New Law Will Require a License to be a Journalist

by | Jun 2, 2010 | Headline News | 91 comments

Do you LOVE America?


    What good is a government if they can’t regulate every aspect of your life? From the same lawmakers that brought us the Detroit economic calamity comes a new bill, aimed at controlling the flow of information to the unsuspecting public even more than the mainstream does now.

    A Michigan lawmaker wants to register reporters to ensure they’re credible and have “good moral character.”

    State Sen. Bruce Patterson is introducing legislation that will regulate reporters much as the state regulates hairdressers, auto mechanics and plumbers. Patterson, who also practices constitutional law, says the general public is being overwhelmed by an increasing number of media outlets — traditional, online and citizen generated — and an even greater amount of misinformation.

    “Legitimate media sources are critically important to our government,” he said.

    He told that some reporters covering state politics don’t know what they’re talking about and they’re working for publications he’s never heard of, so he wants to install a process that’ll help him and the general public figure out which reporters to trust.

    “We have to be able to get good information,” he said. “We have to be able to rely on the source and to understand the credentials of the source.”

    According to the bill, reporters who register will have to pay an application and registration fee and provide a “Board of Michigan Registered Reporters” with proof of:

    — “Good moral character” and demonstrate they have industry “ethics standards acceptable to the board.”

    — Possession of a degree in journalism or other degree substantially equivalent.

    — Not less than 3 years experience as a reporter or any other relevant background information.

    — Awards or recognition related to being a reporter.

    — Three or more writing samples.

    [source: Fox News]

    Government registration and licensing requirements of journalists and reporters will be determined by a board of higher-educated bureaucratic intellectuals who’ll have the power to determine if a wanna-be reporter has the necessary writing skills, ethics and good moral character to be allowed to disseminate their views to the public.

    Had a law like this been passed by King George in the late 1700’s, would reporters and commentators like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine been approved by the journalist licensing board? Or, would a board instituted by the king have found that Franklin’s and Payne’s morals and ethics ran counter to those of the Empire? Since both of these men published their views under anonymous pen names, the information and claims made could not possibly have been – what did Mr. Patterson call it – oh yes, “legitimate.”

    At the very least, however, Mr. Paine would have certainly subscribed to the fairness doctrine, publishing the monarchy’s opposing views right next to his patriotic diatribes in Common Sense.

    President Obama, who recently suggested that news and information on blogs, talk radio, and cable, is difficult to sift through and figure out who’s telling the truth, would likely support Mr. Patterson’s bill on a federal level. Once a reporter is licensed, the public would have the comfort of knowing that the writings, opinions, and insights being presented have been thoroughly sifted, filtered and edited to ensure the information is truthful and easy to understand.

    The same population of gullible idiots that require government intervention when it comes to smoking cigarettes, drinking sodas, and salt intake, also need to be told what news they can consume.

    We couldn’t possibly let the consumer gather as much information from various news sources and make their own interpretations based on opinions, video, and audio excerpts – that would be way too easy and cost-effective.

    While Senator Patterson believes that it is important for the government to have legitimate media sources because they are critical to our government, radio talk show hosts like Neal Boortz disagree:

    The media isn’t supposed to be important to the government, you ignoramus Democrat; it’s supposed to be important to THE PEOPLE.

    Disclaimer: Neither Mac Slavo or SHTF Plan are actively licensed or registered. We are not journalists or reporters. The information above is illegitimate until such time that a governing board approves our credentials, including but not limited to, our morals, ethics, grammatical and spelling ability, and journalistic background. Use of this information, disinformation, and misinformation is at your own risk.


    It Took 22 Years to Get to This Point

    Gold has been the right asset with which to save your funds in this millennium that began 23 years ago.

    Free Exclusive Report
    The inevitable Breakout – The two w’s

      Related Articles


      Join the conversation!

      It’s 100% free and your personal information will never be sold or shared online.


      1. Love the disclaimer.  Could not agree more with the article.  Big brother grows bigger……

      2. That’s just peachie. Maybe they should start with the so called professionals at ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and MSLSD.  Its funny how liberals cry about free speach until conservatives start speaking up, then it must be regulated. I have the right to comment even if my grammer is bad and I can’t spell.

      3. What I would prefer, instead, is a law that requires law makers, not reporters to have “good moral character”.

        Somebody please hand that bozo a copy of the Bill of Rights and ask him if he could please read the 1st Amendment aloud for the class.

      4. This is being PROPOSED by a State Senator here in my “wonderful” state of Michigan.  He is a republican no less, so don’t let anyone fool you with the R   after their name, as most here know, they can sometimes be just as Progressive as the D’s.  This guys is a tool, a RHINO, and this bill has NO support.  It is going no where fortunately.  I just hope the idea isn’t being seen as “Interesting” in Washington.  I can somehow envision a lot of evil hand wringing and MUHAWWHAHAHA’s  in Washington right now.

      5. I think they should spend their time on more important things, like writing a bill that requires you to have a license to be a politician (other than having a JD). God knows that would do wonders for society.

      6. Just another government attempt to quell the citizen’s resistance movement.

        Kind of like trying to silence the discharge of a Remington .270 round.

        Sorry fella, ain’t going to happen in Texas.


      7. And Mac, sorry to correct you but its PAINE

      8. Where does it stop!

      9. Patriot….”MSLSD” – now that’s funny!

      10. sjdude & Patriot One,

        I would vote for both of you having more common good sense than all of congress with the exception of RP.  The storm is coming. 

      11. Great comments all!

        Willie – Thanks for the correction. Spelling correction update made within the article.

        Just goes to show that maybe I do need a license! Or at least a proof-reader. Actually, I regularly get busted for misspellings and grammar here at SHTF Plan, which is a good thing — keeps me on my toes.

