Reply to post: RE: That's not what "net neutrality" means

The Register comment guidelines 2010

Alan W. Rateliff, II
Paris Hilton

RE: That's not what "net neutrality" means

Agreed, there is nothing proposed, but you do need to read between the lines. If you have site which presenting a particular point of view, you will be required to present the opposing point of view in some form or fashion. One could easily and without over-reaching imagine that would be stretched to cover forum posts as well. And there is an easy way to enforce, and some other countries are trying it, like Australia, and even our own government agencies are blocking sites with "controversial opinions" -- Homeland Security, Transportation Safety Administration, Google. (Okay, Google IS NOT a government agency. Yet.)

Controversial OPINIONS?! Like "the government is spending too much," not "men should sleep with boys," as the later is covered by the First Amendment. Dear, God.

Paris, Dear, God, not, yet.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019