Ninety-five Democratic Congressional hopefuls signed last week a pledge to support the Federal Communications Commissions proposed Net neutrality rules. On Tuesday, all ninety-five “net neutrality protectors” lost to their Republican opponents.
“Candidates who support creating burdensome new Internet regulations were handily rejected at the polls,” a blog post at Broadband for America (BfA) reads. “The message from voters is that unnecessary regulation is a losing tactic.”To make it clear for the ALA, net neutrality lost 95-0. Perhaps the ALA should rethink its position on that issue that has little to do with libraries anyway. (In a related matter of efforts to clamp down on free speech, why has the ALA "historically supported" the Fairness Doctrine?)
NOTE ADDED 9 NOVEMBER 2010:
- "'Net Neutrality' Goes 0 for 95; Regulating the Web Wasn't a Political Winner Last Week," by L. Gordon Crovitz, Wall Street Journal, 8 November 2010.
- "Net Neutrality Another Election Loser; Many Key Supporters of a Fair and Free Internet Lost their Election Bids; Will the FCC Do Its Job?," by Dan Gillmor, Salon.com, 4 November 2010. This article largely takes the ALA view of net neutrality, so it is no wonder the politically-motivated ALA would tweet only this article:
- "Network Neutrality," by ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom, American Library Association, 29 May 2007.
- "Network Neutrality," by ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom, American Library Association, 29 September 2006.
- "ALA Pushes Net Neutrality on Wikipedia; Political and Pecuniary Interests Promoted Anonymously by ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom May Violate Ethical and Tax Codes," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 20 December 2010.