Tag: internet freedom

Categories
Quick Analysis

Freedom House Reports on Digital Authoritarianism

Freedom House has released its latest report on internet freedom, written by Adrian Shahbaz. Due to its extraordinary importance, we summarize its findings here:

Freedom on the Net 2018

The Rise of Digital Authoritarianism

The internet is growing less free around the world, and democracy itself is withering under its influence.

Disinformation and propaganda disseminated online have poisoned the public sphere. The unbridled collection of personal data has broken down traditional notions of privacy. And a cohort of countries is moving toward digital authoritarianism by embracing the Chinese model of extensive censorship and automated surveillance systems. As a result of these trends, global internet freedom declined for the eighth consecutive year in 2018.

Events this year have confirmed that the internet can be used to disrupt democracies as surely as it can destabilize dictatorships.

With or without malign intent, the internet and social media in particular can push citizens into polarized echo chambers and pull at the social fabric of a country, fueling hostility between different communities.

As democratic societies struggle with the challenges of a more dangerous and contested online sphere, leaders in Beijing have stepped up efforts to use digital media to increase their own power, both at home and abroad. China was once again the worst abuser of internet freedom in 2018, and over the past year, its government hosted media officials from dozens of countries for two- and three-week seminars on its sprawling system of censorship and surveillance. Moreover, its companies have supplied telecommunications hardware, advanced facial-recognition technology, and data-analytics tools to a variety of governments with poor human rights records, which could benefit Chinese intelligence services as well as repressive local authorities. Digital authoritarianism is being promoted as a way for governments to control their citizens through technology, inverting the concept of the internet as an engine of human liberation.

Throughout the year, authoritarians used claims of “fake news” and data scandals as a pretext to move closer to the China model. Governments in countries such as Egypt and Iran rewrote restrictive media laws to apply to social media users, jailed critics under measures designed to curb false news, and blocked foreign social media and communication services. China, Russia, and other repressive states are also demanding that companies store their citizens’ data within their borders, where the information can be accessed by security agencies.

Democracies are famously slow at responding to crises—their systems of checks and balances, open deliberation, and public participation are not conducive to rapid decision-making. But this built-in caution has helped some semidemocratic countries fend off authoritarian-style internet controls over the past year.

Securing internet freedom against the rise of digital authoritarianism is fundamental to protecting democracy as a whole.

If democracy is to survive the digital age, technology companies, governments, and civil society must work together to find real solutions to the problems of social media manipulation and abusive data collection.

Tracking the Global Decline

Of the 65 countries assessed, 26 have been on an overall decline since June 2017, compared with 19 that registered net improvements. The biggest score declines took place in Egypt and Sri Lanka, followed by Cambodia, Kenya, Nigeria, the Philippines, and Venezuela.

 

Of the 19 countries with overall score improvements, two—Armenia and the Gambia—earned upgrades in their internet freedom status.

MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS

China remakes the world in its techno-dystopian image

[O]ver the last two decades, [China’s] “Great Firewall” has grown into an alarmingly effective apparatus of censorship and surveillance. This year, Beijing took steps to propagate its model abroad by conducting large-scale trainings of foreign officials, providing technology to authoritarian governments, and demanding that international companies abide by its content regulations even when operating outside of China. These trends present an existential threat to the future of the open internet and prospects for greater democracy around the globe.

THE CHINA MODEL AT HOME

Internet controls within China reached new extremes in 2018 with the implementation of the sweeping Cybersecurity Law and upgrades to surveillance technology. The law centralizes all internet policy within the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC), strengthens obligations for network operators and social media companies to register users under their real names, requires that local and foreign companies work to “immediately stop transmission” of banned content, and compels them to ensure that all data about Chinese users is hosted within the country. The Cybersecurity Law has been followed by hundreds of new directives—an average of nearly one every two days—to fine-tune what netizens can and cannot do online. Among other steps, authorities have cracked down on the use of VPNs to circumvent the Great Firewall, leading Apple to delete hundreds of the services from its local app store.

One of the most alarming developments this year has been the uptick in state surveillance. In the western region of Xinjiang, home to the country’s Uighur Muslim minority, facial recognition technology and other advanced tools are being used to monitor the local population and thwart any actions deemed to harm “public order” or “national security.” Leaked documents and other evidence revealed in August suggested that as many as a million Muslims may be held in internment camps in Xinjiang, where they endure a “reeducation” process meant to forcibly indoctrinate them. Many detainees are held as a result of their nonviolent online activities.

