Quantcast
Connect with us

Rand and Ron Paul’s next project: Fracture the Internet freedom movement

Published

on

One of the emerging Internet freedom movement’s greatest assets — the hyper-aware, ever-connected, techno-libertarian crowd that has fervently supported Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) for president — is about to become one of it’s greatest opponents.

Paul and his son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), are taking up a new project that, according to a report published Thursday by BuzzFeed, will “serve as a counterpoint” to the Declaration of Internet Freedom released this week by some of the Web’s leading activists, journalists and technologists.

Paul and his large, enthusiastic contingency of supporters were a cornerstone in the fight against the draconian Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), joining with civil libertarians on the left to defeat the bill in the largest work stoppage protest the Internet has ever seen*. Paul was also one of the first national politicians to come out strongly against the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), which he said would let corporations “act as government spies.”

In a manifesto obtained by BuzzFeed reporter Rosie Gray, which the Pauls’ Campaign for Liberty organization is expected to release later today, the Declaration is lambasted as “Internet collectivism,” a thing it calls “pernicious” in all forms. It also suggests that using the law to cement the freedom of Internet users to view and interact with any content they desire is, in and of itself, contrary to the cause of freedom.

The document specifically calls out progressives and the very technology companies it seems to praise for bringing about the Internet “revolution,” accusing them of “hijacking the language of freedom and liberty to disingenuously push for more centralized control.”

ADVERTISEMENT

“‘Openness’ means government control of privately owned infrastructure,” the Campaign’s document explains. “‘Net neutrality’ means government acting as an arbiter and enforcer of what it deems to be ‘neutral.’ ‘Internet freedom’ means the destruction of property rights.”

However, that seems to be a severe distortion of what the Declaration actually calls for.

The core tenets of that document are generalized and easy to understand: core principles like “don’t censor the Internet,” “promote universal access,” “keep the Internet an open network,” “protect freedom to innovate and create without permission” and “protect privacy and defend everyone’s ability to control how their data and devices are used.”

ADVERTISEMENT

And that’s precisely what the Campaign for Liberty will soon say is antithetical to “freedom.”

Instead, they will push back against what’s commonly described as the First Amendment of the Internet — a fundamental rule that’s been mostly just assumed since the Web’s inception — and support the private property rights of network owners to do as they please.

That would mean the ongoing Department of Justice antitrust probe of suspected U.S. cable company collusion to limit options for online videos would be out of the question, effectively clearing the road for the big providers to completely dismantle companies like Netflix through anti-competitive business practices.

ADVERTISEMENT

It would also mean that Internet providers could slow down or completely block users, apps or whole websites engaging in activities they don’t like; permit voluntary, corporate-sponsored censorship; foster the continued rise of so-called “walled garden” networks blamed for increasingly fracturing the open Internet; allow increasingly tighter data “caps” being imposed on a growing number of Americans; and enable network providers to cable-ize their portions of the public Internet while dedicating vastly more developmental resources to costly, corporate-run “super tier” networks.

In other words, the Campaign’s new focus isn’t actually all that new: They are going to be promoting the classical tenets of libertarianism — and all the problems that come along with it — writ large across humanity’s global communications platform. And therein lies the problem.

The Campaign for Liberty did not respond to a request for comment. The Campaign’s manifesto, as reported by BuzzFeed, follows below.

ADVERTISEMENT

######

The Technology Revolution Final Rev 629
——

*Disclosure: The Raw Story’s management participated in the anti-SOPA work stoppage protest.

ADVERTISEMENT

Photo: Flickr user nealaus, creative commons licensed.


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected]. Send news tips to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

FLASHBACK: Jeffrey Epstein accuser revealed there are tapes of famous men with underage girls

Published

on

A 2015 report is resurfacing on Raw Story as the Jeffrey Epstein trial begins and Washington and New York men fear being outed.

It appears that a series of QAnon Facebook groups and pro-Trump groups were the ones responsible for posting the story.

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Fox News is so obsessed with Ocasio-Cortez they said her name three times as much as CNN or MSNBC

Published

on

It's clear that Fox News and other right-wing reporters are trying to create boogymen in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. A new analysis by CNN media reporter Brian Stelter, revealed that the conservative network has said Ocasio-Cortez's name more than CNN and MSNBC combined.

"First, Ocasio-Cortez and her "Squad" mate Ilhan Omar have been talked about a lot more on Fox than on other cable news channels this year," Stelter wrote. "Second, the freshmen have been getting more attention on cable than seasoned leaders of the Democratic Party."

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

Congress should ask Mueller these specific questions about Trump’s involvement with Russia: Conservative columnist

Published

on

Conservative Never-Trump columnist Jennifer Rubin outlined the essential questions that Democrats should ask special counsel Robert Mueller in an op-ed for the Washington Post.

"Rather than engage in the normal scattershot questioning punctuated by speechifying, the House Judiciary Committee should assign its able attorney Norman Eisen to conduct the questioning," proposed Rubin. "Members could then follow up with additional questions.'

One question she proposed asking: "Mr. Mueller, the attorney general said you did not find 'collusion.' However, you did not look for collusion. Please explain what you looked for and how that differs from [Attorney General William] Barr’s assertion that you essentially cleared President Trump of collusion?"

Continue Reading
 
 
 

Copyright © 2019 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 | Masthead | Privacy Policy | For corrections or concerns, please email [email protected]

Join Me. Try Raw Story Investigates for $1. Invest in Journalism. Escape Ads.
close-image