READY, SET, CLICK….

Today, Facebook will start using your photos in acts targeting your contacts and fb friends. It is legal and was mentioned to you when you opened an account.

To prevent this do the following:

* click on Home Account Settings
* Facebook Ads (Bottom of left hand navigation panel)
* Adverts shown by third party
* Edit third party advert settings
* then choose “No One” in the list and save the changes

Copy and share this with all your facebook friends….

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

See Ya Later Censorship

Ezra Levant and Mike Duffy talk about the evils of censorship and why it is time to do away with it in Canada.

This report aired on The Source June 26 2012.

Ezra Levant

MacShane calls for end to corporate libel bullying

Jo Glanville: MacShane calls for end to corporate libel bullying
THE FREE SPEECH BLOG

Durand Academy gives up libel claim

Richard Wilson: Durand Academy gives up libel claim
THE FREE SPEECH BLOG

Is U.S. Civil Society Really for the Multi-Stakeholder Approach to Internet Governance?

In the middle of last week, Public Knowledge’s Gigi Sohn was seemingly all for the multi-stakeholder process of Internet governance – that is, America’s official negotiating position as it enters the update of the UN’s ITU International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs).

The ITU agreement, which sets forth the rules for international communications traffic, hasn’t been updated since 1988, well before the Internet took off commercially.  This December in Dubai, its 193 members will seek to update it.  Not surprisingly, and for a variety of reasons, there are grumblings from many in the ITU that the U.S. has too much control over the Internet, and thus should be stripped or humbled of its leading role.  The ITU treaty represents one such way to accomplish that.  (For a good background piece about what’s at stake, check out this piece by CNet’s Declan McCullagh)

Uncle Sam, industry and, purportedly, U.S. “civil society” (as represented by Sohn) rightfully believe that the unregulated, multi-stakeholder model (which is based on numerous global, voluntary, bottom-up peer groups, which architect and “run” the Internet’s underlying standards) has made the open Internet the great success that it is today, and, consequently, it must remain the model for the ITU.

But, as one U.S. government official recently noted, nearly a full majority – or more – have different thoughts, meaning the treaty, if things get out of hand, could end up imposing an unprecedented international regulatory yoke on the vibrant, growing medium, minimizing America’s guiding and benevolent hand over the Internet.

***

I wonder about Sohn and her civil society compatriots in this equation leading up the ITU vote.  Yes, it’s true, at least superficially, that she supports the multi-stakeholder approach.  Noted Sohn in a press release last week:

“We believe the United States should promote global Internet freedom.  We join members of Congress from both parties and the Obama Administration in opposing international regulation of the Internet.   That view was strongly expressed that view this morning at a hearing of the House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology.

“We agree the International Telecommunications Union’s (ITU) jurisdiction should not expand to encompass regulation or governance of the Internet, and that some of the proposals to change the International Telecommunications Regulations (ITR) would have dramatically bad effects on the open and decentralized internet we know and love.

“We are also pleased to endorse the bipartisan resolution introduced by House Commerce Subcommittee Chairman Mary Bono Mack (R-CA) which opposes increased government control of the Internet as proposed at the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) to be held later this year.”

This seems fine; it reaffirms the multi-stakeholder model.  Yet, by Friday of last week, it looked as if she had started to change her mind.

Sitting on a panel with U.S. officials and industry experts last Friday, Sohn walked back from her previously unflagging support, noting that civil society can’t possibly be at every multi-stakeholder meeting to help the Internet run, and because forces such as hers at Public Knowledge are spread so thin, it placed civil society interests at significant disadvantage to corporate or other interests.

By Monday, Sohn had in fact formalized this walk-back, stating in a blog post:

…[It] will take more than jawboning by civil society groups here to stop the threat of an ITU takeover. US civil society (and by extension the US Government) must acknowledge the concerns of countries that believe that the US has too much control over Internet governance, and must address those concerns without giving control of the Internet to the ITU. Insisting that anything less than the status quo will lead to an ITU takeover is both untrue and ultimately self-defeating.

What could this mean?

Well, I’ll tell ya’.  The U.S. government, industry and civil society’s Kumbaya, which looked like it was perhaps wasn’t.

It is well known that many in civil society (and even some in our own government) consider Internet access not merely a civil right but a human right.  Significant numbers of other ITU members, as well as many among civil society abroad, harbor this and other similar anti-private property points of view, too.

Quite simply, old habits die hard.  They will not die for the sake of U.S. ITU unity it seems.

For privately run networks (90% or more of U.S. Internet infrastructure is privately owned), such anti-property sentiments have important consequences if voted out of the ITU – they would essentially render private networks, and perhaps any edge services attached thereto, into public utilities.  Not only would this effectively kill Internet innovation, it would also balkanize the Internet because the U.S. would likely not sign on to such an agreement.