      12. Maybe we need politicians to meet certain requirements like:
        a) a Contitutional aptitude test,
        b) a Fiscal responsibility test/license,
        c) ability to read a bill…

        Let’s start there…

      13. Anyone else need proof that we’ve adopted the Soviet model of government here in the states? 96% retention rate in congress, 2 blatantly stolen elections and now state registration of all independent media? Here’s what an expert had to say on the subject:

        “If I had to choose between government and no newspapers and newspapers and no government, I would most certainly choose the latter.”  -Thomas Jefferson

      14. This is a poorly hidden attempt at killing online news outlets.
        It will fail

      15. Wow……I have heard alot of things but this is a doosey!!
        Good moral standards and ethics….a board to decide this??  I have worked for a board and let me tell you, most boards have neither!  I agree with you Schaef, it’s high time politicians should require a license and show good moral fiber and standards…instead of failed businesses, knowing the right people, being a lawyer or already a millionaire with nothing to do but try to make more.
        Sad times my  friends.  Really trying to take away the voice of the people.

      16. Comments…. The first thing to know is that if you can be licensed to do a particular thing, it must already be lawful. Nobody can give you a licence to do something that is against the law (like house burglary).
        The “legal” system uses “terms” so that a “journalist” will be defined somewhere to EXCLUDE a man. This is because all men are equal and nobody can tell other what to do.
        So it will be OK to be a man reporting news, which will be different from being a “journalist”. The “statute” (which is not a law unless you agree that it is) will be for “registered” journalists.
        To be “registered” you will need to beg (apply), and they assume that you know what you are begging for. You would be begging for permission to do something that you can do without asking anyone.

        I know that a lot of you are convinced that you are “persons”. A man and a “person” are different. In USA you can prove this to yourself very easily. “President Barack Obama” is a “person”. The man Barack Obama (some disagree that this name is correct) is the 43rd man to have been in the job known as president. There have been 44 presidents. This means that one man was two presidents. That man was Grover Cleveland who was the 22nd and 24th.
        The statutes apply only to “persons”. Man has moral law.
        I mention more on this at

      17. Thanks Tom, Thanks Colonel X, I got the MSLSD from the Mark Levin show.

      18. I find it interesting that now that the First Amendment could possibly start receiving the same kind of treatment that the Second has been getting for decades, people are starting to take notice.

        Part of me says, “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”  Screw you, journalists. You’ve used your positions as mouthpieces of the establishment for decades, and now that you’re the ones facing mandatory background checks, waiting periods, licensing, application fees, renewal fees, so on & so forth, you’ve got your panties in a twist.

        Then the part of me that doesn’t revel in the misfortune of others realizes that, should this law pass, we’ll all be worse off than before.

        Maybe some of the Big Government cheerleaders will change their tunes over this. Hopefully.

      19. I hope that the voters can see that anyone claiming to be a constitutional lawyer and enacting needless legislation for no other reason that to put a gag order on non official channels is the height of hypocrisy and the lowest trough of common sense.  In  either case, bye bye patronizing Patterson.

        I read a whole lot and comment quite a bit online.  I spend more time reading comments than I do articles by far.

        Whenever I see the words liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican, or progressive used as a pejorative, I know immediately that I am dealing with someone with poor discernment and likely brainwashed.  It tells me the person is of lower intelligence, not necessarily truly deeply stupid, but no one I would waste much time on or expect to have any depth of knowledge or understanding.  They have little or no ability to see the truth or think for themselves, they are repeating whatever bullshit they have bought into.

        And I’m sure I’m not alone in this observation.


        Here’s a clue:  The same people who brought you the US Federal reserve also funded Karl Marx and made sure GW Bush and Obama were elected.

      22. I think all Politicians should be regulated following strict guidelines as to moral fiber etc.  No tickets, no unpaid taxes not been convicted of any crimes and the list could go on.  I say new every two.  No more career politicians.
        This is just one more step in controlling what news we get.  We the people are smart enough to figure things out on our own, we don’t need yet another law and another layer of government control.

      23. Anyone mind telling me what RELEVANT experience a Journalist has in ANY area of study?  Journalists dont know jack about anything; Economics, Science, History, Medicine etc…  They are just paid propagandist shills for the most part, spreading the lies of Jew Zionism and Jew Communism.

        Globalization is just the new word for International JEW Communism.  9/11 was a demolition done by Israel and Zionist Traitors, a coup d etat to usher in the New Century of Jew International Communism under the name Globalization/NWO.  If AmeriKans cannot learn from JEW Communism in Russia, they deserve to be enslaved.

      24. When did congress all of a sudden get certified as a Judge of Good Moral Character?

        It’s laff-able
        They’re food.

      25. Comments…..What tptb tout of as “laws” are usually, Statutes, which don’t apply to Human Beings. IT’s a matter of using a name in all CAPS, which apply to an artificial  PERSON, also called a “Strawman” liable under “Laws” and  instead, using a name in lower cases, which apply to the actual Human Being. you.

        We’ve all been tricked also, into registering Birth Certificates, which brings us itno the Control System.

        Read  online 

        “Extortion System of the Ruling ELite”

      26. All future REPORTERS must report to U.S. Guvmint tatoo parlors to get their STAR OF DAVID tattoo on their forehead, and this must be done IMMEDIATELY or else, you won’t be able to report the OFFICIAL TRUTH, like 9/11 WAS NOT AN INSIDE JOB, TWA-88 WAS NOT SHOT DOWN BY THE NAVY, and PAN AM 103 went down because a MOUSE FARTED IN THE CARGO HOLD.

        yes, I can see it now. STAR OF DAVID tatoo’s for FOOD ASSISTANCE, and any other govmint help!!!

        why not just replace the U.S. flag with the flag of ISRAHELL and fucking be done with it??

      27. Enough of the jew bashing. You sound like a fool, and no doubt mixing truth with a pile of shit obviously has convinced you that you’ve got it all figured out.  I’m sure a fair number of us have read the different books and studied the spectrum of source documents and writings related to what may be called the ongoing World Revolution or World Conspiracy, that to most remains unseen. There certainly is no shortage of people pointing fingers at some anonymous and purportedly omnipotent Jewish cabal, but nonetheless it doesn’t make it the truth. Do conspiracies exists? Absolutely. By the millions and on every continent I might add. Yet, I find it hard to conclude that Israel is the Master Architect or   even the dominant player in this conspiracy against mankind.
        A decent book to read is Tragedy and Hope: History of the World in Our Times by Carroll B. Quigley.  Its really just one more book, but nonetheless its a decent book that generally contains better historical fact than anything state sponsored schools come close to providing.

      28. To Brad and “yes”. It is SOOOOO nice to know that people are waking up to the truth. You two, understand. Keep the message going. We need to rid ourselves of this parasite “once and forever.”

      29. This is one state state senator in one state, introducing one piece of lousy legislation that will garner no votes nor approval. Many of you are acting as though this is some sort of trend that is destined to dominate the nation. Recall if you will, how often this happens (daily) and how often the nature of the nation is altered (not very often). This is much ado about nothing. The US is still and will continue to be, a nation where anyone, no matter how well or poorly informed can opine at length on any subject they care to; the internet has seen to this. Your opinions are under no threat people.

      30. Just a couple more months and you’ll need a license to take a piss…

      31. Just keep on printing and reporting anyway. Tell this Bruce Patterson ASSHOLE to go FUCK HIMSELF!

      32. Actually, you do need a license to take a piss. It has to be into an approved septic system. If they catch you, you’ll be fined.

        This legislation isn’t going to be popular and it probably won’t pass, however, it does give them ideas. Politicians are stupid, but, they are brazen. Now, with this one introduction, the heat will be on. We’ll see if it catches fire. Basically, if it does, its basically unconstitutional in a major way. It would be my duty to ignore this law. ..and I would ignore it with gusto!

      33. m_astera…oh really?  And what “bullshit” do you buy into genius, your own perhaps?

      34. m_aster… Marx was “funded” by the “NWO”? Is that what you are implying?  What exactly did they “fund” Marx for?   You are talking about the while alive, virtually unknown destitute “social theorist” correct?

        A quote of yours ” ….but no one I would waste much time on or expect to have any depth of knowledge or understanding.  They have little or no ability to see the truth or think for themselves” 

        I suggest you stop thinking for yourself and learn some history before calling others ignorant.

      35. This law is a joke. It won’t stand up to a constitutional challenge. Many citizen journalists will be eager to challenge this one.

      36. I’m glad this asshole isn’t from my district. I’m from Michigan and we have a hard enough time of it without some neocon zionist commie like Patterson to make things worse.
        Politicians should be forced to undergo psychiatric evaluation before they even get their name on  the petition. As far as morals are concerned , they make me laugh. I’ll bet patterson right now is screwing one of his secretaries or cruising the toilets in the Lansing Int’l. Airport

      37. Totally unenforceable. All a blogger, who could afford the cost of sever colocation, would have to do is simply put their server outside the United States. That would make the contents not subject to U.S. laws.

      38. I actually think the idea in itself is a good one however, it will probably not be used for what it is intended for. Instead of regulating the media and using people with ‘good moral character’ it will be used to regulate information, in a very bias way. This is why i started . ok so its only myself waffling on , but i waffle on about things with the intention of not harming innocent people by doing so. I try to look at the moral issue not who did what etc. I intend to stick by my morals even if hardly anyone knows what morals are anymore. If they do i believe they adapt them to their own benefit not for benefit of ‘civilization’.
        I sometimes wonder whether there may be things we are better off not knowing ignorance is bliss etc. I had to leave my former ‘work’ which was voluntary, i found that due to my moral ways of looking at things i recieved a good response. Although the people i was writing for slowly started becomng what they had become popular for not doing in the race for money.
        I could not stay and have a clear concience at the same time. Most of the time people can set out to do amazing things but fall victim to money and power. If we were perfect we would not to have a license to report upon things, although we as humans thrive on conflict and feed off power. Sadly we will never be free of this, i am  also sure that should all information be common knowledge someone somewhere along the line would use it for less than good purposes.
        Although that is humans , in my mind a weak species searching for the power that will eventually consume them. Whatever the case may be i do not intend to be consumed by power as i do not search for it. I merely try to learn and educate people in the process. Even if the rest of the world decides to remove morals from the dictionary or redefine the word , i know that by sticking by mine i am a good person , even if it works against me its worth it or at the very least i hope it

      39. Comments…..Put a bounty on the lawmakers they are the culprit of good moral character or just characters. OPERATION CLEAN SWEEP  should come into place here. Get rid of all lawmakers now & start over they’ve taken enough bribes. A 10 year roll back on all laws made within last 10 years.

      40. This bill isn’t about forcing journalists to be registered. It’s voluntary and there is a corrective note at the bottom of the FOX report which says so. Deliberately misrepresenting this legislation and voters would be an example of bad ethics. Is it enough to just make an obscure footnote at the bottom of an online article that many misled people might not revisit in order to claim ethical standards? If the ethics standard included a Civics Literacy test on our Constitutional form of government and the registration accreditation was only renewable by talking heads if they weren’t using or airwaves, for instance, to push Americans away from it, lots of them would be more recognizable as malpracticers against our system of government.  No wonder so many couldn’t care less about registration policies for every other profession as long such official stamps of approval don’t impede their mangling and misrepresentation of our Constitutional process.

      41. Correction: Deliberately misrepresenting this legislation to mislead voters would be an example of bad ethics.

      42. Correction: If the ethics standard included a Civics Literacy test on our Constitutional form of government and the registration accreditation was only renewable by talking heads if they weren’t using our airwaves, for instance, to push Americans away from it, lots of them would be more recognizable as malpracticers against our system of government.

      43. Just want folks to understand that MI Sen. Bruce Patterson (the author of this idiotic bill) is a REPUBLICAN. So the assault on the 1st amendment is coming from both sides of the coin. The above article never mentions the fact that Patterson is a Republican, and the Neal Bootz quote at the end of the article in fact implies that Patterson is a Democrat! (“The media isn’t supposed to be important to the government, you ignoramus Democrat; it’s supposed to be important to THE PEOPLE.”)
        So, is this just sloppy work on the part of the article’s author or is it something else?
        Also, just fyi, the bill has a snow ball’s chance in hell of passing – Im not down playing the threat it is, or how crazy it is that a state senator would propose such a thing – I just want people to realize that Patterson himself has stated that he has no expectation of it passing. But Im a MI resident and Ive been making calls to express my disgust about the bill and telling my friends and neighbors about it.
        Sen. Patterson’s site:…..District=7
        Text of his bill:…..B-1323.htm

      44. What paddy is referring to is the sovereignty movement. Know the difference between YOUR PERSON and yourself (hint), and you can begin to see through the deceit. All statutes apply to YOUR PERSON, not to a man/woman. Only 1 common law applies to men/women, and I believe this is reiterated throughout most of the world’s religions (I’m no expert here however). The other 16,000,000 codes,statutes,regulations,etc. apply to legal entities in commerce.