The abuses in Xinjiang foreshadow the impact of the nascent nationwide Social Credit System, which rates citizens’ “trustworthiness” by combining data on their online and offline behavior.

A NEW FLAIR FOR EXPORTING THE MODEL UNDER XI

Speaking at the Chinese Communist Party Congress in October 2017, President Xi Jinping publicly outlined his plan to transform China into a “cyber superpower.” He offered up the country’s model of governance—including its management of the internet—as “a new option for other countries and nations that want to speed up their development while preserving their independence.” But rather than simply leading by example, this year Beijing took major steps to establish its standards and practices around the world, in keeping with a detailed vision outlined not only in Xi’s past speeches but also in party policy journals.

One key avenue for China’s multifaceted expansionism is the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a trillion-dollar international development strategy focused on infrastructure projects that enhance Chinese trade and influence in the host countries. The BRI includes a “digital Silk Road” of Chinese-built fiber-optic networks that could expose internet traffic to greater monitoring by local and Chinese intelligence agencies, particularly given that China is determined to set the technical standards for how the next generation of traffic is coded and transmitted. To this end, China has organized forums where it can impart its norms to authoritarian-leaning governments, like the 2017 World Internet Conference in Wuzhen.

CHINA’S CHARM OFFENSIVE AGAINST INTERNET FREEDOM

As part of its multilateral efforts, Beijing is cultivating media elites and government ministers around the world to create a network of countries that will follow its lead on internet policy. Chinese officials have held trainings and seminars on new media or information management with representatives from 36 out of the 65 countries covered in this survey.

CHINESE COMPANIES UNDER THE SPOTLIGHT

Chinese companies are playing a prominent role in the country’s push for telecommunications dominance, having installed internet and mobile network equipment in at least 38 countries. Some of these firms are private enterprises and may have their own reasons for making such investments, but all are also beholden to the government and its strategic goals. State-owned China Telecom, China Unicom, and China Mobile are laying down the digital Silk Road, with fiber-optic links to Myanmar, Kyrgyzstan, and Nepal, among other countries.

Chinese firms have also provided high-tech tools of surveillance to governments that lack respect for human rights.

As more of the world’s critical telecommunications infrastructure is built by China, global data may become more accessible to Chinese intelligence agencies through both legal and extralegal methods

Such incidents have led to greater scrutiny of Chinese companies in democracies. In August, the United States banned government agencies and contractors from using certain products from Huawei, ZTE, and several other Chinese technology firms. Testifying before the Senate, US intelligence chiefs had warned citizens against using Huawei and ZTE products, with Federal Bureau of Investigation director Christopher Wray stating his deep concern “about the risks of allowing any company or entity that is beholden to foreign governments that don’t share our values to gain positions of power inside our telecommunications networks.” Australia also banned local providers from purchasing 5G equipment from Huawei and ZTE and instructed military personnel not to use WeChat on their mobile phones due to security concerns.

HOW DEMOCRACIES CAN PUSH BACK

Democracies have a number of options for slowing China’s techno-dystopian expansionism, from tightening import and export controls to imposing sanctions on tech companies that enable human rights abuses. They can also help defend their own companies from demands to participate in China’s Social Credit System or otherwise comply with antidemocratic standards and practices.

Citizens can also hold companies accountable for compromising their commitments to democratic values for the sake of access to China’s lucrative market. In an internal company letter from August, some 1,400 Google employees called for greater transparency after media reports revealed plans to launch a censored search and mobile news service in China, in which users’ activity would be linked to their telephone numbers. Similar internal pressure in June led the company to reevaluate its work with the US Defense Department in the field of artificial intelligence; chief executive Sundar Pichai publicly pledged not to pursue AI applications, including surveillance tools, that are likely to cause harm or contravene “widely accepted principles of international law and human rights.”

As China strives to become an AI powerhouse by 2030, the moral and ethical concerns surrounding the technology deserve greater attention. Like nuclear science, AI will inevitably fall into the hands of governments that seek to use it for authoritarian ends. Democracies will face temptations as well, given the appeal of AI applications for everything from e-commerce to national security. Ensuring that government agencies and private companies abide by ethical codes will require constant vigilance by civil society, investigative journalists, and official oversight bodies, the last of which may play a key role in preventing the transfer of advanced technology that can be used for both benign and malign purposes to countries like China.

