Concurrent Resolution 127(H)

[LastLife]

Got this email earlier:

Hi there, POPVOX user!

You weighed in on a bill related to the regulation of the Internet, and we wanted to alert you to a similar resolution, which may be marked-up by the House soon:

H.Con.Res. 127
A resolution to keep the Internet free from government (and United Nations) regulation and interference, according to the resolution's sponsor.
Weigh in at https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/hconres127

Several of our supports have cosigned this resolution. It means next to nothing, but it make the likes of Joe Barton(etc) look like hypocrites. He supports a resolution to keep the Internet free, but at the same time is pushing a bill that would not only regulate the Internet, but criminalize those that don't follow regulation. Cliff Stearns and Marsha Blackburn are anti-igaming and still support this resolution, not to mention Bono Mack of all people is the author.

[kennabot]

I would support this bill and the Barton bill but that doesn't make me a hypocrite. In a perfect world I would like a free internet without government interference, especially with online poker. But since that is very unlikely I would support a bill to regulate online poker since that would be much better than what we have now. Being against online gaming and for free internet does seem hypocritical, but I don't think it would apply to Barton.

[LastLife]

Barton is anti-igaming.

[ScreaminAsian]

i support this on principle but for some reason I feel like even if it passes nobody will apply it to poker.

it's probably one of those things where they don't even care if it's passed, they just wanna be like 'obama wants to regulate the internet and take away your free speech like a chinese communist! let's band together to stop any more of it from ever happening again!'

[LastLife]

Originally Posted by ScreaminAsian

i support this on principle but for some reason I feel like even if it passes nobody will apply it to poker.

it's probably one of those things where they don't even care if it's passed, they just wanna be like 'obama wants to regulate the internet and take away your free speech like a chinese communist! let's band together to stop any more of it from ever happening again!'

If it passes, it doesn't become law. It's basically like writing a letter.

[zerosum79]

The US has a history of trying to push for internet freedom in other countries while oppressing internet freedom in our country. Hillary Clinton made speeches during the Arab Spring talking about how important internet freedom is, while at the same time we were having black friday in the US.

zero

[kdub72]

After the way everyone went so crazy when we were threatened with SOPA, I really thought this should be a way that we try to get our message out to everyone else. As far as the regulation part, I see it as true consumer protection from providers (not ourselves), not unlike requiring Internet Banking sites that deal with financial transactions to follow secure site protocols.

[zerosum79]

Google reports 'alarming' rise in government censorship requests

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/18/tech/w...html?hpt=hp_t1

(CNN) -- Western governments, including the United States, appear to be stepping up efforts to censor Internet search results and YouTube videos, according to a "transparency report" released by Google.

"It's alarming not only because free expression is at risk, but because some of these requests come from countries you might not suspect -- Western democracies not typically associated with censorship," Dorothy Chou, a senior policy analyst at Google, wrote in a blog post on Sunday night.