« My Wikipedia Entry | Main | Carp I mean Crap is getting out in a hurry »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Darien Caldwell

I'm a little split on this subject. I am a big proponent of Freedom of Speech. But there does seem to be a double standard when it comes to speech online as compared to speech in the Real World. And I think it comes down to the perception that there are no 'public spaces' online.

Take this website for instance:

The section under the heading:
"It should be pointed out here that a website is the personal property of the website owner or company." pretty much explains the prevailing view.

Someone is paying for the website, and as a result they own it, and can dictate the usage of that site. Assuming that viewpoint is true, then the only 'public forum' online would be on a website paid for with public funds.

Prokofy Neva

Well, you're merely spitting out the predictable point of view that all tekkies always approach this problem with, Darien, which basically amounts to game gods, geeks, and their fanboyz saying "freedom of speech for me and not for three".

While it is true that "freedom of the press belongs to him who owns one," the online social media harvests data and gets people to click on ads and doesn't even provide the programming and entertainment of the old broadcasting networks, but wants the "killer app" to be "each other" with user-generated content produced for free.

Or in the SL model we pay tier.

So whether we pay in attention and clicks and even virtual game pieces or tier, we're paying bunches for this "press owned by someone else" that in fact we have a larger stake in than we ever remotely had in a television set, which we bought for a low cost and then just showed up at for ever more, for free (until cable, which is also very low in cost).

Cable subscriptions brought more diversity to TV, and adult and political channels that didn't exist when TV was "free". So social media will likely go this way, too, despite the geeky kicky and screaming that goes on insisting that you "can't" charge for online social media. Of course you can, and providers will, and that's how people will get more freedom, if it won't come any other way.

I'd be happy to pay a blogging platform twice or more what I pay Typepad now for a robust First Amendment protection that doesn't accept anything less than a court order from a successful lawsuit to take down material, and that never kneejerks on a DMCA takedown for text without investigation when challenged.

We are paying for the websites, that's the thing, one way or another. And will go on paying.
And it is substantially fulfilling the role of a town hall.

I think this point has to be made, because even government websites, which could be acting entirely differently, hide behind corporate-like TOS and delete what they don't like.


I have no problem whatsoever with websites, virtual worlds, whomever *offering* First Amendment-style speech protections *voluntarily* and using it as a selling point. That is after all the nature of a free market - find a niche, fill it. And if a services provider offers that, then backpedals away from it, its users have every right and duty to call them on it.

I *do* have a problem, very much so, with a government mandate *requiring* me to enable offer First Amendment-style speech programs in whatever *private* spaces I may create, be it my home in real life (where no, you are not welcome to come into my living room and rant about what a horrible person I am, sorry, get out) or my business on the Internet, or my virtual living space.

And if the government mandates this for all network spaces, or worse makes me liable for the actions of others that do - I simply wouldn't want the bother of making virtual spaces.

Why should I labor so that someone else can be a jerk?

Lum Lumley

That last comment was me btw. Apparently TypePad's facebook integration isn't quite all that.

Prokofy Neva

Well, Lum, there you go again. You geeks thinking the Internet is your private living room. It isn't. It's a public space. If you want lock your island down. But you seem to think because you make a world you're entitled to treat it like your personal fiefdom, like it's your personal living room and you can't use mute/eject or something. And that's wrong. Just use mute and stop controlling the entire world.

If you don't want the bother of making virtual spaces under these terms, that's fine. Others will come along who understand that the public needs and wants freedom of speech (except for some movements that will want enforced civility, and they can then see if anyone shows up for it). It isn't just about 'optional," because no one should be able to grab the mindshare of 400 million people and then selectively provide them constitutional freedoms by the lights of their goofy San Francisco ethics.

The government mandate to REQUIRE the first amendment would mean that you cannot ban people from your forums, or strip them of their property, or restrict their speech, unless you had a court order. So mute, if you are a game wizard and don't want to listen to jerky customers, i guess.

Lum Lumley

The Internet isn't my living room.

The parts I own are.

Yes, if I make a world, it *is* my personal fiefdom. Are you saying I don't have the freedom to create my own spaces? At what point should government be allowed to barge into *my* spaces - the ones that *I* paid for, built, developed?

Eric Rice

I guess where the disconnect for me is the realizing the difference between public sector, private sector/publicly-held, private sector/privately-held with regards to government regulation.

Governments regulate industries, fine, but can governments enforce their respective constitutions on private companies?

I *appreciate* the concept of worlds and utilities being public-esque, but they aren't. LL could say tomorrow, 'all avatars will now be flat, 2-D, farmville-style representations'. They're a private company and can do that-- they aren't even public, so you can't even do the shareholder dance. You can 'vote' with dollars/traffic.

If you're a government that doesn't like it, then do the Pakistan/China/Australia/Iran thing and shut the doors.

That might be my tekkie view, but really, it's just a market thing. Unless the government runs things, of course. And again, *which* government?

Sean Williams

Sorry ... No.

1. You are preaching what you do not practice.

2. "Freedom of Speech" does not give one free reign to say whatever they like, without fear of repercussion - barring some court order.

3. Even the United States Government does not allow utterly free speech on its own sites, what makes you think they're going to enforce your "Anarchy of Speech"?

4. You want to use a service, provided by a company? You accept the risks that come with the service. This includes the risk of losing what you "own" in Virtual "Worlds".

To further explain point 4 above: If for whatever reason a person is evicted from an apartment, while they could fight the eviction most people do not bother as this is a drain on their resources. Instead, they focus on getting out in time. In time for what you may ask? Let's put it this way: In many states, it is perfectly legal for a complex owner or manager to lock you out of the apartment at office closing time of the final day noted in the eviction notice. Further, there really are not many laws concerning property rights in these instances. You MIGHT be allowed back in once to claim whatever you can cart out .... the rest ends up either being sold or - in the majority of cases - simply thrown away once it is established that you are no longer allowed on the property.

The above could occur as a result of what you have said to other residents of the complex.

This brings me right back to point 1: Freedom of Speech isn't true freedom. The Government knows this, businesses know this, internet service companies of all sorts know this ....

You however are delusional enough to think otherwise - a delusion reinforced by the few service providers out there that refuse to remove things until they get a court order, a note from a lawyer or a DMCA Takedown notification.

It's fine and dandy that such places exist: I for one think they should continually monitor such places though. To prevent them from being abused by the sort of people the limits on free speech are supposed to keep in check.

There are enough problems with hate groups and other negative types out there on the Internet - and indeed in Second Life as well - without giving them all free reign to spout off endlessly until silenced by a fucking expensive to get court order.


Argue all you guys want but the main reason the tech ceos have to be collared is they have literally begun to behave as though they are above the law and can control the people instead of the government.

Wrong. Shaka-BOOM. Piss on the government and see what happens.

Stupid fuckers. Too bad. Was good while it lasted. Thinking your dick is bigger than it really is always leads to troubles.

Steve Jobs is another one that will be put away after his episode with the "Porn Free Internet" order. Buh Bye Steve. Been nice seeing apples on the movie screen. Time for you to go and apple become history. Porn biz has more money and power than you.

Then there is Kingdon/Rosedale and LL/SL. That one is going to be interesting to see what happens.

It is not a good idea to allow unfettered advances to become crushed by governments. Especially when it is because the CEO is a fucking deranged megalomaniac retard that got too much money too fast. But what can we do? Already done. Decisions made. Cards played.

Maybe the new guys won't be stupid as shit and will learn from all the mistakes made by others. Doubt it. Too much money turns people into idiots.

Prokofy Neva

Lum, you're performing true to type, screeching that your publisher's rights are impacted and once again attempting to close the discussion on that note, as if that trumps everything. You're also seeing this through the geek keyhole of gaming, as if everything is about gaming, and not seeing that other platforms don't become less real if they are not games yet are virtual. This is a persistent bias and "goes nowhere". I'm not for letting you and all your likeminded game gods close off my freedom of speech in this manner.

Your inherent belief in the endless extensibility of your game-god First Amendment publishing rights don't trump everything else -- or shouldn't. Anymore than in real life, your First Amendment rights are extensible beyond all reason past the rights of other people, and actually do have some restrictions on them in real life in real spaces like "time, place, and manner."

No, Lum, when you create a public platform with other people in it and serve as a massively multiple town hall, you don't just get freedom, you get responsibility, just like the people in Marsh v. Alabama had to make way for the Jehovah's Witnesses because they operated something like a Main Street even though it was on privately owned land. And they didn't get to say, "We don't like religious nuts on our lawn because they are bad for business."

I live in a big housing complex with probably 4,000 people in it with a huge public square more or less open to "the public," but not really, as the private security cops turn away people for various reasons. Like dog-walkers, because no dogs are allowed. Like people distributing leaflets, because they have signs up saying "no solicitations". Can they do that? Well, sometimes the ACLU challenges these kinds of housing complexes if they can find one where they think a racial discrimination charge will stick, for example, like Sea Gate the large gated community (literally) in Brooklyn on the ocean side that has a public playground where black children in the projects next door couldn't gain access because the community was only open to those with ID showing a residence inside. Eventually with ACLU litigation they forced through a system where neighboring children could come in. The ACLU probably wouldn't even try to come near my integrated housing complex with that sort of complaint because they wouldn't be able to make it stick -- in a complex that has some low-income vouchers and middle-income and high-income black families with children playing in the playground, the security's decision to bar unattached black teenagers that come wondering in looking for trouble will be seen as a valid measure, not racism. That is, the right to make a privately-run community and the right to freedom of association doesn't endlessly extend to denying groups of people on racial grounds in the belief that this will be a good way to prevent occasional groups of people with switchblades and chains coming in to pick a fight.

I just think it's time to reverse the endless game god tide. The unconscionable TOS. The corruption and tyranny that go on in all these game worlds and virtual spaces precisely because there is no First Amendment protections. The Sony case isn't the last word for me, and shouldn't be the last word for anyone.

I think it's *especially* the case to call Facebook on this matter because Zuckerberg and the other secular executives endlessly posture and pose and thumbsuck about how they are trying in fact to be guided by First Amendment values, and trying to allow controversial debate, so they leave up antisemitic and anti-Muslim groups endlessly and wait for lawsuits and governments to close the pages down in a country, but on LGBT, they instantly delete groups because they are driven by a San Francisco perspective on the world, or on breast-feeding, which I guess they find revolting, they delete the pictures. I'm for ending their hypocrisy on this matter and pressing them hard -- either they have the First Amendment, or they don't. If they do, then they don't delete anything unless they have a court order showing imminent lawless action (say, a group that would meet existing court ruling tests, like a group calling for and planning the murder of an abortion doctor, or a group planning an actual terrorist bomb attack on Time Square). In these cases, they could even exercise due diligence and look at "probable cause" because of a "true threat" incitement to violence that would likely meet a court test.

There are a good many people who think antigay groups *should* be instantly deleted because they hate anyone to attack them and their culture, but they themselves are happy to leave up antisemitic groups because as secular leftists, they think Jews and Israel need to be regularly bashed, and they want to leave "draw this dog" groups because they think they are just ridiculous and stupid. I'm not letting people with this sort of fuck-you hedonistic neo-puritanical perspective to prevail in the public square.

A general group urging people to draw cartoons that offend people who might then stage a violent demonstration is something that they would not close. Because the people doing the speaking (not the people reacting to it) are not inciting violence, they're in fact trying to end the threat of violence that such easily-offended impose on them.

Anti-gay groups are offensive. But if you are not closing antisemitic and anti-Muslim groups (there are bunches of others, not only on the cartoon theme), then you shouldn't be closing anti-gay groups. Gays are not discriminated against on Facebook due to the presence of anti-gay groups. Anyone can make *another* group and *not* join the hate groups. They can block the haters from seeing their page. If the tide was such at Facebook that millions of people were making anti-gay groups and creating a discriminatory environment where no gay felt he could join Facebook without being harassed, you might then make the case that Facebook should try to address this imbalance. But that's not how it works. People make 620 million groups, more than 2 per person, about any damn thing they want, and if you don't like it, don't join it or view it. If you are offended at hate, fight it with another group.

It's in this context where people have so many tools to mute and ban others they don't like that I don't think you as a game god have a case to be saying that you "need" to control speech to keep civility. You don't. People individually slide up their tolerance for incivility -- or not.

Your unwillingness to listen to a jackass on the forums doesn't move me. Because in suppressing that person, you're also suppressing the people who engage in two other kinds of speech that is routinely deleted by game gods, and shouldn't be:

1. Speech about the game company being unfair and engaging in practices of favouritism or corrupt insiderism with the staff

2. Speech about the impunity or bad behaviour of other players.

Unless you have the ability to make allegations about both the game gods and the other players

Again, First Amendment freedoms are not about telling Raph Koster that he cannot make a Meep that can be mass murdered.

It's about him being unable to silence me if I go on his forums and say, "That's really creepy, the way those Meeps are killed, and most of us don't like this, but you are allowing your little friends among the early adapters keep this feature just because you are placating them". (To take a hypothetical example that probably wouldn't reach the test of Raph wanting to delete it, but I'll be Cuppycake would come in and issue warnings of staying on topic or would simply close the thread because people weren't being "nice".)

I just don't think that the companies running these huge spaces like tyrants -- Facebook, Sony, Linden Lab, Twitter -- liberal tyrants though they may be at times -- should continue to get a pass in our society for not following the law of the land, and endlessly shielding behind the freedom of association. I invoke the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Art. 30 concept that says you cannot use one right to take away another. And that is what routinely happens in these spaces, that the right of association (corporations) takes away the freedom of speech utterly. There needs to be a better balance, given the role that these platforms play in public life.

To argue on your side of the issue, it might be easier to make the cast that an *entertainment* company that is merely providing a game like World of Warcraft that has set routines and goals and fighting and such, shouldn't have to be required to interfere with their right to publish, and their right to manage unruly fucktards who swear on the forums because somebody kicked them.

There, they might argue that the game, and the atmosphere of fun, is seriously damaged by having groups of players consistently troll the forums, let's say.

But in Second Life and on Facebook, you aren't playing a game, you aren't entertaining yourself (as the Sony case language works), you aren't just showing pictures to your family. You are doing a lot more. You are fully engaging in civic life. You are proposing candidates for election, and supporting them or not supporting them as you would with a political party or campaign group in meat world. You are discussing and debating issues, as you would in an old newspaper or in an old town hall meeting. You are in a virtual town commons.

And I'm not for having these town commons run by Mark Zuckerberg or Biz Stone by the light of their own lifestyles shaped in their own secular and cynical California world view. You may be happy with that view if it ensures your own cultural preferences most of the time. But I'm not, and so are millions of other people. Either play First Amendment, or don't.

Prokofy Neva

Eric, the market isn't really running things and it is not about free enterprise when you get things like Facebook and Twitter that become like public utilities. Like mass media broadcasters. If the government regulates them, why can't it regulate social media? Why is social media a special snowflake? It's not.

Muslim Social Networks

really Government take the best decision to over look the social media sites so no one can bare to make such a foot to others religion and the emotion too.
anyway there is a site with the name of green-konnection that facilitate the users to connect with friends.


I sure hope that they are never govt. regulated.

That's the last thing we need. I'm going to have to disagree with you here Prok.

The internet is like the public road system and websites/games/SNS are like the homes and businesses along that road.

Sorry, I just can't buy into having Big Government step in and start telling private companies that they must behave as if they were a governmentally owned agency.

I honestly don't think this will ever happen, and it just sounds like wishful thinking, on the part of some.

How would you like it Prok, if the government stepped in and said that you cannot ban people from your blog because of freedom of expression concerns?

Darien Caldwell

"Eric, the market isn't really running things and it is not about free enterprise when you get things like Facebook and Twitter that become like public utilities. Like mass media broadcasters. If the government regulates them, why can't it regulate social media? Why is social media a special snowflake? It's not."

There is one distinction between mass media broadcasters and the Internet. The medium broadcasters use, the 'frequencies' are a public space as mandated by law. The airwaves belong to 'the american people', and broadcasters are given a 'license' to use them. They don't own the frequencies. Because of this, the FCC has the legal right to dictate what is transmitted over those frequencies, and how they are used.

The Internet, on the other hand, doesn't actually belong to anyone. You could argue it's oversaw by ICANN, or what have you, but the internet is simply a conduit which should be neutral to the content (yes that evil Net Neutrality). But people own the content.

The thing missing is the 'owned by the people' part. The government can't claim stewardship over the internet, on behalf of 'the people' like they can with broadcast airwaves. And I suspect any government that tries to claim ownership of the Internet is going to find that idea frowned upon by other countries, and the Internet community at large.

If Facebook is selectively removing some things and not others, I agree, that's a poor way to act. But government oversight is the wrong tool. As a few have pointed out, it's a big Internet. There's likely to be somewhere else that is more tolerant, or even one can start your own, that's the beauty of it.

Anyone can create their own Internet space, and expound whatever viewpoint they like, and frankly it's impossible to stop them. There's no greater freedom of speech than that.