But the best way for democracies to stem the rise of digital authoritarianism is to prove that there is a better model for managing the internet. This entails tackling social media manipulation and misuse of data in a manner that respects human rights, while preserving an internet that is global, free, and secure. Democratic governments will have to devote much greater diplomatic and other resources to countering China’s charm offensive on the international stage. More governments are turning to China for guidance and support at a time when the United States’ global leadership is on the decline, and the acquiescence of foreign companies to Beijing’s demands only emboldens the regime in its effort to rewrite international rules in its favor. If democracies fail to advance their own principles and interests with equal determination, digital authoritarianism will become an inescapable reality almost by default.

MAKING EVERYONE A JOURNALIST, IN COUNTRIES WHERE JOURNALISM IS A CRIME

A number of governments are moving to regulate social media users as media outlets in order to legitimize further crackdowns on online speech. Russia pioneered these tactics with a 2014 law that required the registration of blogs with over 3,000 monthly visitors as media outlets. The Russian law also made bloggers liable for the “accuracy” of their content, in a legal environment where criticism of the government is often deemed false or extremist.

JAILING DISSIDENTS FOR SPREADING FALSE NEWS

Many governments are enforcing criminal penalties for the publication of what they deem false news. In 2018, 13 countries prosecuted citizens for spreading false information.

Authoritarian leaders have targeted entire news organizations under the guise of combating fake news

SHUTTING DOWN INTERNET ACCESS

While more repressive governments tend to use false news and hate speech as an excuse to curb dissent or independent reporting, inflammatory lies on social media remain an urgent problem in many countries, and some have responded by cutting off access entirely.

OUTSOURCING CENSORSHIP TO SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES

Even in democracies with a high level of digital literacy, it is often hard to distinguish between trusted sources from one’s own community and information created by a fake-news factory.

Some democracies have increased companies’ legal liability for third-party content appearing on their platforms, hoping that this will force them to police illegal speech.

THE PROMISE OF BROAD COLLABORATION TO COUNTER DISINFORMATION

More constructive solutions arise out of collaboration among civil society groups, governments, and tech companies. Italian lawmakers have partnered with journalists and tech firms to pilot a nationwide curriculum on spotting online manipulation. In the US, several states have passed or proposed laws to increase media literacy programs in local schools. The civic education initiatives include efforts to teach students to evaluate the credibility of online media sources and identify disinformation. Many of the laws require state education officials to engage with media literacy organizations in the creation of their curriculums, and are based on model legislation backed by civil society experts. WhatsApp, which is owned by Facebook, is working together with seven organizations in India to draft a digital literacy training program for its users.

Social media companies are also working with civil society to identify disinformation on their platforms.

For democracy to thrive, citizens must have freedom of expression and access to a public forum that allows rational discourse. Protecting the digital commons from manipulation without harming human rights will require innovation and increased investments from states, tech companies, and civil society alike.

Authorities demand control over personal data

In many ways, the internet erases borders. But as governments recognize the importance of the data flowing in and out of their countries, they are establishing new rules and barriers in the name of national sovereignty, allowing officials to control and inspect such information at will. Governments in 18 out of 65 countries have passed new laws or directives to increase state surveillance since June 2017, often eschewing independent oversight and exposing individuals to persecution or other dangers in order to gain unfettered access.

Some of these countries now require that tech firms store their citizens’ data on local servers, with the stated intention of either making the records more accessible to national security agencies or protecting them from theft or exploitation by others. China, Russia, Vietnam, Nigeria, and Pakistan have already instituted data localization requirements. The government in India, home to the world’s second-largest population of internet users after China, has proposed similar rules on privacy grounds. Although the country scored a major victory for internet freedom when its Supreme Court ruled in August 2017 that Indians have a fundamental right to privacy, it has also been plagued by security breaches.

Russia took significant steps over the past year to increase data sovereignty. Lawmakers passed restrictions on virtual private networks (VPNs) in July 2017, ostensibly to prevent users from accessing banned sites that are hosted outside the country. A subsequent bill introduced this year includes fines for VPN companies that allow such access. Other new provisions from the past year require communication apps to register users under their real names, so that they can be identified by law enforcement agencies. And antiterrorism provisions that came into force in July require telecommunications firms and other companies to store the content of users’ online communications for up to six months, in addition to metadata, and provide the Federal Security Service (FSB) with unfettered access to both.

INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES AFRAID OF GOING DARK

Though their motives and methods differ from those of the Kremlin, democratic governments are voicing their own determination to overcome encryption when national security is at stake.

THE PRIVACY POLICY UPDATE FELT AROUND THE WORLD

In response to fears about ubiquitous collection and the inherent insecurity of personal data, many countries are enacting legislation that grants individuals the right to control how their data are collected, processed, and shared by public and private entities. At least 15 countries considered data protection laws since June 2017, and at least 35 already have a data protection law on the books.

PROTECTING USER DATA ON A GLOBAL INTERNET

Governments, private companies, and researchers are increasingly hungry for large amounts of personal information, using it for purposes ranging from political repression to the development of artificial intelligence algorithms. Individuals often have few options for resisting this demand, short of disengaging from major aspects of modern life.

Rather than forcing users to make such a stark choice, governments and technology companies should strive to increase transparency regarding how personal data are used, enable data portability between platforms, and allow people to review and delete all data collected about them—steps that some of the largest companies have already taken.

Recommendations

FOR POLICYMAKERS

  • Ensure that all internet-related laws and practices adhere to international human rights law and standards.
  • Enact strong data protection laws to provide greater transparency and control over personal data.
  • Include human rights safeguards in national strategies on artificial intelligence (AI).
  • Fund rapid response capacity to counter attacks on internet freedom.
  • Impose sanctions—such as freezing of assets—on foreign tech companies involved in human rights abuses.
  • In the United States, reintroduce and pass the Global Online Freedom Act (GOFA).

But while PDE5 inhibitors such as sildenafil for women buy purchasing this are very effective it should be first confirmed with your doctor that consumption of this medication is safe for you. Cayenne and other chili peppers prescription for cialis purchase more info here contain a chemical known as capsaicin which can act as vasodilator. Kamagra is http://djpaulkom.tv/benefits-of-hemp-oil-3/ free sample levitra mainly taken orally with a glass of water 45 minutes before sex. Erectile Dysfunction can greatly cause anxiety and stress at office, home or in relations and the men suffering from commander viagra this problem majorly reports relationship turmoil, lower self-esteem, embarrassment, less motivated at work, poor self-image or felling ashamed.
 

  • FOR THE PRIVATE SECTOR
  • Adhere to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
  • Conduct human rights impact assessments for new markets and commit to doing no harm.
  • Grant users control over their information and ensure that it is not being misused.Companies
  • Ensure fair and transparent content moderation practices.
  • Engage in continuous dialogue with local civil society organizations.
  • Label automated “bot” accounts.
  • Use internal expertise to help counter Chinese state censorship and protect users.

 

  • FOR CIVIL SOCIETY
  • Partner with the private sector on fact-checking efforts.
  • Work with scholars to examine how disinformation spreads and why people are likely to share it.
  • Monitor home countries’ collaboration with Beijing and Chinese firms
  • Continue to raise awareness about government censorship and surveillance efforts.

Illustration:  Freedom House

Categories
Quick Analysis

Free Speech Succumbing to Pressure, Censorship

Free speech continues to take a beating both in the U.S. and especially abroad, and prospects for the future appear worrisome as control of the vital medium of the internet passes from U.S. hands to an international organization comprised of many members who believe in censorship.

In America, political correctness run amok poses a particular challenge both within social media managed by those with a leftist political bent who seek to manage news, and on college campuses, where Progressive orthodoxy prevails.

The latest incident involves the University of Virginia (UVA) where some professors are seeking to delete statements by Thomas Jefferson, one of the founders of the concept of free speech.

The Cavalier Daily reports that “Several groups on [campus] collaborated to write a letter to University President Teresa Sullivan against the inclusion of a Thomas Jefferson quote in her post-election email Nov. 9. In the email, Sullivan encouraged students to unite in the wake of contentious results, arguing that University students have the responsibility of creating the future they want for themselves. ‘Thomas Jefferson wrote to a friend that University of Virginia students ‘are not of ordinary significance only: they are exactly the persons who are to succeed to the government of our country, and to rule its future enmities, its friendships and fortunes,’ Sullivan said in the email. ‘I encourage today’s U.V.A. students to embrace that responsibility.”

Across the face of the globe, freedom on the web is rapidly losing ground. Freedom House has released its latest report, showing a decline in free speech on the internet for the sixth straight year. 65 nations were assessed, and 34 were found to have reduced free speech since June of 2015.

According to the study, “Two-thirds of all internet users – 67 percent – live in countries where criticism of the government, military, or ruling family are subject to censorship. Social media users face unprecedented penalties, as authorities in 38 countries made arrests based on social media posts over the past year. Globally, 27 percent of all internet users live in countries where people have been arrested for publishing, sharing, or merely ‘liking’ content on Facebook. Governments are increasingly going after messaging apps like WhatsApp and Telegram, which can spread information quickly and securely. Internet freedom has declined for the sixth consecutive year, with more governments than ever before targeting social media and communication apps as a means of halting the rapid dissemination of information, particularly during anti-government protests. Public-facing social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter have been subject to growing censorship for several years, but in a new trend, governments increasingly target voice communication and messaging apps such as WhatsApp and Telegram. These services are able to spread information and connect users quickly and securely, making it more difficult for authorities to control the information landscape or conduct surveillance…”
Small producers, on the other hand, do not invest their own money in research best price vardenafil http://www.midwayfire.com/history.asp or marketing. All these ingredients are blended in right combination in Spermac capsules and it offers the best ayurvedic cure for low sperm count. buy cialis online http://www.midwayfire.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Prevention-Form-017-Process-and-Procedures-for-Fire-Mains-Underground.pdf Some alternative treatment for erectile issues is buy generic levitra , Silagra, Eriacta, aurogra, levitra, Caverta etc. cheapest cialis uk Here in this write-up, we have discussed the true effectiveness of the medicine.
Freedom House noted that “The increased controls show the importance of social media and online communication for advancing political freedom and social justice. It is no coincidence that the tools at the center of the current crackdown have been widely used to hold governments accountable and facilitate uncensored conversations. Authorities in several countries have even resorted to shutting down all internet access at politically contentious times, solely to prevent users from disseminating information through social media and communication apps, with untold social, commercial, and humanitarian consequences.

“In addition to restricting access to social media and communication apps, state authorities more frequently imprison users for their posts and the content of their messages, creating a chilling effect among others who write on controversial topics. Users in some countries were put behind bars for simply “liking” offending material on Facebook, or for not denouncing critical messages sent to them by others. Offenses that led to arrests ranged from mocking the king’s pet dog in Thailand to “spreading atheism” in Saudi Arabia. The number of countries where such arrests occur has increased by over 50 percent since 2013.

The study found that only 24% of the world’s nations allowed free speech, 29% allowed partial free speech, 35% were rated as not free, and the remainder 12% were not assessed. Turkey and Brazil were downgraded in their internet freedom status.

Freedom House noted that “The increased controls show the importance of social media and online communication for advancing political freedom and social justice. It is no coincidence that the tools at the center of the current crackdown have been widely used to hold governments accountable and facilitate uncensored conversations. Authorities in several countries have even resorted to shutting down all internet access at politically contentious times, solely to prevent users from disseminating information through social media and communication apps, with untold social, commercial, and humanitarian consequences.”

China was found to be the worst offender.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama move vs. Internet Freedom Challenged

One of the enduring mysteries of the Obama Administration may be probed in an upcoming Senate hearing.  For reasons that have never been adequately explained, the President decided to end U.S. oversight of key internet functions and replace it with a multinational organization influenced in part by countries that engage in censorship.

A key battle in this most significant free speech fight in decades will take place on September 14, as the Senate Subcommittee on “Oversight Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts” convenes a hearing on the potential watershed moment.

According to a release  by Subcommittee Chair Ted Cruz, “The hearing will investigate the possible dangers of the Obama administration’s proposal to relinquish oversight of the Internet to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), scheduled to take place on October 1. ICANN is a global organization consisting of 162 countries, including authoritarian regimes such as China, Russia, and Iran, which do not have a First Amendment right to free speech.”

The hearing, entitled “Protecting Internet Freedom: Implications of Ending U.S. Oversight of the Internet” is designed to investigate the possible dangers of the Obama administration’s proposal to relinquish oversight of the Internet to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), scheduled to take place on October 1. ICANN is a global organization consisting of 162 countries, including authoritarian regimes such as China, Russia, and Iran, which do not have a First Amendment right to free speech.

Cruz, along with Rep. Sean Duffy (R-Wis.) introduced the Protecting Internet Freedom Act in June, which seeks to prevent the Obama administration from relinquishing oversight of critical Internet functions and protect national security by ensuring that the United States maintains sole ownership of key functions. The Texas Senator recently unveiled a “countdown clock” site to promote awareness of the September 30 deadline for Congress to take action to stop the administration’s transition.

The Administration seeks to make its move final by October 1.  There has been no explanation from the White House about the significance of that date, just as there has been no explanation for the reasons for the move at all.

Opponents are engaging in urgent attempts to stop the move. A  website  outlines their concerns: “The Obama administration is pushing through a radical proposal to take control of Internet domains …If that proposal goes through, countries like Russia, China, and Iran could be able to censor speech on the Internet, including here in the U.S. by blocking access to sites they don’t like. Right now, the Obama administration’s proposal to give away the Internet is an extraordinary threat to our freedom and it’s one that many Americans don’t know anything about.”
If you are taking some high-dosage medicines since a long time there still utilized today and they work, rapidly and normally to give https://pdxcommercial.com/portland-housing-emergency-renter-protections-extension-portland-city-council/ ordering viagra from india you harder erections, expanded moxie and all the more fulfilling sex… It is quite a disgusting viagra side effects experience, exploring the health market. You should also make Continue Shopping order cheap cialis lifestyle changes and consume healthy diet regularly. The neuromuscular therapy puts concentrated pressure at alternating levels on areas of lowest prices cialis muscle spasm.
Critics of the President’s move note that the White House lacks the funding authority to make the transition. Politico reports that Senator John Thune (R-S.D.), chair of the Commerce Committee, will seek to delay Obama’s internet plans through the upcoming continuing budget resolution.

As noted in a Washington Examiner   interview, “Congress has passed legislation to prohibit the federal government from using tax dollars to allow the transition, and pointed out that the feds are constitutionally prohibited from transferring federal property without approval from Congress.”

Numerous organizations advocating free speech and adherence to Constitutional restrictions on presidential spending actions have signed off on a letter to Congressional leaders urging opposition to Obama’s action:

“We write to urge Congress to defend its Power of the Purse—and Internet freedom.

“Our Constitution rests on the idea that the “Power of the Purse” belongs to Congress, not the President … the Administration appears determined to violate clear appropriations prohibiting the transition of the Internet domain system without authorization. If the Administration does not relent, Congress should sue. Congress twice enacted appropriations riders prohibiting any use of taxpayer funds “to relinquish the responsibility of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration [NTIA… This ‘Transition’ would end the U.S. government’s historic role as a guarantor of Internet governance.”

“…Members of both parties should be able to unite around defending the Power of the Purse, the most fundamental Constitutional power of the American People’s elected representatives. If enacted legislation is no longer considered binding, a fundamental check on Executive power will have been lost. Legislators also have a solemn responsibility to future generations to ensure that the future of the Internet is not placed at risk by prematurely ending U.S. oversight…”

Categories
Quick Analysis

FCC case latest battleground in effort to restrict First Amendment

Freedom of speech, the ability to have an unfettered media and to politically campaign against  incumbents are becoming increasingly targeted in the United States. It is a problem that has been growing exponentially, and it extends from official acts of the Obama Administration to the demands of partisans of various causes.

The Federal Court of Appeals will soon decide the U.S. telecom Association vs. the FCC  case in which the Association seeks to overturn a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) order reclassifying broadband internet as a “telecommunications service” subject to utility-style regulation under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce  believes  “This order subjects broadband to a vague and evolving ‘Internet conduct standard’ administered by the FCC and third parties through enforcement actions. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, new broadband regulation is unnecessary, given the highly competitive nature of the broadband market.

Mr. Obama’s two attempts to dramatically alter the nature of the internet, perhaps the greatest free speech tool in history, would give government the ability to clamp down on those opposing White House views. Moving control from a nonpartisan and private U.S. organization to an international body favorably inclined to censorship, and giving federal bureaucrats the right to decide who can launch a website and at what broadband speed, are  direct attacks on this vital medium.

The attacks on free speech and unfettered reporting aren’t restricted to the internet. In what was one of the most controversial programs ever initiated by a federal agency, the Federal Communications Commission, led by Obama appointees, attempted to develop an effort entitled “critical information needs” (known as CIN) involving federal oversight of broadcasters and journalists throughout America. It would have placed government employees in the private internal conversations and meetings of journalists, media organizations, and even internet sites.

