Death of the Internet; Death of Blogging; Death of Equality; Death of Free Speech; Death of Free Ideas: HERE NOW.

PART ONE:

Ladies and Gentleman:

At no other time that I can recall in my, ahem, almost 60 years on this planet, is not only our American "freedom of speech" jeopardized, but the freedom of speech of many other western and/or European countries.

And it isn't the Right Wingers who are doing it; oh no. It is those on the Left Side of the American political aisle, or those on the Left in various European countries (to include England, Sweden, Denmark) and Canada as well.

I am a large, a HUGE supporter of Free Speech. I enjoy my blog. I enjoy the small audience I reach. I treasure each and every brief visitor or devoted reader. I consider it a blessing that anyone would touch down upon my very own personal slice of the Blogosphere when, in fact, there are SO many OTHER places you could be visiting, other places you could be going. The mere fact that YOU are reading this now: I find myself continuously in amazement. Bless you.

It is because of the FIRST AMENDMENT of the American BILL OF RIGHTS that I enjoy the ability to write what I will, when I will.

Short of decrying "FIRE" in a crowded theatre, publicly advocating for the death of whatever President is in office (with, in concert, the present will and the physical means coupled with an overt act), advocating for the violent and immediate overthrow of my country, I am free to write what I wish when I wish under the heading of OPINION.

My blog exists under the overarching umbrella of my OPINION. I suspect yours does too. I attempt to buttress my arguments with facts in evidence (with proffered links whenever possible) but, still, some of what I write merely reflects my feelings and emotions day-to-day.

I do not make myself to be anything close to the Second Coming of Journalism. I do not make myself out to be a "journalist" (though I in fact used to BE one whilst I worked for various Sacramento radio stations in the mid-1970s) and I do not portray one on TV.

One look at my blog would convince the most skeptical that I am NOT the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Atlanta Journal, the Sacramento Bee or the Chicago Tribune.

I do NOT enjoy hundreds (much less thousands) of readers per day. And yet, when everything is said and done, within some reasonable standards, my blog can somewhat compete, in terms of accessability, with the millions of other blogs available for perusal on the Internet.

This is called "net neutrality."

That is to say, with a reasonable HTML design team, the site for PlasticSheets&WessonOil.com or ObscureFerrets.com can look every bit as professional and stunning as the massive corporate site for General Motors. Or Coca-Cola. Or McDonald's. Or Halliburton. Or the US Senate.

My support of free speech doesn't just stop there. I support the right of the Daily Kos to write what he does when he does. Or Smirking Chimp, or Democratic Underground, or many others. It doesn't matter. The Blogosphere will find its own water level. Those who succeed, succeed. Those who fail, fail. But because I may have a diametrically opposed opinion to other bloggers doesn't obviate their need to exist or to have a readership.

Clue in: if Free Speech works for me, it should work for everyone ELSE in America.

Blogging takes actual work. Consistent work. There are millions and millions of bloggers on the web who made an initial post and then, perhaps after three or four posts, let their blogs languish.

Free Speech means precisely that: speech that may be in conflict with a held or accepted norm in America. If I uphold MY free speech, then I must uphold YOUR free speech. And I DO.

_________________________________

PART ONE:

My brother Don revealed to me a series of videos he happened to chance upon in YouTube and, oddly enough, via PBS. I watched them. And you'd best watch them too. Once you do, I ask:

Is it hyperbole? Or is the title of this post correct?

First, go here, which is Part I of a PBS Now show entitled "Net Neutrality."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j668eaTvCrE&NR=1

And tell me that it isn't about "the bucks."

A smidgeon of the video, from the transcript:

MCCORMICK: We have said that in our industry we will not block, impair, degrade content, applications, services. So the experience that a consumer has today with the internet, a consumer will have in the future.

BRANCACCIO: McCormick says the companies he represents are in the business of making money and if consumers want to visit a given website, the telecom companies have every interest in letting that website through...He says the idea that they'd somehow restrict access to certain websites is overblown.

MCCORMICK: It's -- it's very difficult to deal with -- with "what ifs" and hypotheticals. There are enough problems in the country for congress to deal with that are real problems as opposed to worrying about "what if" scenarios.

BRANCACCIO: But it's not all hypothetical:

In 2005, a small phone company in North Carolina blocked their internet customers from using a rival web-based phone service. The federal communications commission said iks-nay, and fined them $15,000.That same year, the Canadian telephone giant Telus blocked their web customers from seeing a site that was supportive of union workers who had a beef with Telus.

And just this year, America Online was accused of blocking emails from a group that were waging a campaign critical of AOL.

McCormick argues these are isolated examples...and he points out that we already have a watchdog in Washington - the FCC -- that's promised to make sure these kinds of problems are rooted out.

MCCORMICK: The Federal Communications Commission has said that it has sufficient authority to disallow any company from blocking, impairing, degrading any kind of application or service.

BRANCACCIO: But advocates of net neutrality say websites don't have to be blocked or degraded to suffer from second-class treatment. Give the newest, fastest online service to a select few websites that have paid for the privilege goes the argument, and what you build-in is an unfair advantage for the richest, most powerful companies.

AARON: If they're allowed to get rid of network neutrality, then they can favor Verizon video or AT&T phone service or the new Comcast search engine over anything that I come up with, even if my product is better, even if I'm offering it for a lower price. By manipulating what happens over the network, they're allowed to favor their own content and those of their partners. And that means everybody else is left behind.

MARKEY: It's really not about the Googles, and the Yahoos of today. It's about the Googles and the Yahoos of the future. It's about the next Serge Brin. It's about the next Jerry Yang. It's about the next Bill Gates.

_________________________

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Thus endeth Part One.

Are you yet beginning to Clue In?

And:

Am I a "reactionary"?

BZ