      45. brerrabbit: the Neal Bootz quote at the end of the article in fact implies that Patterson is a Democrat! (“The media isn’t supposed to be important to the government, you ignoramus Democrat; it’s supposed to be important to THE PEOPLE.”)
        So, is this just sloppy work on the part of the article’s author or is it something else?”

        That’s a good example of why being able to verify whether  his standard of ethics is approved or not or is under review by a Journalistic Better Business agency of sorts (oriented to guard against such wrongful influences upon our electoral arena) might not be such a bad idea, eh? Wouldn’t necessarily have to be ordained by a law. Could be a project for citizens concerned with election tampering by suspicious slop and keeping America inline with Constitutional government rather than erroneous “popular opinions” and what not. Might be a big incentive for them to be less reckless while speechifying from their soapboxes. If they voluntarily joined the Journalistic Better Buisness association, good. If they didn’t, they could still be evaluated as ethical, suspect, on probation, or below Civics Literacy standards.

      46. I meant ‘TWA-800’ in my post above. To the ‘lay off the jews’ asshole, GO FUCK YOURSELF, and stick your STAR OF DAVID up your fucking zionist murdering asshole when you do it. Some of us GOYIM have had it with your ass and it’s now time we’re going to start taking it to your FACES!

        GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE U.S. Do it now. Don’t pussyfoot around and wait for us to BODILY THROW YOUR ZIONIST ASS OUT!

        when the time comes, we’ll make the fake holow-cost look like a walk in the fucking park!

      47. Willie Wonka:

        RHINO? I think you mean RINO. Unless the H stands for something…

        Anyway, I don’t see any Democrats proposing anything like this. Perhaps you could explain why actions only witnessed in the Republican Party are somehow more like the actions of a Democrat. Wouldn’t Democrats have to be this stupid for your RINO complaint to hold water?

      48. yeah you know what I meant.  The H could stand for “Holy shit you’re not serious?”

        NO, not the democrats, they haven’t proposed return of the fairness doctrine, net “neutrality”, making “conspiracy” theories illegal, etc, etc.   

        The democrats are dumb enough to think we believe the doublespeak BS like you are offering up.

        Do you not read /listen to any news other than msnbc, etc? Just trying to stir up trouble?  Or more likely part of the whitehouse propaganda team still out trying to make the radicals in charge look “normal” and the average citizen radical…

      49. Willie Wanker:

        How many Democrats have proposed restoring the Fairness Doctrine? That’s just a boogeyman Limbaugh uses to scare you into tuning out everyone but the far-right propaganda mill. As for Net Neutrality, it’s a damned good idea, and will ensure the continued free flow of information.  I suppose you’d prefer Net Bias? You want big corporations deciding what information gets through their filters? Yeah, you’re a Republican, all right.

        I haven’t heard anything about making conspiracy theories illegal, but that’s because I spend as little time as possible listening to your favorite liars. Oh, I do tune in from time to time, but most of what I see of them is in the context of debunking their latest fabricated outrages. Which they fabricate on a pretty much constant basis.

        If you right-wing sheeple didn’t believe so many bullshit lies about Democrats, you’d probably vote for them. And that is precisely why Glen Beck and Sean Hannity spend so much time filling your heads with garbage. Conservatives can’t win elections based on facts, so they have to scare you small-minded idiots into voting against things that don’t exist.

      50. Walpuss,

        Sigh……things slow over at the Huffington post?  Or did you just finish sharing an after the act smoke with Gibbs and decided to  make one more propaganda run before you snuggle up for the night?

        I hope for your families sake (if , tragically, you have contributed to the gene pool) you wake up before your buddies turn the world into their vision of utopia, which you seem to approve of.

        The only solace I take when dealing with people like you is,  IF things get as bad as many think possible, you will be one of the first to perish.  I think you and your eugenicist pals should be careful of what you wish for.

      51. Note to moderator: I was going to tone this down. I decided not to. Feel free to edit. I won’t be offended.

        Hey Walrus, you’re either a fucking shill or the biggest dumbass on the block. I won’t weigh in on your other liberal bullshit. You could probably talk me under the table with your rhetoric, however, with this one point you are so, So, SOOOOO wrong.

        Now, lets get one thing straight: Net Neutrality is a good thing. 0bamas Net Neutrality is a FUCKING TAKEOVER! Its the damned health care debate all *fucking* over *AGAIN*!!!

        If you really believe that the 0NN (0bama Net Neutrality) is a good idea, you are drinking the koolaid so fast that its giving you brain freeze. This is what these dishonest BASTARD THIEVES do! They take a good idea then they leave the label there and the can but they siphon out all the good stuff and pump in complete and utter shit right out of the septic tanks of their minds.

        So, take a can of tuna. I love tuna! You bring me a can of tuna and I’ll open it with a rock if I have to and I’ll eat it. But, 0bama will show you a can of tuna and its got a picture of a fish on it and the label is the same as the can of tuna you ate yesterday. But, guess what? There is no tuna in it. The only “tuna” part is the fact that its FULL OF TUNA EXCREMENT! But, the bullshit-pumper-in-chief will coerce you into support TUNA FOR EVERYONE legislation. Then, Pilosi will say, “Well, we have to pass the tuna for everyone legislation before we can open the can!” So, we do. Guess what? It ends up just like the health care legislation: a can of SHIT. There are still people out there that BELIEVE the health care legislation was a good thing. God help this country because the masses are just so very stupid.

        Now, the difference between us right wing extremists, You know, guys like me that say we should legalize drugs cause the government has made it worse and we should let the gays marry because its not any of the governments business who marries because its persona and guys like me that don’t believe the government should outlaw abortion or pay for abortion so EVERYBODY can have a choice, yeah, us. The difference is we KNOW the can is full of TUNA SHIT. You people aren’t lefties, liberals of progressives. YOU ARE JUST FUCKING STUPID SHEOPLE.

        Sorry Mac, I just came out of my chair when I read his post.

        I only have one more thing to say: Walrus, go back to the ocean. You need to eat. Your brain is starving. It needs nourishment to operate.

      52. Willy Wanker:
        Check out the definition of “Net neutrality” that we normal people use in the reality-based universe:
        “Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet that advocates no restrictions by Internet Service Providers or governments on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed.”
        Got that? NO RESTRICTIONS. You, brainwashed drone that you are, have been led by the nose to believe that it means the exact opposite. What you really want, even though you don’t realize it, is corporate censorship in the marketplace of ideas. Which, as I said, makes you a very good Republican.
        In light of your inability to grasp the issues pertinent to the real world, I see no point in further rubbing your nose in your ignorance. You did such a good job of it for me.

        Run along, now. Tell your friends how you kicked my ass.

      53. A lot of interesting posts, but I think everyone has missed the real point. This is not about “reporting” or what constitutes a qualified reporter; its about “revenue” people! Licenses require fees. And then of course there are the educational and license renewal costs, probably every two years like real estate agents, that continue to generate TAXES! But taxes is such an “ugly” name so the government calls it revenue, as in IRS.

        Its taxation by another name, but it is still taxation.

      54. Sorry, half of that last post should have been directed to NetDeranger.

      55. The shrillness and bad language in recent postings on this site may constitute free speech to some. To me it shows a lack of manners and I am concerned it will discredit this site if it is allowed to continue.. I have a good recipe for lye soap my grandmother gave me I could share if you would like.

      56. All I can say is WOW!!!!   Hope your delusional drivel gives you the comfort you need to  you sleep at night  walass.  Good luck, like I said, hope you don’t have kids counting on you.

      57. (For Tina, I will keep this clean…)


        Two can play that game.

        Your definition of Net Neutrality is, as you say “A Darn Good Idea”. However, the US Government, will take the best “Good Idea” and turn it into the worst idea every devised. Can you say “Health Care Bill”?

        The fact is, we have a bunch of people in Washington that will take our ideas then they will write and call a bill, the “Health Care Freedom Act of 2009” but that bill will not be about Health Care or Freedom, it will be about hurting people and enslaving people. Don’t believe me? Read the bill. This is why I am so adamant about these things. I actually read them! The fact is, whatever the bill is named, you can figure its the opposite. If you hate the title, you’ll love the bill.

        Failrus, your “Net Neutrality” bill will not make the net neutral, it will polarize it, ultimately, in the government’s favor. Is that what you want? Let the (sort of) free market do it. Though it may not be all that consistent or efficient, at least its not crooked in one direction toward the government.

        I have since calmed down from your first naive statement and admission of ignorance. It amazes me most that beings that can actually walk upright can’t see the deception before them. Failrus, you suffer from an (evetually) fatal case of “Normalcy Bias”, not believing that the District of Criminals would intentionally and completely lie to you. They have. They are. They will.

        What you seem to not understand is that NONE of us here are against “Net Neutrality”. The common definition of Net Neutrality is a great idea, however, if the US Government gets their Anti-Midas fingers into it, guess what? It won’t be neutral and it won’t be a “Darn Good Idea”. It will be just another way to destroy America a little faster. After all, that is the goal. The 0bama admin is dedicated to it and they are working very hard.

        If I were a Republican, I would be a very bad Republican. I am not a neocon. I am conservative in many ways, however, I am also very liberal in many ways. If its a good idea, lets do it. Our government is not about good ideas or about our interests. Its about the criminal interests of the global elites. That must change.

      58. The internet should be left alone. No government or corporate intervention…just a free flow of  ideas from everywhere and everybody.
        It is not about democracy where the majority rules but about liberty and freedom. Our founding fathers would be astonished at what we have here and they would also be very concerned at what  the mainstream media has become.
        This politician obviously has an axe to grind . It’s obvious this bill will end up in the round file as it should. We need to be concerned at the legislation proposed by Lieberman and McCain regarding the rescinding of our American citizenship at any time.
        The press is not longer free, it is owned by and  serves those in power, including government, corporate and foreign influence.
        We need to be aware that the media is owned by 5 people! That’s right. Just 5 people own and control the mainstream television media. They control what is broadcast as news, by filtering and censoring what you are allowed to see in order to manufacture consent. The internet bypasses these powerful corporations and allow the free flow of ideas and information.

      59. Wanker–

        So let me get this straight: A bill that would preserve the Internet AS IT ALREADY EXISTS will somehow destroy it.

        Fine. You don’t like the Health Care Bill. But it’s a wild leap of bad faith to assert that a bill that will keep the Internet just the way it is will somehow lead to government takeover of the Internet.

        I suppose if you were debating the First Amendment, you’d insist that a law keeping the government out of the press and out of the church would lead to a theocratic media empire.

        In a word, you’re delusional. Your hatred of government makes you say silly things.

      60. wally,

        Either you need to stop reading the propaganda from the policy team trying to implement this, or you are one of them, there is no other excuse for your ignorance.

        You said “I suppose if you were debating the First Amendment, you’d insist that a law keeping the government out of the press and out of the church would lead to a theocratic media empire.”

        UHHHH…I think that sounds like the  argument YOU are making, you can’t even keep your BS  straight anymore. 

        Thats the LIE you are not getting (actually probably trying to obfuscate the truth), the bill will NOT keep it as is. It will give the government control of it. They brainwash people like you with the “stopping big bad business” mantra.  I would rather have comcast limiting the amount of bandwith illegal downloaders are using than giving government the reigns.

        Keep up with your BS all you want, keep believing the “Free Press” jackasses posing as your buddies, keep believing everything our wonderful government who “is just looking out for you” keeps feeding you. 

        The government is quickly losing cheerleaders like you who believe their crap, at least here in the U.S. but I am assuming with your love of the term “wanker” you could be one of the mind numb Brits who have be subjugated  for so many centuries you don’t understand what freedom  is.

      61. And just so we can end this “argument” once and for all, a new bill, new regulations, are not needed to keep the internet as it is!!!!!!  This bill would take away the power  companies like comcast CURRENTLY have,  which is the internet “as it  is”, status quo, which is what you are arguing  for..  To keep it” as is” is to continue allowing the providers make the few  rules the internet has.   Do you not see the gaping chasm in your logic?!?!?!?!?!?

        Maybe I am giving you too much credit, maybe you are buying into the BS that the internet is currently uncontrolled by ANYONE, and this bill is only in the interest of keeping it that way.  The truth is the companies that power the internet have what control there is, and the progressive politicians, the social engineers, don’t want them to have it, they want it for themselves!!!!!!

        This bill is intended to take those limited powers away from the companies running the internet, and put the sweeping control in the governments hands.  Your logic of “we need this bill to keep the internet as it is”  is either proof of your feeble reasoning skills  or your daft attempt at deception.

      62. You’ve got it completely backwards. I refer you again to the prestigious Wikipedia:

        “Currently there is general network neutrality in the United States, meaning that telecommunications companies rarely offer different rates to broadband and dial-up Internet consumers based on Internet-based content or service type; however, there are no clear legal restrictions against this. Many broadband providers block common service ports, such as port 25 (SMTP) or port 80 (HTTP), preventing consumers (and botnets) from hosting web and email servers unless they upgrade to a “business” account. In recent years, advocates of network neutrality have sought to restrict such changes.”


        Five abortive attempts have been made at bills with certain network neutrality provisions passed by Congress. Each of these bills sought to prohibit [ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION< WANKER?!] Internet services providers from using various variable pricing models according to the user’s quality of Service levels. Described as tiered service in the industry and as price discrimination by some mainstream economists, typical provisions in the bill state “[Broadband service providers may] only prioritize…based on the type of content, applications, or services and the level of service purchased by the user, without charge for such prioritization”.[2]


        The bill would PREVENT THIS FROM CHANGING.

        Sorry. I don’t normally shout, but you are so thick-headed, I figured it couldn’t hurt.

        You are hopelessly convinced that any law that protects freedom will inevitably lead to government takeover.  Yet soemthing tells me you think the Bill of Rights protects freedom. Most people couldn’t hold these mutually exclusive opinions at the same time, but then, you’re very special. Very, very special.

        Run along now.

      63. BAAWWWHAHAHAAHA….any shred of credibility you may have had is GONE….wikipedia…good one…..(wiping away tears.)

        I am not going to insult the informed readers of this forum any longer by posting argument after argument showing what net “neutrality” really is all about.  They can look past the little nuggets like no port blocking that are thrown in the bill.  (Which is BS anyways, it will just be the government blocking access now instead of the “evil” corporations.) 

        I am done with you.

        In fact, just to shut you up, I have mixed a big glass of koolaid, and am drinking it now………..Ahh thats better, yes, I see it all so clearly now. 

        Yes, yes, you are right, the FCC and the U.S. government are suddenly reversing the decades long trends  of writing laws that take away our rights and freedoms and are  proposing RULES which will insure our unfettered freedom to surf porn from here unto forever. 

        If you don’t have a job there already, give the Whitehouse a call, they are always looking for a few good Tools.

      64. Typical right-wing egomaniac. You come here with nothing but your steaming pile of opinion, no sources to back them up, no evidence of any kind, and you insist I’m the one who doesn’t know what’s going on. You would rather look more and more like the arrogant ignoramus you are, than actually go to the Wikipedia page and check the many citations that back it up. You refuse to do this because if there’s one thing conservatives can’t stand, it’s facts and logic.


      65. That goes for you, too, Netranger. You have not cited a single source to back up your opinions. There’s Wanker LOLing because I linked to a Wikipedia article that has 65 external links, and he (and presumably you) think it’s just hilarious. By the way, that’s called an ad hiominem fallacy. “Fallacy” is another word for “FAIL.”

        Your entire argument boils down to “Everything the government touches, it ruins.” No substantiation, no details, just a huge, sweeping generalization that defies common sense.

        Please, do go on. I really enjoy watching you show the rest of the world why conservatives are so beneath contempt.

      66. Time to shut it flipper boy, you can’t even get your fallacies straight.  I think you need to spend more time on  wikipedia to help you with your understanding of them, that is something even they won’t be biased about.

      67. Any attack against the source of the argument, rather than the content of the argument, is an ad hominem fallacy. Just because Wikipedia is not a “person” doesn’t mean your crappy argument was not an ad hominem fallacy.

        Here, take a look at what someone a lot smarter than you says:
        9. DAMNING THE SOURCE: (ad hominem, sometimes called the genetic fallacy) attempts to refute an argument by indicting the source of the argument, rather than the substance of the argument itself.
        example: The American Trial Lawyers Association favors of this piece of legislation, so you know it has to be bad for ordinary citizens.

      68. Because I confused Inuit Chief’s post for Willie Wanker’s (really, you all look alike to me), all my arguments are null and void.

        Also, sorry about the double post. I tried posting without typing in my name and e-mail address, just to see what would happen.

        Now I know.

      69. Its not ad hominen if the source is biased, if the source is open to manipulation by anyone or in wikipedias case, only open to manipulation by those with a similar agenda, or if the info the source giving is open to interpretation .  Biased means the opposing viewpoint is not cited or given minimal credence.  

        Wikipedia, along with google and a few other of the biggest internet names are in favor of net neutrality, because it will give them more control than they  now have.  Currently the bandwith/hardware providers have the control, this legislation, among other things, would give the application providers (and the government) the control.  Ever thought it coincidence that Google is a major backer of the obama administration, who is also a major proponent of net neutrality?

        What is apparent from all your posts is you fail to see the agenda, there is ALWAYS an agenda.

      70. You really aren’t clear on the whole concept, are you, Chief? A source may be incredibly biased and still present a valid argument.

        Are you one of those right-wing fanatics who think Wikipedia is biased? Who think Conservapedia is the answer? Who think Fox “News” is fair and balanced?

        In any case, the Wikipedia article about Net Neutrality cites 65 sources that are not from Wikipedia. It’s a pretty well referenced article.

        If you can show something that’s not true in the article, show me. Otherwise, you’re just some anonymous wacko on the Internet who demands to be taken seriously when you’ve done nothing to deserve respect.

        You just rant paranoid conspiracy theories, putting 2 and 2 together and getting 1,000,000. You have not provided a single reference for your unfounded opinion. Meanwhile, I’m making arguments based on the face-value meaning of legislation.

        I’m saying that a law that forbids the government and corporations from restricting content on the Internet will likely do just that. The same way the 1st Amendment forbids government interference in the press, and does just that.

        If you really think that every law will have the opposite effect than intended, you really need to get psychiatric help.

        Something tells me you’ve been suckered in by the right-wing media outlets that are opposed to Net Neutrality laws, because they want to further brrainwash gullible dupes like you.

      71. The Walrus Fallacy…

        Walrus THINKS he is smart
        Walrus trusts the government
        Therefore the Government must be honorable and looking out for our best interests

        Does anyone have a harpoon handy?

      72. I forgot:

        Can you explain to me how a law that forbids corporations to restrict content will allow those corporations to restrict content? I mean, you just keep saying it without walking through the steps or giving a single example of something similar happening before. Forgive me, but it seems counterintuitive (that means it don’t make no sense).

        Bonus Question: Can you explain how the 1st Amendment has led to government control of the press?

        Extra Bonus Question: Can you explain how the LACK of a law against restricting content will prevent restriction of content?

      73. God you are stupid.  The first amendment was a NEGATIVE liberty for the government, it states what the government CANNOT do to you, that they CANNOT control your speech. 

        A net neutrality bill will give the government a POSITIVE liberty, meaning they will now tell corporations who operate the internet what  parameters they can follow. Even in your naive understanding, they are TELLING companies what they can/can’t do with the internet even if you believe they are only going to be telling them they can’t control it any longer,  that in and of itself is governmental control. 

        But you leftasses now think the internet is a free human right to be paid for by someone else, like food, healthcare, housing, cellphones, etc, etc, etc.

        As I said, you can keep believing the BULLSHIT the lefty, progressive PROPONENTS of the as of yet unwritten bill are telling you and continue to ignore what the opponents, common sense, and past intrusions by the government tell us will happen.

        Go look up Mark Lloyd, and Cass Sunstein if you want to see what they really intend, but unfortunatley you will agree with them, as this whole argument wasn’t really about freedom for you.

        I think you have enough problems in your own socialist country to deal with, stay out of ours.

        Stop coming here pretending to understand the Constitution, its despicable and embarrassing for you.

        I can’t believe I let you drag me in again, this time I am really  done with you. 

        Argue with fools….. 

      74. “A source may be incredibly biased and still present a valid argument.”

        Not when it comes from the neomarxist left, then the bias is full of lies , half truths, obfuscations, and hidden agendas.  It is  NEVER valid to the American concept, vile maybe, but not valid in terms of liberty, personal choice, individual responsibility, or common sense. 

      75. The Net Neutrality bills that have been introduced have intended to prevent communications corporations from restricting content. This is a NEGATIVE LIBERTY, much like the 1st Amendment, that works in favor of the users. We, the people.

        If you’re philosophically opposed to the government interfering in corporate afffairs, fine, I can accept that. It’s just a matter of opinion.

        But the arguments I’ve been butting my head against have centered around the possibility that laws cementing user freedom will lead to user censorship. Which makes no sense whatsoever. Hence, my low opinion of your thinking skills and overall mental health.

        I’m not saying the Internet should be free. Accusing me of that is a Straw Man fallacy. Nothing in the Neutrality bills suggested giving away Net access free of charge.

        I just I could watch you bitch and moan when you have to suddenly pay for access that had previously been free. No doubt you’ll blame the censorship on Democrats, much as the far-right nut jobs are blaming the Gulf oil spill on environmental regulations.

      76. Willy Wanker THINKS he’s winning this debate.
        Willy Wanker trusts corporations.
        Therefore corporations must be honorable and looking out for our best interests.

        I know, that’s all kinds of fallacies crammed into one idiotic bundle. When in Rome…

      77. Ok, I can’t take this absolute moron wally any longer. What a douche bag. His rantings are as delirious as the lyrics of the song he has named himself after.

        You  think your sources are legit, honest, reputable, and transparent in their desire for a “free” internet?  If I had to guess you are part of  “Free” Press team, the “honest” internet watchdog for the proletariat.  Or you are one of obamas, on the low down, secret lovers.

        Here are just four of hundreds of arguments AGAINST this “neutrality” nonsense.  Not that they are going to sway you, that would take a logical, reasonable, intelligent, free thinking , agenda free mind.  Just chiming in with them so you can no longer accuse us “rightwing whackos” of not providing “proof” of our “claims”.  Of course, if you really wanted the other side of the argument (the truth) you would have looked for it yourself, but since you are just here to be a piece of $@#$, I am providing something.  Not sure why the others haven’t already, probably figured you aren’t worth it (which you aren’t)

        These do contain  some opinion , reason, and historical references, not like your sources, which are purely based on fact and altruism (sarcasm).

        You will discount them, as your goal is not to have a healthy debate or listen to reason, or not trust those who keep telling you “trust us, we know whats best for you”  but to perpetuate Bullshit and justify to yourself, your own  ideologies.

        You will need to ignore all the wrangling, law manipulation, and back door dealings the FCC is doing to get their hands in the cookie jar,  because they are doing it for our own good, right?.

        Just please, promise to go away after this.   Johnny v and the other occasional  brain dead entitlement jackass trolls that show up here to spout their drivel here need some loving, go find them over at the huff&puff post, or msnbc or wherever you pussie “liberals” normally hang out.

      78. Wow. You’ve changed my mind. Your civil, fair and balanced, well reasoned links have convinced me that corporations will never do anything to gouge you for an extra buck or block access to political sites they don’t like, but a law outlawing that will directly lead to COMPLETE STATE TAKEOVER OF THE INTERNET!!!!!!!!! OMFG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        Just as the FCC has stifled all conservative media outlets on radio and TV.


        Just like that.

      79. double wit sez:

        “You will discount them, as your goal is not to have a healthy debate or listen to reason, or not trust those who keep telling you “trust us, we know whats best for you”  but to perpetuate Bullshit and justify to yourself, your own  ideologies.”

        Wait. You don’t see your side doing exactly that?

      80. ME: “A source may be incredibly biased and still present a valid argument.”
        INEPT CHIEF: “Not when it comes from the neomarxist left, then the bias is full of lies , half truths, obfuscations, and hidden agendas.  It is  NEVER valid to the American concept, vile maybe, but not valid in terms of liberty, personal choice, individual responsibility, or common sense.”

        Thank you for proving my point. You have absolutely no idea what a fallacy is, or how to avoid one.

        By your “logic,” if a left-wing, neo-Marxist source sais, for instance, “Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods, characterized by a free competitive market and motivation by profit,” you would say that definition is wrong.

        Let me shout for a moment, mmmmmkay?


        You conservatives are so intellectually lazy, so cocksure of your own craven dogma, so content to be spoon-fed your ideology, so unwilling to even consider the possibility that anyone left of Joe McCarthy might have a legitimate point. This is why the Tea Party will drag the Republican party down so low even Sean Hannity will cringe when he sees what you’re trying to do to America.

      81. It always amuses me when right-whiners can fill multi-paragraphs with personal attack drivel and yet FAIL to factually counter ANY of the posted references …NOT A ONE.  

        Some say the right-whiners’  emotion and fear driven rants are borne of willful ignorance;  but I think it’s clearly evident by the right-whine posts here,  they are just plain stupid. 

        It’s futile to argue with stupid folks, TheWalrus.   They live in an  entire different reality, one that is written about in NATIONAL ENQUIRER.   You posted solid references to support your end of the debate and they all FAILED to counter them as errant or false.  You won. 

      82. What gets me is that they won’t even respect the notion that people can have philosophical differences. Fine, if they want government to stay out of regulation of industry, that’s a legitimate topic of discussion. Reasonable people can disagree and maybe even add nuance to each other’s world views.

        Not these clowns. It’s all conspiracy theories, leaping to the furthest possible conclusion, guilt by association, ad hominem attacks and gleeful ignorance.

        I’ll give double wit credit for at least providing links, though 3/4 of them are so hostile in their tone that no one would take them seriously at face value.

        Compare that to their knee-jerk reaction to a neutrally-toned article at Wikipedia, replete with links to the text of bills and impartial discussions of the issue:


      83. TheWalrus, aka PacNWer,
        Three entries in a row and then a fake name entry, followed up by another one. Get a life dude!!!!! It seems quite evident that most people here totally disagree with you. I do too. Please do everyone a favor and LEAVE.

        What an idiot.

      84. MDF:

        Off your meds? Or is that the standard-issue, right-wing paranoia? Does it come with flecks of spittle, or do you have to provide those yourself?

        WAIT! Are you me?! OMG!!!

        Seriously, though: Thanks again for demonstrating how intolerant conservatives are, and how unfit you are to participate in civilized discourse.

      85. MDF,  I’m pretty sure “Willy Wonka” also qualifies as “a fake name entry”.   In fact,  nobody here has posted their ‘un-fake’ “name entry”…YOU INCLUDED.  ;0)

        I am not TheWalrus.  Check with the website if you wish and they’ll verify different IP addies from different locations.  But let’s be honest about this:  you know that.  You were playing a card from the right-whiner loony deck of absurd behavior, attempting to redirect away from the stated obvious:  TheWalrus posted solid references to support his end of the debate and ya’ll FAILED to counter them as errant or false.  HE OWNS YOUR PATHETIC A$$ES!

      86. Yes, you will have a different IP address at work,  the gay coffee shop, and  home.  What a clown.

      87. Yes…I noticed you still FAILED to counter TheWalrus’ linked sources.   :0)

        Believe what you want.  I really don’t care, because it only refocuses the attention back on the fact that none of you right-whiners engaged in effective counter-debate.  Afterall, you are just projecting your own dishonest behavior and actions.    The RIGHT-WHINER HALL OF SHAME book is rich with perversions and cult-like paranoia.

      88. You’re on to me. I gotta tell you, that 600-mile commute is killing me.

        Just curious: Why was “gay coffee shop” your insult of choice? Do you think I’m as big a homophobe as you? And if I did work in a gay coffee shop, I wouldn’t be offended by your comment. I just don’t get it.

        You might want to work on your hatred. It should at least be internally consistent. Not that consistency has ever been a hallmark of conservatism.

      89. The Michigan constitution says, “Every person may freely speak, write, express and publish his views on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of such right; and no law shall be enacted to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press.”

      90. I vehemently agree with this article, however I do not agree with the lack of clarify and some of  you idiots that dont bother to look up information before you start spitting Anti-Liberal crap. Sen. Bruce Patterson is not a Democrat first of all. Nor will us Liberal Democrats ever claim crap like this. Taking away someones freedom of speech, who ever heard of such a thing! And second I dont believe its fair to assume that the President would support something like this. I think the word that the author used was “suggest.” Well I dont believe its fair to “suggest” anything like that. You shouldnt go around putting words in someones mouth. Yes I do agree that “news and information on blogs, talk radio, and cable, is difficult to sift through and figure out who’s telling the truth” and I am a Liberal but I do not agree with censoring  journalists.

      Commenting Policy:

      Some comments on this web site are automatically moderated through our Spam protection systems. Please be patient if your comment isn’t immediately available. We’re not trying to censor you, the system just wants to make sure you’re not a robot posting random spam.

      This website thrives because of its community. While we support lively debates and understand that people get excited, frustrated or angry at times, we ask that the conversation remain civil. Racism, to include any religious affiliation, will not be tolerated on this site, including the disparagement of people in the comments section.