The scandal of the President’s abuse of the IRS for the purpose of targeting his political opponents is well known. But the attempts to quell the rights of opposing political forces wasn’t restricted to just that one scandal. He also targeted individual reporters who didn’t provide news stories he considers favorable.

Judicial Watch, (JW) which has competently illustrated the anti-First Amendment acts of the Administration, describes what happened to one investigative journalist:

“Sharyl Attkisson is an investigative journalist and author of the New York Times best seller Stonewalled.  On November 19, 2014, JW joined with her to file a Freedom of Information (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of Justice seeking ‘any and all records’ relating to FBI background checks and other records on the award-winning correspondent. [JW] proved the Obama gang, specifically the Justice Department and the White House, targeted her in retaliation for her investigations into the growing Operation Fast and Furious scandal.  In an October 4, 2011, email to White House Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz, Attorney General Eric Holder’s top press aide, Tracy Schmaler, described Attkisson as ‘out of control’ Schmaler added ominously, ‘I’m also calling Sharryl’s [sic] editor and reaching out to Scheiffer’ (an apparent reference to CBS’ Chief Washington Correspondent and Face the Nation moderator Bob Scheiffer).  Schultz responded, ‘Good.  Her piece was really bad for the AG.”

In 2014,  Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) introduced a measure in the Senate to amend the First Amendment in order to be able to restrict paid political speech.  He garnered 41 votes. Across the nation, efforts dubiously labelled as “Campaign finance regulations” have sought to place limits on free speech.

The President and Senator Schumer are not alone in their moves to limit the First Amendment. Those seeking to silence critics of the global warming theory have been in the forefront of anti-free speech efforts.

In New York State, for example, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, is, as reported by National Review, “Investigating Exxon  for the crime of holding and speaking [what he perceives to be] the ‘wrong’ views on global warming.

The American Thinker reports that “Failing to convince the public that global warming is an urgent cause for concern, hysterical fear-mongers are turning to the armory of tyrants, and demanding punishment for those they call ‘deniers.’…the hysterics demand that ‘climate change deniers’ be punished, even killed, and the call extends from the spittle-flecked fanatics to the usually sober New York Times (see below).  Christopher Monckton has compiled a valuable list of those calling for the abrogation of free speech and punishment of dissidents.”
The best buying that discount cialis generic male enhancement pills ought to have if you consume ed drugs. The therapy would often cialis 100mg pills take place in the Corpora Cavernosa for blood to fill in the actual FAFSA, No cost Program for Government Student Support. Sexuality is a complex process and is coordinated not only by various systems of our bodies but is also related to personal and social experience, which keep changing with time and age. canada cialis Regular massage of the male organ daily twice or thrice devensec.com cialis without prescription using Mast Mood oil.
Among Monckton’s examples:

2007: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at global warming skeptics, saying: “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors.” The penalty for treason is death.

2007: Yvo de Boer, secretary general of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, said ignoring the urgency of global warming would be “criminally irresponsible”.

2007: Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, a UN special climate envoy, said: “It’s completely immoral even to question” the UN’s scientific opinion on climate.

2008: Dr James Hansen of NASA demanded that skeptics be “put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature”. The penalty for crimes against humanity is death.

2010: Dr. Donald Brown, Professor of “Climate Ethics” at Penn State University, declared that skeptics, who had caused “a 25-year delay in acting to stop climate change”, may be guilty of a “new crime against humanity”. The penalty for crimes against humanity is death.

2014: Dr Lawrence Torcello, assistant philosophy professor at Rochester Institute of Technology, wrote that people who disagreed with him should be sent to jail.

2014: The gawker.com website said: “Those denialists should face jail. They should face fines. They should face lawsuits from the classes of people whose lives and livelihoods are most threatened by denialist tactics.”

2014: The host of MSNBC’s The Ed Show promoted Soviet-style re-education for climate skeptic politicians by conducting an on-air poll on the question “Should climate-denying Republicans be forced to take a basic earth science course?”

In universities across the nation, America’s youth are punished for expressing views that run contrary to the prevailing left wing views of professors and administrators. The tide is turning against the First Amendment, both politically and culturally. If it is to survive, a significant effort must be made by free speech supporters to counter the governmental, political, administrative, and cultural assaults against it.