Click Ad to Continue

Do you, like us, operate a website? Do you, like us, generate original content for that website, and put food on your families by using your intellectual property to generate revenue? Do you, like us, think that you own certain rights to your content, like, say, editorial control over what it actually contains? WELL YOU ARE WRONG, according to one recent Supreme Court nominee and aspiring butt puppet, Brett Kavanaugh. The pasty-faced judge, who was voted "Most Likely to Overturn Roe v Wade" in judge school, was part of the DC Circuit when it voted 6-2 to deny ISPs a new hearing after having had their asses handed to them by a June 2016 panel decision upholding Net Neutrality rules. He wrote a dissent. Take it away, Brett:

The rule transforms the Internet by imposing common-carrier obligations on Internet service providers and thereby prohibiting Internet service providers from exercising editorial control over the content they transmit to consumers

Wait a tic...

exercising editorial control over the content

HOLY FUCK WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK WHAT THE FUCK? Yes, that does mean exactly what you think it means. It means that Time-Warner-Charter-Spectrum/Comcast-Xfinity/A board of old white dudes with your best interests in mind gets to decide not only which websites you see but how you see them. Imagine a Wonkette with no swears. Worse yet, imagine Porn Hub without whatever your favorite genre happens to be (stepmom porn, Ted Cruz). Or even worst yet, imagine NO MORE KITTEN PICS OR UNBOXING VIDEOS EVER! Imagine all of these together!

Kavanaugh, who once earnestly wanted to know where Bill Clinton had ejaculated, compares granting ISPs editorial control over the internet to the ability of cable companies to decide which channels they offer. Completely ignoring the facts that,

  • Cable companies pay for the channels they carry
  • Cable channels are offered on a limited bandwidth, only so many can be included
  • The internet, not being a series of tubes, does NOT have a limited space for websites
  • The internet is not cable TV, that is an awful analogy
Here is what he wrote:
Deciding whether and how to transmit ESPN and deciding whether and how to transmit are not meaningfully different for First Amendment purposes.

Let us completely ignore the fact that stealth editing a television show is a million times more difficult than editing the text content of a webpage, and that, even so, TV channels and cable providers have already stealth edited TV shows. Let us focus on the fact that a possible future Supreme Court justice is ready to defend an ISP's First Amendment right ... TO OUR SPEECH! We are the ones speechifying here. These words, we wrote them. They belong to us, and it is our First Amendment right to not have them censored, OURS, not our ISP's. If they want to exercise their First Amendment rights, they already have their own fucking webpages, and their own fucking channels, and their own fucking president to do so. So much for intellectual property.

If anybody needs me, I'll be over here, in the corner, plotting revolution.

[Ars Technica]

Remember, the Shypixel loves you all, and wants you to be happy. Return the favor by helping him feed his family, Donate!

I make Orange look Good

How often would you like to donate?

Select an amount (USD)


©2018 by Commie Girl Industries, Inc