partiers (remember, they are anti-Statist - dislike and distrust government).

as long as you realize... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41121873)

That by "individual" republicans mean AT&T, Verizon, Sprint...

Re:as long as you realize... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41121917)

And "remove regulatory barriers" means ending any concept of 'net neutrality. Them republicans don't cotton to people telling their corporations what to do. Can't stand in the way of excessive corporate profits, oh no.

Internet Freedom (5, Insightful)

theedgeofoblivious (2474916) | about a year and a half ago | (#41121879)

You can't have internet freedom without net neutrality.

You can't have internet freedom with 1-2 companies having a monopoly on internet access.

You can't create freedom by restricting the power of only some of those who would deny you freedom.

Re:Internet Freedom (0)

tmosley (996283) | about a year and a half ago | (#41122319)

Yes, you can have freedom without net neutrality. We've had net freedom since forever, and no-one started talking about net neutrality until a couple of years ago.

You want to see what internet freedom is about? Wait until Google Fiber destroys the business model of existing ISPs, and watch as they clamor to adopt the new one lest they be left in the dust.

But more likely is that they will hop on the net neutrality bandwagon in exchange for protection of their current market share from threats like Google. And the end result of that would most assuredly be status quo for the US, except that everyone else continues to advance. This is one facet of the un-plan that will create third world America.

Re:Internet Freedom (5, Informative)

heypete (60671) | about a year and a half ago | (#41122395)

Yes, you can have freedom without net neutrality. We've had net freedom since forever, and no-one started talking about net neutrality until a couple of years ago.

Because net neutrality was the de facto standard for the internet up until a few years ago when certain providers thought they could make more money by penalizing their competitors (e.g. Comcast imposing bandwidth caps, but not counting their own streaming video service [ala Netflix] towards that cap).

This from the party that says (1)

Ice Station Zebra (18124) | about a year and a half ago | (#41121887)

You cannot trust the government.

Re:This from the party that says (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year and a half ago | (#41121967)

Well, you could trust the government, but what would be the point?

Re:This from the party that says (3, Insightful)

hsmith (818216) | about a year and a half ago | (#41121993)

You do realize placing restrictions on what the government can't do, is part of that "not trusting government" thing, right?

Re:This from the party that says (1)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | about a year and a half ago | (#41122263)

Of course, most of the people saying this work for the government, so I wouldn't trust them if I were you.

Re:This from the party that says (2, Interesting)

Skapare (16644) | about a year and a half ago | (#41122341)

I do not trust the government. That's why the people need to keep an eye on it. But I also do not trust big business. That's why we need to keep an eye on them. Democrats oppose the former while Republicans oppose the latter.

Internet Freedom is not what you think (4, Insightful)

headhot (137860) | about a year and a half ago | (#41121943)

Republican internet freedom is freedom for large corporations to do what ever they want, with the citizens getting the shaft. You can forget net neutrality out of them.

Re:Internet Freedom is not what you think (4, Interesting)

mozumder (178398) | about a year and a half ago | (#41122061)

"Freedom" these days means corporate control. The more "freedom" people have, the more corporations have power. Power has to go somewhere, so if power is taken away from government, it goes to the next powerful entity - corporations. The last place power goes to is to individuals. The only power individuals have is their ability to collectively gather and form a government, which in effect limits their own individual power.

An individual limiting their own power is a good thing.

"Freedom" at this point is a bad word. Adults already know that no one has "freedom". No one has ever had "freedom", from the times when kings existed to any democracy. They simply replaced one ruler (a king) with another (big govt), especially with millions of laws in place, each one designed to take away one less right.

And even when kings existed, they never had full power as well. Kings have always had to rely on public support to maintain their power, especially during the rise of the merchant middle class in the 1100's.

Let's remember that every libertarian "freedom" fighter with a 3rd grade educations is actually saying "I want to give corporations more power over competing smaller entities, including individuals."

This is why one must NEVER be a libertarian, and one must always believe in forceful social controls.

And that we must always fight against "freedom" that the Republican party wants, and their insane ego that causes them to feel they should have "freedom."

Let's transfer power away from individuals, and give them more to government. Redistribute power. It's a good thing.

long live the status quo (2)

harce (1962978) | about a year and a half ago | (#41121977)

"Republicans would resist moves toward international governance of the Internet" So to keep the USA's imperialist tight grip on whe web? Very libertarian.

Re:long live the status quo (2)

tmosley (996283) | about a year and a half ago | (#41122333)

What, you want rising nations like China to have a say in how the Internet works?

Translation (5, Insightful)

Hardhead_7 (987030) | about a year and a half ago | (#41121979)

remove regulatory barriers that protect outdated technologies and business plans from innovation and competition

"If you elect us, we will get rid of net neutrality so fast it'll make your head spin."

Re: gulation (1)

M. Baranczak (726671) | about a year and a half ago | (#41121981)

preventing legacy regulation from interfering with new technologies such as mobile delivery of voice and video data as they become crucial components of the Internet ecosystem.

What government regulations do we have right now that interfere with mobile delivery of voice and video data?

Re: gulation (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41121999)

Copyright

People should be free to vote away others' freedom (0, Offtopic)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year and a half ago | (#41122013)

1. Sorry, Democrats. You snooze, you loose. Patron saint Al Gore's wife Tipper, anyone? This almost held sway.

2. Yey libertarian! MOAR!!!!!

Outta the bedroom and outta the wallet!

Sure (1)

codepigeon (1202896) | about a year and a half ago | (#41122015)

I will believe it when I see it. I am suspicious of anything from this website. Further, there is no link to a document, bill, or otherwise; only "Language in the final draft of the Internet freedom proposal was obtained exclusively by The Daily Caller."

I also think Rand/Ron Paul are on the skirts of The Republican Party. They are flies that the GOP leadership tolerate in order to get the libertatian votes.

Also note that there is a list of senators and congressmen at the bottom, but it doesn't explicitly state that they signed on to this. It only states they "work on internet issues".

eh.

Main point of that platform plank (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41122033)

seems to be about eliminating net neutrality ("freedom" for corporations), rather than anything about personal freedom for users.

Curious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41122051)

What have Republicans been saying about wikileaks?

Call me cynical (1)

rsilvergun (571051) | about a year and a half ago | (#41122077)

but I read that as a) lots of protections against the DOJ looking into the financial meltdowns we cause every 10 to 15 years like the rising of the sun and b) we're going to stop policing the telcos and let them form monopolies again.

Besides, true freedom is economic security. Without that you're just a wage slave. True security can never be obtained by individuals. That's what society is for, and gov't is the instrument of society's will. If you've lost control of your gov't to an oligarchy, so what? They were going to win anyway. At least with the gov't I had a chance.

Re:Call me cynical (1)

tmosley (996283) | about a year and a half ago | (#41122345)

You don't "let" telcos form monopolies, governments GRANT them monopolies. They invent stupid ideas like the concept of a "utility", and make themselves look important so they can claim to save people money by preventing double or triple redundancy in infrastructure. Something that when you think about it, is really fucking stupid, given that our totally non-redundant infrastructure is so damn vulnerable to single point failure. That is beside the point of stifling of innovation.

Scott Cleland (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41122129)

The GOP efforts are currently being modeled on the recent stance taken by the Ron Paul-founded Campaign For Liberty’s Technology Manifesto, as well as more right-of-center libertarian tech policy voices.

These voices include TechFreedom president Berin Szoka, Mercatus Center senior research fellow Adam Thierer, Associate Director of Technology Studies at the Competitive Enterprise Institute Ryan Radia, and Netcompetition president Scott Cleland.

Scott Cleland's been paid by Microsoft and telcos [netcompetition.org] to take shots at Google and more recently Google Fiber this year. As for Internet Freedom, it looks like he's more interested in Internet Commerce.

Unenforceable (0)

overshoot (39700) | about a year and a half ago | (#41122149)

Just like probable cause, habeas corpus, due process, etc. They all go out the window when the Administration cites the State Secrets Privilege.

Full constitutional protection? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41122161)

I doubt they can get an amendment trough even if this whole affair was anything but posturing, and anything else would just be further abuse of the constitution that they profess to hold in high regard. There is nothing in the constitution preventing third parties from sharing your data with the government, the constitution doesn't change just because some pseudo-libertarian idiot claims so.

Freedom for whom? (1)

kbdd (823155) | about a year and a half ago | (#41122167)

I am afraid in this context freedom means freedom for corporations to abuse the privilege of using a national resource (spectrum) and establish monopolies.

My view of freedom is more like freedom for the citizen to enjoy efficient usage of this national resource at a low cost driven by effective competition.

If the present status-quo non-compete (tolerated if not encouraged by the government) of the cable industry versus wireless telcos is any indication, competition and low prices are not in the future for Americans, unless something changes.

Read between the lines (3, Insightful)

Guppy06 (410832) | about a year and a half ago | (#41122189)

Republicans will work to guarantee that 'individuals retain the right to control the use of their data by third parties,'

No attempt will be made to ensure you are able to exercise those rights; the Republicans will do nothing to altar any terms of use you come across on the internet, which universally demand you waive those "rights."

'personal data receives full constitutional protection from government overreach.'

Remember the speaker. Replace "personal data" with "Swiss bank statements" and "government overreach" with "the IRS."

'remove regulatory barriers that protect outdated technologies and business plans from innovation and competition, while preventing legacy regulation from interfering with new technologies such as mobile delivery of voice and video data as they become crucial components of the Internet ecosystem.'

Recall the Republican definition of "regulation." They could have simply said "remove regulations" and left it at that. Contrast this statement to the first statement above; a regulation ensuring an individual can control their personal information would "stifle innovation" from Facebook, et al.

It ain't regulation that's letting AT&T charge more for FaceTime.

Freedom to What (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41122269)

Freedom for the owners of the tubes to dictate what you can and cannot receive through those tubes, that's what.

The 1880s definition of Freedom (1)

glebovitz (202712) | about a year and a half ago | (#41122287)

By freedom, they mean the right of AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast to control the internet any way they want.

The fundamental flaw in anything from Ron Paul (2)

Skapare (16644) | about a year and a half ago | (#41122359)

... is that there is no teeth in it. That would have to mean government laws and enforcement. He will have none of that.

Nothing to see here. Move along. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41122363)

Feel-good hand-waving. Also, they're going to end terrorism, bring our boys (and girls) home, save American jobs, and put a chicken in every pot. Expect the same out of Charlotte, only more off the wall.

Come on, all these people wanted to bring us SOPA/PIPA. Internet freedom, my ass.

They should look to the GPL (1)

mounthood (993037) | about a year and a half ago | (#41122409)

Defining digital freedom isn't new, so maybe the GOP should look to the four freedoms of the GPL:

* the freedom to use the software for any purpose,
* the freedom to change the software to suit your needs,
* the freedom to share the software with your friends and neighbors, and
* the freedom to share the changes you make.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html [gnu.org]

Of course that doesn't fit with controlling your neighbors morality or allowing corporations to own the internet.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...