backtop


Print 76 comment(s) - last by Insurgence.. on Dec 14 at 8:07 PM

Notorious spammer claims net neutrality applies to spam

Jason Flanary (R), chief operating officer at ccAdvertising -- a company specializing in political text message spam – turned heads during the last presidential election by sending unsolicited messages to smartphones with statements like, "Obama believes killing children is a right until the umbilical cord is cut."

While Mr. Flanary was disappointed to lose his own election bid for the Virginia state senate [source] amid the controversy that ensued, he's now pushing ahead on an even more ambitious effort.  He's asked the U.S. Federal Communications Commission to either whitelist political spam (or "political messages" as he views it) or to declare spam in general protected free speech.

Either way, he argues, it should be illegal for private businesses to block or discriminate against using filters traffic they consider "spam".

In the wake of the ccAdvertising text campaign many carriers began to block his company's messages, recognizing that their customers did not want the unsolicited and often times unwelcome texts.  But in doing so Mr. Flanary claims they broke the law.

Jason Flanary
Jason Flanary is among the Republicans breaking with part ranks to voice support for net neutrality, arguing it should be expanded to protect political spam.
[Image Source: FairFax Patch]

His stand is unusual as in the past most federal Republicans contended that net neutrality was an abusive expansion of federal power and intrusion on free market.  Now it appears that at least some Republicans may be changing their mind, looking to leverage the FCC policy to their advantage.

If you want to respond to Mr. Flanary's claim that political text message spam is protected free speech, the FCC welcomes public comments here.  Be aware, you must give your real name and address.

Sources: FCC [filing], [comments], DailyKos



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By EricMartello on 12/14/2012 12:20:16 PM , Rating: 0
quote:
Not really. The flavor of communism in the USSR was far closer to a dictatorship than anything else. It had little in common with conservative or liberal viewpoints in the USA.


A dictatorship is a left wing institution, pure and simple. Whether or not the views and ideas it puts forth match up with the left's current message is irrelevant. The end result is an oppressive regime that replaces personal freedoms and liberties with government dependence and reliance. I.e., do you have permission from the government to live?

quote:
To say that either US party favors discrimination against minorities is the height of propaganda. Neither party supports such a notion and both have passed laws to prevent it over the years.


Hmm...you sure about this?

Affirmative action is racially discriminatory and it's from the left.

Many of the "diversity and equality" edicts are heavily discriminatory toward white people, as their basic premise is to favor anyone who is not a white male.

How about laws enacted that make federal benefits such as grants or business loans available based upon race, gender or ethnicity?

Just a few examples of legislature that has been put forth by the left wing in America and is currently on the books.

quote:
California has been a financial clusterfuck for far longer than 8 years.


Arnold realized that simply identifying as a republican is not enough to get responsible policies put through in a state as far left as California. California, as bankrupt as it is today, is harbinger of what's to come for the USA if people in the US continue to elect socialists.

quote:
I have no problem with you making the counter-argument that the democrats aren't the demons the previous poster claimed they were, but I do have a problem with you doing the exact opposite to the republicans. If you are going to lay blame, lay it where it belongs, on the heads of BOTH parties. Blindly following either party and their candidates is the reason our country is in the situation it is in.


Some of the people who experienced the plights of being oppressed by left-wing regimes throughout much of Europe's history eventually left and started what is today known as America, realizing that for a country to be prosperous and good for ALL of its citizens, politics need to strike a balance between the right and left.

Anarchy does not work and that was what Europe had once you ventured outside of the territory of the "empire of the times".

Dictatorships do not work; each time people elect to allow the government to do something for them they are giving the government more power over them. This leads to tyranny and oppression.

America needs to balance government that is large enough to run the nation without impeding citizens through excessive laws and regulation.

We are too far left as of today and getting worse - turning around and heading back to a more moderate position would be a good thing for all Americans. It's that simple.


By Cluebat on 12/14/2012 12:34:03 PM , Rating: 2
"California, as bankrupt as it is today, is harbinger of what's to come for the USA if people in the US continue to elect socialists."

The people who elect these guys (I believe) are for the most part socialist poseurs. It's trendy, plus they have the added benefit of wearing their generosity on their sleeve.

The ones they elect are largely statists, who have no intention of sharing fairly. The largest piece of the pie will always go to themselves. The rabble that swallow their platitudes will always be fighting over the crumbs.


By dxf2891 on 12/14/2012 3:53:12 PM , Rating: 1
Hmmm, I'd have to argue against that hypothesis given what's transpiring in states around the country.

Dictatorship - noun
1. a country, government, or the form of government in which absolute power is exercised by a dictator.
2. absolute, imperious, or overbearing power or control.
3. the office or position held by a dictator.

In Michigan, as well as states around the union, there is a concerted effort by Republican governors with Repulican lead state legislatures that are superceding the will of the people. This past November the citiizens of Michigan voted to repeal Public Act 4 as they felt it infringed on their liberty to elect their public officials. Well, the govenor convened a lame duck session and pushed through an almost identical law with appropriation monies attached, which under Michigan constitution prevents it from ever appearing on a ballot before the people. Of course, this endeavor will see this cash strapped state in federal court defending itself from it's citizens. Sounds like dictatorship to me.


By EricMartello on 12/14/2012 6:27:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In Michigan, as well as states around the union, there is a concerted effort by Republican governors with Repulican lead state legislatures that are superceding the will of the people.


That's what the left wing propaganda claims; the reality is that these efforts are aimed at releasing the stranglehold that unions have had on Michigan for far too long. You love to talk about the "will of the people" which roughly translates to "what I personally agree with"...however your disagreement with an action does in no way elevate it to dictatorial status.

quote:
This past November the citiizens of Michigan voted to repeal Public Act 4 as they felt it infringed on their liberty to elect their public officials.


False. The PA 4 issue is about the "emergency manager" role, an appointee who can take over the operations of a municipality within the state, and such a law has been on the books in Michigan since 1990.

Why is the new law catching flak after being around for 22 years?

Because the new version gives those appointed to be emergency managers the power to reject unions' collectively bargained agreements.

In other words, for cities like Detroit which have been turned into 3rd world cesspools by parasitic left-wing policies, an emergency manager would gain authority over spending and, with PA-4, the ability to say no to paying more to unions.

This is a GOOD thing for the people, but quite a blow against the unions that have been extorting workers and making it nearly impossible for businesses to operate competitively and profitably.

quote:
Well, the govenor convened a lame duck session and pushed through an almost identical law with appropriation monies attached, which under Michigan constitution prevents it from ever appearing on a ballot before the people.


The left, misleading the people through fear mongering and utter misrepresentation of the facts, may have claimed it was "for the people" but in fact their main concern is for the unions.

The governor is acting in what he believes to be the best interest of his state. This is in no way an example of dictatorial behavior as he is working within the bounds of laws and authorities that he was granted when he was elected.

quote:
Of course, this endeavor will see this cash strapped state in federal court defending itself from it's citizens. Sounds like dictatorship to me.


If that sounds like a dictatorship to you then you're a moron. A dictator places himself above the law and does not allow himself to be accountable to anyone. You mentioned that Michigan would be in federal court - well if it was a dictatorship it would most certainly refuse to appear in any such court.

By the way, why don't you tell us why Michigan is cash-strapped in the first place?


"We are going to continue to work with them to make sure they understand the reality of the Internet.  A lot of these people don't have Ph.Ds, and they don't have a degree in computer science." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki