Internet Censorship
Internet Censorship

Attempts to censor the internet are never-ending:

Orwell is vindicated by the near universal adoption of newspeak by proponents of a more authoritarian internet. This shows those pushing for it are aware  they risk a visceral reaction against their rent seeking. Something deep inside most of us finds it repugnant. That something deep inside us is our cultural inheritance. It is calling out to us with all the force of our forebears. Those who fought for our rights, for our freedoms.

We imbibe a way viewing the world along with our mothers  milk. The left have tried to sever us from our past, to denigrate our forebears, to put down our achievements. They have not succeeded. Not totally and not with all of us. Sure those most exposed to their indoctrination – university arts graduates and the like have largely succumbed.  But the vast bulk of the people, the bedrock upon which our society is built know in their heart what is wrong. We can spot the politically correct big lie:

Critics of ‘post-birth abortion’ guilty of ‘hate speech’: “Editor Julian Savulescu also criticizes what he calls the ‘hate speech’ directed at the authors of the article, arguing that the public’s response to the piece shows that ‘proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.’

“In the journal article Alberto Giubilin, a philosopher from the University of Milan, and Francesca Minerva, an ethicist from the University of Melbourne, made the case that ‘after-birth abortion’ should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is perfectly healthy. They base their argument on the premise that the unborn baby and the newborn do not have the moral status of actual persons and are consequently ‘morally irrelevant.’

“Morally irrelevant” what a marvelous phrase to justify murder. The Jews and mentally handicapped were morally irrelevant in NAZI Germany. How about criminals, have they forfeited their moral right to exist? Surely there’s better grounds to kill them than innocent children? If you feel in your heart that it is wrong to kill healthy babies then the lefts sophisms have not undermined your connection with your culture. People are more than their intellect and capacity to care for themselves. Civilization enhances these capacity.  Our cultural capital is the key and this is a direct assault on it.

There are so many assaults on our cultural capital. They strike at our ability to acquire knowledge and understanding. Without this our right to free speech is implicitly constrained. We don’t even need to get to the explicit component of the assaults on our use of the internet. And make no mistake, these are legion. Already we have:

Rumblefish claims to own copyright to ambient birdsong on YouTube: Rumblefish, a company notorious for sending copyright takedown notices to YouTube alleging copyright violations in videos’ soundtracks, demanded removal of a video whose audio consists entirely of ambient birdsong recorded during a walk in the woods. When the video’s creator objected, Rumblefish repeated its accusation, and Google added the notation “These content owners have reviewed your video and confirmed their claims to some or all of its content: Entity: rumblefish Content Type: Sound Recording.”

and

Techdirt post about SOPA censored from Google results due to bogus DMCA complaint: We’ve talked a lot about how copyright law and the DMCA can be abused to take down legitimate, non-infringing content, interfering with one’s free speech rights. And we’re always brushed off by copyright maximalists, who insist that any complaints about taking down legitimate speech are overblown.

So isn’t it interesting that we’ve just discovered that our own key anti-SOPA blog post and discussion… have been blocked thanks to a bogus DMCA takedown?

The UN International Telecommunications Union takeover of the internet is the vested interests fallback option to replace ACTA if it is unwound. Just as ACTA was the fallback option when SOPA and PIPA failed. Some are starting to recognize the threat:

Google’s Schmidt: Don’t Let the United Nations Rule the Internet: We are at a crossroads for the Internet’s future. One path holds great promise, while the other path is fraught with peril.

The promise, of course, lies with keeping with what works, namely maintaining a free and open Internet while insulating it from legacy regulations. The peril lies with changes that would ultimately sweep up Internet services into decades-old ITU paradigms. If successful, these efforts would merely imprison the future in the regulatory dungeon of the past. Even more counterproductive would be the creation of a new international body to oversee Internet governance.

There is more at stake than most know:

First they came for the hackers.

But I never did anything illegal with my computer,

so I didn’t speak up.

Then they came for the pornographers.

But I thought there was too much smut on the Internet anyway,

so I didn’t speak up

Then they came for the anonymous remailers.

But a lot of nasty stuff gets sent from anon.penet.fi,

so I didn’t speak up.

Then they came for the encryption users.

But I could never figure out how to work PGP anyway,

so I didn’t speak up.

Then they came for me.

And by that time there was no one left to speak up.

– Alara Rogers www.alara.net