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 6:27:43 PM , Rating: 2
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.

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.

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.

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?

"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser

Latest Headlines
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
The Samsung Galaxy S7
September 14, 2016, 6:00 AM
Apple Watch 2 – Coming September 7th
September 3, 2016, 6:30 AM
Apple says “See you on the 7th.”
September 1, 2016, 6:30 AM

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki