Author: Pamela Geller
Kudos to Ted Cruz for leading this fight. Trump should also make this a top issue of his freedom platform.
Of course the leader of the anti-freedom movement (and his successor Hillary) would work to extinguish the last frontier of freedom in the information battle-space. Sites like mine will go the way of the first amendment — to the dustbin of free societies. This is the fight.
PLEASE CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSMAN TODAY – SENATOR CONTACT INFO HERE, YOUR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE CONTACT INFO HERE.
The UN is controlled by the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation), the largest world body consiting of 56 Muslim countries and the “Palestinian” authorities who work feverishly to impose Islamic law and criminalize free speech. Obama means to hand off our precious freedom to them.
Hillary brought the caliphate-inspired Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to Washington, DC to meet behind closed doors on plans to implement laws and policies to impose Islamic law on speech. she says. Hillary has vowed to shutdown opposition websites if she wins.
It is telling what the left will impale themselves on when it comes to free speech.
Islam and Islamic government are a unique threat to free speech and liberty
Freedom of speech is the foundation of a free society. Without it, a tyrant can wreak havoc unopposed, while his opponents are silenced.
Putting up with being offended is essential in a pluralistic society in which people differ on basic truths. If a group will not bear being offended without resorting to violence, that group will rule unopposed while everyone else lives in fear, while other groups curtail their activities to appease the violent group. This results in the violent group being able to tyrannize the others.
Islamic law forbids criticism of Islam, Quran, Muhammad. If they cannot be criticized in the US, we are in effect accepting Islamic law as overriding the freedom of speech. This would establish Muslims as a protected class and prevent honest discussion of how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism.
If speech that offends a group is outlawed, that group has absolute power, and a free society is destroyed. A group that cannot be criticized cannot be opposed. It can work its will no matter what it is, and no one will be able to say anything to stop it.
Inoffensive speech needs no protection. The First Amendment was developed precisely in order to protect speech that was offensive to some, in order to prevent those who had power from claiming they were offended by speech opposing them and silencing the powerless.
A free society is by its nature one in which people put up with others being uncivil and offensive. The alternative is a quiet authoritarian society in which only one opinion is allowed and the others are silenced, and ultimately sent to the camps.
The Constitution says Congress must approve the sale of government property. The Icann contract is government property worth billions of dollars, yet the Obama administration has ignored the requirement to seek congressional approval. “Absent clear legal certainty, moving forward with the transition could have devastating consequences for internet users,” the legislators write, because litigation would create questions about who has authority to award and manage internet addresses.
Each of these objections is enough to retain U.S. oversight, but the broader point is that the internet ain’t broke and doesn’t need fixing. Icann’s stakeholders—developers, engineers, network operators and entrepreneurs—are free to operate an open internet because U.S. protection prevents Moscow, Beijing, Tehran and other authoritarian regimes from meddling. The Obama administration may not be comfortable with American exceptionalism, but the internet fosters free speech and innovation because it was built in the image of the U.S.
The administration has been reduced to arguing that having been promised an end to U.S. oversight, other countries will now be upset if this doesn’t happen. Too bad. Why make authoritarians happy by giving them the power to censor websites globally, including in the U.S.?
Sen. Cruz observed it was interesting that the Obama plan “doesn’t have much in the way of outspoken Democratic support,” though the Democratic platform supports the Obama handover, which the Republican platform opposes. It would be fascinating if internet freedom became an issue in the presidential election.
PRESIDENT OBAMA WANTS THIS TO BE THE LAST MONTH OF AN OPEN, UNCENSORED INTERNET GUARANTEED BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. HIS PLAN TO END AMERICAN STEWARDSHIP WOULD HAND NEW POWER TO AUTHORITARIAN GOVERNMENTS OFFENDED BY THE INTERNET AS WE KNOW IT.
THE GOOD NEWS IS IT APPEARS CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS HAVE AGREED TO RESCUE THE INTERNET IN TIME TO PREVENT THE SEPT. 30 EXPIRATION OF U.S. OVERSIGHT. SEN. TED CRUZ, WHO HAS PUSHED HARD AGAINST THE PLAN SINCE IT WAS ANNOUNCED TWO YEARS AGO, TOLD ME LAST WEEK HE’S “CAUTIOUSLY OPTIMISTIC” LEGISLATORS WILL BLOCK IT THROUGH A RIDER TO THE FEDERAL BUDGET: “THE BASIC PROPOSITION OF KEEPING THE INTERNET FREE HAS UNITED REPUBLICANS ACROSS THE SPECTRUM AND SHOULD ALSO UNITE DEMOCRATS WITH REPUBLICANS.”
TOP SENATE AND HOUSE REPUBLICANS HAVE SIGNALED THEY WILL ENSURE U.S. OVERSIGHT CONTINUES TO PROTECT THE INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS, OR ICANN, AND ITS STAKEHOLDERS. THE LEADERS OF THE FOUR CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES THAT OVERSEE THE INTERNET—SEN. JOHN THUNE AND REP. FRED UPTON (COMMERCE) AND SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY AND REP. BOB GOODLATTE (JUDICIARY)—SENT A DETAILED LETTER LAST WEEK TO COMMERCE SECRETARY PENNY PRITZKER AND ATTORNEY GENERAL LORETTA LYNCH: “THIS IRREVERSIBLE DECISION COULD RESULT IN A LESS TRANSPARENT AND ACCOUNTABLE INTERNET GOVERNANCE REGIME OR PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR AN ENHANCED ROLE FOR AUTHORITARIAN NATION-STATES.” THEY FOCUSED ON SEVERAL FATAL PROBLEMS WITH THE OBAMA PLAN:
