This isn’t the first time this has happened, but it’s being discussed again ( via Kerry Picket at Newsbusters.org ):

The House Energy and Commerce Committee is also looking at how it can put in place policies that would allow it greater oversight of the Internet. “Internet radio is becoming a big deal, and we’re seeing that some web sites are able to control traffic and information, while other sites that may be of interest or use to citizens get limited traffic because of the way the people search and look for information,” says on committee staffer. “We’re at very early stages on this, but the chairman has made it clear that oversight of the Internet is one of his top priorities.”

As is pointed out in the article, this isn’t the first time this has been discussed:

I don’t have any clue about what we’re going to do legally, regulatorily, technologically – I don’t have a clue. But I do think we always have to keep competing interests in balance. I’m a big pro-balance person. That’s why I love the founders — checks and balances; accountable power. Anytime an individual or an institution or an invention leaps so far out ahead of that balance and throws a system, whatever it might be — political, economic, technological –out of balance, you’ve got a problem, because then it can lead to the oppression people’s rights, it can lead to the manipulation of information, it can lead to all kinds of bad outcomes which we have seen historically. So we’re going to have to deal with that. And I hope a lot of smart people are going to –”

That’s from 1998, Hillary Clinton to be exact.  Obama’s Secretary of State.

And, that’s not all.

Another Obama cabinet member had something to say about restricting free speech on the internet:

Now, whether you call it “fairness”, “reasonable restrictions”, or whatever, limiting free speech is nothing more than limiting free speech. I personally don’t thinki it can be done. Unlike tv and radio, the internet allows a person to seek out any opinion they see fit. There are no geographical restrictions. There are no reasons to assume a person’s ability to seek contradicting opinions on any subject are restricted. Therefore, the only possible restriction would be governmental. That’s what Waxman, Clinton, and Holder have mentioned. They are contemplating creating the problem they are complaining about.

Now, I’m not going to go so far as to say this is a liberal idea. I am going to go so far as to say this is a political pwoer grab in order to shut up people they don’t want to hear.

I’m not going to freak out about this either. The Supreme Court I think would shoot this thing down in a heartbeat. Waxman, Holder, and Clinton know that. That’s why it’s never gotten beyond the discussion or planning stage. And, it should never get beyond that either.

Sure, there’s a lot of bad stuff on the internet. A lot of mindless uncaring people have something to say. The problem with this country is we assure their right to say it in order to make sure those who do think and care have that same ability to voice their opinion. That’s the way it is. That’s the way it needs to stay. The only filters on the internet should be those chosen by each individual.

If Waxman, Holder, and Hillary Clinton have their way, the only thing I’m sure we’d ever be allowed to see would be Daily Kos and Keith Olbermann. How fair would that be under this Fairness Doctrine?

Let Waxman know that you don’t appreciate his Big Brother tactics by contacting him here.

---

QUICKIE UPDATE: February 19, 2009: President Obama says he is against the Fairness Doctrine. I find that a little hard to believe. However, now Waxman denies he ever had anything to do with it. I find that even harder to believe.

Tags: big-brother, censorship, eric holder, fairness doctrine, henry-waxman, hillary clinton, internet, obama, oversight, supreme court