Prokofy Neva

If a private corporation owns a mall or a road, they will find that they cannot suppress the First Amendment in many cases. So I fail to see why the private corporations online get to provide less rights, in the name of themselves having more rights. They are taking too much from us.

Gisele, your use case doesn't work. Here's the analogy. Yes, I would like the Government to step in and tell Typepad that they can't ban me for what I write on my blog using their platform. Currently, they have the same vague overbroad "anti hate speech" language of every other platform, and it's not just or fair.

I'm not providing a service here that is "like" a municipality. I'm providing a service that is "like" a big family picnic, or maybe a PTA meeting in one school or a conference by a nonprofit. In other words, it is not seeking to be a big public space for tens of thousands of people, it's merely a forum for thousands of people, it's smaller.

I'm not for the government, in the quest to enforce rights, for stepping into an individual blog, an individual facebook page, or an individual facebook group. I'm for them dealing with the *platform providers* because, as the court cases discuss, they substantially replace the role of a municipality.

No, I don't think the Internet gets to endlessly pretend it is something different than everything else. It's not special. Eric wants to have no separate drinking fountains. OK, not good drinking fountains for some people and dirty crappy drinking fountains for everyone else. No separate and nonequal.

Governight oversight is inevitable, and the way to prevent it from becoming also the tool that also erodes First Amendment protection is to say that government must enforce First Amendment, too, and this is the way it will work.

In fact, you aren't right that "anyone can create their own Internet space". They can't, if, for example, they oppose gay marriage and make a group about it, if enough LGBT fighters get their group deleted on Facebook. They can't, if they are Christian fundamentalists and don't want certain lifestyles or movies or books in schools -- it's their right to preach as they like. If they are going to be politically-corrected, that's not freedom. That's not being able to "create your own Internet space".

Prokofy Neva

The thing missing is the 'owned by the people' part. The government can't claim stewardship over the internet, on behalf of 'the people' like they can with broadcast airwaves. And I suspect any government that tries to claim ownership of the Internet is going to find that idea frowned upon by other countries, and the Internet community at large.

You don't have to have ownership to be able to enforce the First Amendment; in Marsh v. Alabama, the private mall remains in private hands. But the owner has to tolerate some free speech when he owns what is everybody's Main Street.

Amanda Dallin

I have to disagree with you Prok. Your right to free speech doesn't negate Linden Lab or Facebook's rights to their property. The right to property is just as important to freedom as the right to free speech. Your paying tier does not give you any more rights than LL gives you in their TOS, just as buying a copy of the New York Times doesn't give you editorial rights.

Marsh v. Alabama depended on "the company town" ... "performing the full spectrum of municipal powers and stood in the shoes of the State." The Marsh case concerned a privately owned company town that had a US Post Office, a public police force and other connections to state govt. that would be expected from any town.

Cyber Promotions v. AOL found that AOL was not a public space and could filter spam. Marsh was cited and found to not apply since AOL was not standing in the shoes of govt.

Gwyneth Llewelyn

I thought that free speech applied mostly to *government*, not to private things. I have seen this quoted both ways, which one is correct?

In my country, companies and organisations definitely have the right to limit what their employees say inside the company, but have no power whatsoever to control their speech *outside* the company. Still, you can be sued for libel or defamation if you don't behave, of course.

However, if you work for Government, that's a different story — you can say whatever you like against Government, all the time, even if they're your employers...

I suppose that this is different on every country, though.

Sean Williams

Yep, that's pretty much how it works Gwyn .... no matter how much some wish it did not.

Amanda Dallin

The US Constitution is meant to limit the powers of government not the rights of citizens.

Prok is right that in certain circumstances freedom of speech has been extended to private property open to the public. This does not apply to all private property open to the public.

Is LL taking the place of the government or in collusion with the government. In some ways yes but I don't think they would meet the legal stipulations. People don't really live in SL. It doesn't provide necessary utilities like water or electricity.

Indoor shopping malls are able to restrict speech. They can and often do restrict protesters from the inside of an enclosed mall. Courts have upheld these bans with some specific exceptions such as protesting a particular store.

Prokofy Neva

Amanda, disagree all you like. The Times they are A'changing.

The point I have to keep making over and over again with you geek defenders is that the property the game god or VW provider owns -- virtuality -- is largely supplied by the users. Even in WoW, if it weren't for the guilds that people make, there'd be no game. The game gods own all the IP; the players make the soul of the place in the guilds. Yet they are treated like chattel, thrown off the forums for speaking of other games and other offenses that are absurd and wrong.

The March case, as ancient as it is, now becomes newly relevant as the VW assumes the function of a company town, in exactly the way , taking over economic policy, policing, etc. And the Sony case, on an entertainment platform, doesn't HAVE to extend to a more all purpose open-ended virtual world, and the suit is merely waiting to be brought by the right persistent deep pockets or large class, that's all.

Linden Lab stands in the shoes of the government; furthermore, it even has the U.S. federal government in its shows. How do you like them apples.

The AOL case is irrelevant because it's not about spam but speech. Spam was trying to pose as speech in that case, the justices weren't buying.

As more and more people move online and work online and virtualize more and more and do their communicating and perhaps even voting and debating in Congress online and all kinds of things, this will change. That's all there is to it. Getting your mind set that it "can't" happen seems like an option, but it isn't. People do not sit still for stuff like this. The riot at Facebook over democracy was a good example. The riot over drawing the dog was a good example. This will be fought, and fought by millions of people, and you geeks who keep saying "you can't" about this will just be left by the wayside.

Indeed LL does take the place of government when they start inflicting polices that affect *how people making a living* and *how they socialize in their most meaningful ways*. That's how things like the Magna Charta get started! When kings get too push with how people live and work out their lives.

Shopping mall cases are mixed. Yes, some have been lost, probably most of them. But there is one about the anti-Bush t-shirt that did get a ruling on a compensation. So it's progress, slow and sure.

Gwyn isn't making any sense. You can't protest against the government if you are a government official even in Portugal or the UK. Please show me an example where an official was able to go out of bounds and start publicly denouncing government polices, and keep his job. Look at this poor gay fellow in the UK that felt he had to step down over a rental compensation issue with his gay lover. This sort of thing seems terribly tame by contrast to the gang we have in Albany.

Eric Rice

Wait, so what's the difference between the virtuality of a software customer and the virtuality of a retail customer. I'd imagine they could all bond together and claim some sort of rights-- and the companies wouldn't be able to exist without any of them.

(One thing I appreciated about the late Tabula Rasa MMO, is that they didn't provide user forums AT ALL.)

Anyway, would your theory apply to companies like eBay as well? They are always changing policy and fees and some wonkiness that affects people's ability to sell.

This all leads to that nasty convo about less/more government. Heck, net neutrality is the latest victim where the gov't smacking greedy corps down turned into OMG GOVT TAKEOVER OF INTERNET.

Prokofy Neva

The virtuality of the software customer doesn't have quite the same secondary economy. That is, sure, you could say millions of people use software in their businesses to make money. But they have a choice of software and aren't dependent on a monopoly (although it may seem that way given Microsoft's domination).

In Second Life, you don't have a choice. You can go to Inworldz, where the currency doesn't cash out, or Blue Mars that doesn't have cashoutable currency either!

And frankly, users do bond together and do claim rights, that's why you see all these yuppie geeks fretting about Steve Jobs all the time, especially his latest invention, i-pad, which they loathe because it's more democratic than they are.

I think a company has to provide user forums, and not moderate them in the draconian way they do, especially in games, and simply create enough rubrics so that those who aer offended by OMGODZORZ sort of stuff don't read the rubrics where that takes place, and mods merely put people in the right rubric, unless they have a court order.

Yes, my theory would apply to ebay. All these services created by a handful of your Silicon Valley tycoons are all abusive and unconscionable and their tyranny has to end. No other sector of business operates with such impunity. Hey, the extractive industries used to be like this, but government and NGOs have them on the run, especially now.

Net neutrality is a sham, Eric. I've written copiously on this. Your illegal movie downloading and music filesharing and WoW patching is not going to slow down my work email, sorry, and if I have to pay more to use SL, fine.

The government in the end did NOT smack anybody. Didn't you see? The FCC lost the court case. THey are trying to regroup by relabelling everything differently as if that will fool the next judge that has to look at this.

cube inada

the prior "labeling" of the internet NOT as a communications media was the original joke.

the current FCC isnt looking to fool anyone. The joke on us was played by its past partisan incarnation and agenda.

Funny how gamerz so "heady" about the need for rulez in gamez( to keep them fun and balanced), resist so hard for rules of law in realife.

Prokofy Neva

I've been wondering where you were cube. I was about to send out the sheriff.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)