Glenn Beck Falsehood on Net Neutrality
Filed under Glenn Beck
Glenn Beck, apparently, doesn’t understand Net Neutrality, but attempts to spread fear about it using statements like, “You have a freedom of speech or the government. You can’t really have both.”
Here he is talking with Phil Kerpen, chairman of the Internet Freedom Coalition (an alliance of conservative groups that opposes all taxes and regulations related to the Internet), who has taken credit for providing Beck with past comments made by Van Jones. Now, he’s feeding Beck information about Net Neutrality, but as you watch, or read the transcript, it’s easy to see that Beck has passed more misinformation onto his viewers…
KERPEN: It is a very big week because the FCC on Thursday is going to decide what the future of the Internet looks like, if it looks much like the past 10 years where you have private competition and pretty much people can do what they want on the Internet or whether we have a much, much heavier government hand. And they’re going to take the first step on that Thursday.
BECK: OK. I want to start just real quick – Net neutrality, because it happens on Thursday. This is that everybody should have free Internet, right?
KERPEN: Well, essentially. You know, they dress it up the way they dress up a lot of their things. They turn it upside-down by saying that evil corporations, phone and cable corporations are going to block what we can do block or we can say.
Companies, such as Comcast, are now able to degrade or block service for things such as P2P communications. Net Neutrality is a solution to that problem, not a conspiracy to control the Internet and censor our free speech.
Science Progress defines Net Neutrality as this:
At the most basic level, net neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet; all content on the Internet is equally accessible, and once a person pays for access to the Internet, they alone get to choose how they use it. This means that providers should not be allowed to block access to certain sites or applications, or charge different customers different amounts for services.
Here is the definition on Wikipedia:
A neutral broadband network is one that is free of restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as one where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams.
The principle states that if a given user pays for a certain level of internet access, and another user pays for a given level of access, that the two users should be able to connect to each other at that given rate of access.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Related posts:
- Glenn Beck ‘Unrepentant’ About Robert Creamer Falsehood Glenn Beck has repeatedly called progressive activist Robert Creamer an...
- Another Glenn Beck Conspiracy Theory Including Rupert Murdoch Glenn Beck has previously ranted about a Maoist conspiracy theory...
- Glenn Beck Caught in a Lie, Then Edits Clip of Rachel Maddow The other day Rachel Maddow called Glenn Beck out for...
- Glenn Beck / Dwight Schrute Conspiracy Theory Apparently, Glenn Beck is feeding his sheep another conspiracy theory,...
- Glenn Beck: I Was a Dirtbag and a Liar Is Glenn Beck about to get fired, or is this...
I hate that stupid blackboard he uses. Learn to spell,Glenn.
If we can’t agree that the Wikipedia definition of any given term is not Law, then it’s not worth visiting your site any more. I’m sure you’ve screamed “slippery slope” many times in the past. Take for instance the Patriot Act when your buddies were all apoplectic over wire tapping because W might want to spy on their cookie recipes. My point is that you would hold that argument up as completely viable, while when I don’t want the equivalent of the fairness doctrine added to the internet, that’s just “crazy talk.” The most fair way to judge an argument like this is to see how you would feel about the same law/policy if the shoe were on the other foot. You’d be screaming bloody murder over 90% of the stuff Obama is doing if it were McCain doing it instead. And keep in mind, that it may not be 2010, it may not be 2012, but eventually, the shoe WILL be on the other foot, and everything you’re pushing for now will be heaped on you, and your kids. Then we’ll see how you feel…
Ben, 1) Wikipedia definitions are not law – nobody is claiming that – and Net Neutrality is not law yet either, 2) Wikipedia does provide a definition of what Net Neutrality is, 3) I provided two definitions, 4) don’t visit the site – I couldn’t care less, 5) “your buddies” is a speculative generalization, 6) Net Neutrality is nothing like the Fairness Doctrine, and has more to do with fewer limitations on Internet use, 7) Nothing on this site, nor anything I’ve said, has anything to do with Obama vs. McCain, so that’s just another straw man argument.
Do you even bother to read what you’re supposed to be responding to? When you can’t respond intelligently to an argument, you throw up some smoke screen of “straw man” or “that’s a generalization” The point is YOUR HYPOCRISY on almost all of these subjects. If MSNBC lies, that’s of no import to you at all, but if you see anything on Fox, from typos to differing opinions, then “Holy crap!!! Call out the ‘thought police’ and let’s shut down all dissenting opinion!!!” Keep up the Saul Alinsky strategy though. Your pre-programmed responses are so predictable it’s laughable.
By the way, if you’re going to pick on other people’s typos, you really need to pay more attention to your own production. You’ve got a pretty big one on the front page right now… how embarrassing.
Ben, I addressed your points, but if you can’t take someone pointing out the fallacies in your comments, don’t comment. You’re full of ‘em. How many more tangents and smoke screens do you have up your sleeve? Do you need an award? A cookie?
The point has nothing to do with MSNBC – Do you see that in the site’s name? No. I’m sure I’ve had to tell you that before and it probably won’t be the last time…
There’s over 450 posts on this site, one of which is about a typo (off topic for these comments), and you pick that out & try to use that against me? That’s just pathetic. And if you want to point out a typo and chuckle about it like a child, that’s your prerogative. If you want to point it out and be helpful, be my guest. I looked and found only one unintentional spelling error on the front page. But there’s a difference – FoxNews.com is a global “news” network web site & this is a blog. If you can’t tell the difference, either I should be honored, or reserve my time for adults.
[...] Glenn Beck Falsehood on Net Neutrality Glenn Beck, apparently, doesn’t understand Net Neutrality, but attempts to… [...]
This is one of the few points I’ll agree with you on; net neutrality is about preventing ISP’s from throttling content.