At this stage in the process, we don’t know what all will end up on the table for the ITU vote in December.  By September, we’ll have a clearer sense of the proposals from the ITU’s 193 members.  But, it seems clear to me that though U.S. civil society initially wanted to look like a team player, more than likely – as Sohn let reveal – it will probably seek to extract some concessions as the cost of being “unified” around the multi-stakeholder model.

Gigi blew the proverbial dog whistle. Civil society, as “disadvantaged” as it is, will respond, setting up a good cop, bad cop game on an international level that will pressure U.S. policymakers toward, I believe, anti-property, boil-the-frog concessions akin to Net Neutrality, etc.

So, for those who run and manage the Internet’s private property infrastructure, you better sleep with one eye open.  Be on guard for the ITU looting this December, which will come from not only known adversaries, but also, it appears, from U.S. civil society’s harpies (and their government allies) who will seek to soil the table for their progressive, anti-property gain.

Media Freedom

TEAR THEM ALL DOWN….

If the houses in Linden Meadows aren’t liveable, we can understand tearing them ALL down. In fact we would rather see our EDIT money going to remove this eyesore. It is not only in Ghetto New Albany but it affects the property values of all the homes in the surrounding area.

Again we say: turn Linden Meadows back into the ball park it was intended to be used for!

As reported in Friday’s News & Tribune New Albany Building Commissioner David Brewer received an emergency demolition order for 817 Linden Meadows Court.

Freedom Of Speech has obtained a list of several properties and garages to be demolished:

Demo List:

1.) 714 Linden Meadows Court
2.) 2527 Broadway
3.) 2529 Broadway
4.) 2535 Broadway
5.) 620 E. 9th
6.) 1526 E. Oak
7.) 1930 Division
8.) 932 State Street
9.) 502 Culbertson Ave.
10.) 813 Cherry Street
11.) 717 Cherry Street
12.) 247 Green
13.) 423 W. 7th
14.) 314 W. 7th
15.) 416 W. 7th
16.) 522 E. 4th
17.) 1917 McDonald Ave. (garage only)
18.) 1943 McDonald Ave. (garage only)
19.) 1620 East Main Street

We here at Freedom Of Speech believe ALL Past CHDO Board members and their Director should be accountable and sued by HUD and PNC Bank.

It is our opinion that our local Redevelopment Directors John Rosenbarger and Carl Malysz and Redevelopment Board members, Sewer Board members, City Attorney Gibson, and the former Mayor Douglas B. England should be accountable and sued for mismanaging taxpayer dollars on Linden Meadows.

Our News & Tribune should publish the names of the people involved in the original group that defaulted on the original loan.

Isn’t that right, Councilman John Gonder?

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Nick Clegg defends Jeremy Hunt at Leveson despite risking coalition split in Commons vote

Marta Cooper: Nick Clegg defends Jeremy Hunt at Leveson despite risking coalition split in Commons vote
THE FREE SPEECH BLOG

Video: Scott Cleland Discusses Netflix’s DoJ Complaint

I was recently able to catch up with Scott Cleland – Chairman of NetCompetition.org – to discuss Netflix’s specious Net Neutrality complaint lodged at the DoJ.

Media Freedom

Update: Obama administration warns agencies about monitoring staff e-mail

To recap: In January, the Washington Post reported that employees at the Food and Drug Administration were suing the agency over the privacy of their personal e-mail: “The surveillance — detailed in e-mails and memos unearthed by six of the scientists and doctors [...] took place over two years as the plaintiffs accessed their personal Gmail accounts from government computers. Information garnered [...]
Privacy Lives

“DIVISIVE AND UNNECESSARY”

Unnecessary? The weapons went to Mexico, two Americans were killed with the same weapons and Obama and Holder refuse to provide the documents!

A Democrat in this administration calling anyone “divisive.” Obama literally screams false slurs about anyone that doesn’t immediately agrees with him. He has never encountered a compromise that he couldn’t destroy. The man reeks divisive.

Who is hate speech targeted at today? The Supreme Court, the Congress, state governments, business leaders, or religious organizations?

The fact remains that Border Patrol Agents Brian Terry and Jaime Zapata were murdered by weapons that was acquired during the bungled Fast & Furious operation.

Holder first claimed all of this was done under the Bush administration and has NOW changed his statement.

Operation Wide Receiver was under Bush in 2006 and ended in 2007. The difference, the ATF worked WITH their Mexican counter parts to conduct complete surveillance of the weapons to the ultimate destination then arrest were made: NO US Agents were murdered!

Now, spin all you want Democrats but again the fact remains Agent Terry and Zapata were murdered in the line of duty as results of Fast and Furious, which the Mexican Government had NO knowledge of.

Our questions are:

* What does Obama and Holder have to hide?

* When and what did Obama or any other member of the Obama administration know about Fast and Furious?

* Do the family members of Brian Terry and Jaime Zapata not have a RIGHT to know the truth WHY their boys died?

How do you spell Watergate?

Oh yeah, we remember – O.B.A.M.A.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH