A Federal Censor For the Web?


A friend just sent me this summary of a panel discussion from last month in which FCC Commissioner Michael Copps—the same bureaucrat whose legal counsel recently joked that he'd love to have "jurisdiction over everything"—reportedly dodged a question about regulating indecency on the web while noting that Americans want "something done" about explicit content:

Copps said that the [indecency] issue concerns him as well, suggesting that a majority of Americans want "something done" about  "over the top" "mindless violence" or sexual material, but dodged Smith's question about whether regulation or "voluntary codes" should be applied to the Internet, saying that "we need to have a national discussion about" applying public interest and decency standards to the Net. 

There may be exceptions, but it's usually pretty safe to assume that anytime a politician or bureaucrat dodges a question while calling for "a national discussion about" the proposal at hand, what he or she really means is, "I want to indicate that I support this idea without actually going on record as supporting it." In this case, Copps' proposed national conversation could complicate things for Julius Genachowski, the FCC's Chairman, who has spent a fair amount of time this year denying that his agency has any intention of regulating the Internet. He gets away with this by making a distinction between the Net's infrastructure layer, which his agency most certainly intends to regulate, and the content layer, which he's insisted the FCC won't touch. But if Copps becomes any more open about imposing indecency regulations on the web, it will be tougher for Genachowski to make his case.

NEXT: Reason #467 to Oppose Arizona's Immigration Law

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The Intertubes ain’t broke so there’s no need to fix it, Copps, you power mad cocksucker.

  2. I don’t care what you do as long as the trains run on time and we have 100% employment.

  3. Oh wow, now that is a very scary thought!


    1. For you, yes.

  4. Let me be clear.

    I am not interested in “regulating the Internet.” However, as Mr. Copps indicated, the American People want something done about over the top content on the Internet. It is that objectionable content, and only that, which I am authorizing the FCC to eliminate.

    1. Tyranny is a form of pornography, but with tyranny, it’s harder for a tyrant to “know it when he sees it.”

  5. I would support the idea if it was indeed one guy. Literally a single old dude who has to go through the web in real time looking for offensive content.
    It’s also, quite possibly, the perfect metaphor for a federal job.

    1. Preferably one of the SEC guys.

      1. – And every time he happened upon a page that he found offensive, he would jump into action.

        After studying the page for a while, and then taking a short nap.

  6. He gets away with this by making a distinction between the Net’s infrastructure layer, which his agency most certainly intends to regulate, and the content layer, which he’s insisted the FCC won’t touch.

    Just like the FCC regulates the broadcast infrastructure layer (who gets what frequencies, transmitter power, etc.) without touching broadcast content.

    Lying scumbag.

  7. Instant Regulator’s gonna get you
    Gonna knock you right on the head
    You better get yourself together
    Pretty soon it can’t be said
    What in the world you thinking ’bout
    Laughing in the face of doubt
    What on earth they tryin’ to do
    It’s up to you, yeah you

  8. Michael Copps and Henry Waxman are proof enough that there is no god, but just the devil when he’s drunk.

  9. Interesting that the same agency with the same unelected career bureaucrats keep clamoring for authority of the internet.

    I guess the hard reality that Net Neutrality boosters have to make is if this agency is making hay out of NN AND internet censorship, could there be an overriding desire to simply control the internet?

  10. I suggest we let the SEC regulate the interwebs. At least we will still have porn.

  11. Fuck that shit.

  12. whose legal counsel recently joked that he’d love to have “jurisdiction over everything”

    That wasn’t a joke, it was a Freudian slip. Jurisdiction over everything is exactly what he wants.

    1. I hereby offer to help your FCC crack down on dangerous non-Democrats on the internet! I’m good at stuff like this!

      1. We’ll be in touch. Bring troops.

        1. NO GUNS!

          Um, unless we absolutely have to go that route.

          1. You’re a noodge.

          2. What’re we supposed to use, man? Harsh language?

  13. I bet any ‘regulation’ will somehow exempt tracking of internet political donations.

    I mean, we don’t want to have any record of that, now do we?

  14. The average American: First they came for our basic freedoms, and I did not speak up. Then they came for our property, and I did not speak up. Then they came for the porn, and I spoke up.

    1. Except that when it comes to censoring the internet, like TV, “the average American” turns out to be a few fundamentalists who write lots of letters.

      If porn offended so many people there wouldn’t be so many downloads.

      1. The “I” was referring to the average American. The “they” was referring to the government. Might wanna read that one again…

  15. “while noting that Americans want “something done” about explicit content”
    Damn straight!!! I don’t know how many times I have searched for black lesbian oil wrestling midgets, and I get everything but. Even gay stuff (not that there’s anything wrong with that – but its not what I searched for)!!!! Or interracial lesbian spanking! What part of “lesbian” does the internet not understand! There should be a law…

  16. Why should I have to worry about saying the word “F**K” when our VP uses it on national TV? When we hear Senators use these words, you get two different stories. When the GOP uses it, they needs to be censored. When a Democrat uses it, it’s just usual Senate business. I can see the double standards occurring more in the future with this f***ing regulation. (I better get this out before I can be charged with a crime.)
    Since Biden’s outburst appeared on TV, has the FCC oppened a case/prosecuted him? How about the TV stations showed this video uncut? Or the TV stations that used the N word to make a case for the lying Democratic Senators?

  17. Our President, who is infected with the Communistic, Marxist, Liberal worldview, which is delusional, is anti-First Amendment. Let’s count the evidences.

    His FCC wants to control the Web’s content. Note his constant attacks on Fox News. Marxists don’t like the “Freedom of Speech”, especially Political Speech. Marxists hate all Free Speech which reveals what they are really up to. Does it make sense to have someone who hates Traditional America and its Citizens to be in charge of fixing its economy and politics? Does it make sense to have a Marxist like Castro to be in charge of “enforcing” freedom of speech? Obama’s administration is working to kill Freedom of Speech. His Supreme court nominee, Elena Kagan, is on record as favoring the Government having power to limit Freedom of Speech – does this not tell you where the Obama Administration is on Freedom! Fee Your Mind.

  18. “Why should I have to worry about saying the word “F**K” when our VP uses it on national TV?”

    Hey, how ’bout a president who claims that “oral sex” isn’t sex? And when you’re looking for those “black lesbian oil wrestling midgets”, (you forgot the S & M part of that), just make sure your five year old isn’t looking over your shoulder. Thanks Mr. President, but I don’t need MORE government, I need LESS!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.