<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="State"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="country-region"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="place"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Comic Sans MS";
panose-1:3 15 7 2 3 3 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
h1
{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:24.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Comic Sans MS";
color:black;
font-weight:bold;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<h1><b><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><a
href="http://www.naturalnews.com/index.html">NaturalNews.com</a> </span></font><o:p></o:p></b></h1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Verdana><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Verdana'>Originally published December 7 2010<br>
<br>
</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<h1><b><font size=3 face=Verdana><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:
Verdana'>Net neutrality, the FCC, Wikileaks and the future of internet freedom</span></font><o:p></o:p></b></h1>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=2 face=Verdana><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana'>by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger,
NaturalNews Editor <br>
<br>
(NaturalNews) Regardless of what you think about the Wikileaks release of state
secrets, there's no debating the astonishing fact that the internet made these
leaks possible. Without the internet, no single organization such as Wikileaks
would have been able to so widely propagate secret government information and
make it public. In the old model of information distribution -- centralized
mainstream media newspapers and news broadcasts -- such information would have
been tightly controlled thanks to government pressure.<br>
<br>
But <a href="http://www.naturalnews.com/the_internet.html">the internet</a>
allows individual <a href="http://www.naturalnews.com/information.html">information</a>
publishers to bypass the censorship of <a
href="http://www.naturalnews.com/government.html">government</a>. In the case
of Wikileaks, it allowed an Australian citizen to embarrass the <st1:country-region
w:st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region> government while sitting at a laptop
computer in the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United
Kingdom</st1:place></st1:country-region>.<br>
<br>
Governments don't like to be embarrassed. They don't like their secrets aired
on the <a href="http://www.naturalnews.com/internet.html">internet</a>. Sure,
it's okay for governments to tap all of <i><span style='font-style:italic'>your</span></i>
secrets by monitoring your phone calls, emails and web browsing habits, but
every government seeks to protect its own secrets at practically any cost.
That's why the upshot of this Wikileaks release may be that <b><span
style='font-weight:bold'>governments will now start to look for new ways to
censor and control the internet</span></b> in order to prevent such information
leaks from happening in the future.<br>
<br>
What governments around the world are suddenly beginning to realize is that <b><span
style='font-weight:bold'>a free internet is ultimately incompatible with
government secrets</span></b>, and secrets are essential to any government that
wants to remain in <a href="http://www.naturalnews.com/power.html">power</a>.
That's because, as even Noam Chomsky stated in this DemocracyNow <a
href="http://www.naturalnews.com/video.html">video</a> interview (<a
href="http://www.democracynow.org/2010/11/30/noam_chomsky_wikileaks_cables_reveal_profound"
target="_blank">http://www.democracynow.org/2010/11...</a>), most government
secrets are based on information governments wouldn't want their people to
discover -- secrets that might threaten the legitimacy of government if the
people found out the truth.</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<h1><b><font size=2 face=Verdana><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
Verdana'>How the FCC plans to seize <a
href="http://www.naturalnews.com/authority.html">authority</a> over the
internet</span></font><o:p></o:p></b></h1>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=2 face=Verdana><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana'>As part of a long-term plan to
control content on the internet, <a
href="http://www.naturalnews.com/the_FCC.html">the FCC</a> is now attempting to
assert authority over the internet in the same way it has long exercised
content <a href="http://www.naturalnews.com/censorship.html">censorship</a>
authority over broadcast <a href="http://www.naturalnews.com/television.html">television</a>
and radio.<br>
<br>
The reason you can't say those seven dirty words on broadcast television, in
other words, is because <b><span style='font-weight:bold'>the FCC controls
broadcast television content</span></b> and can simply revoke the broadcast
licenses of any television station that refuses to comply. This is the same
tactic, in the internet world, of yanking a web site's domain name, which the
Department of Homeland Security has already begun doing over the last several
weeks (<a href="http://www.naturalnews.com/030542_censorship_internet.html"
target="_blank">http://www.naturalnews.com/030542_c...</a>).<br>
<br>
The FCC also controls content on the <a
href="http://www.naturalnews.com/radio.html">radio</a> and can yank the
broadcast licenses of any radio stations that refuse to comply with its content
censorship. This is why operators of "pirate radio stations" are
dealt with so harshly: For the government to allow any radio station to operate
outside its censorship and control is to invite dissent.<br>
<br>
The internet, of course, has been operating freely and without any real government
censorship for roughly two decades. In that time, it has grown to be what is
arguably the most influential medium in the world for information distribution.
Most importantly, <b><span style='font-weight:bold'>the internet is the medium
of information <a href="http://www.naturalnews.com/freedom.html">freedom</a></span></b>
that is not controlled by any government.<br>
<br>
The <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region>
government wants to change all that, and they've dispatched the FCC to reign in
the "freedoms" of the internet.</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<h1><b><font size=2 face=Verdana><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
Verdana'>How to crush internet Free Speech</span></font><o:p></o:p></b></h1>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=2 face=Verdana><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana'>The first step to the FCC's
crushing of internet freedom is to <b><span style='font-weight:bold'>assert
authority over the internet</span></b> by claiming to run the show. The FCC, of
course, has no legal authority over the internet. It was only granted authority
in 1934 over <i><span style='font-style:italic'>broadcast</span></i>
communications in the electromagnetic spectrum -- you know, radio waves and
antennas, that kind of thing.<br>
<br>
There is nothing in the Communications Act of 1934 that grants the FCC any
authority over the internet because obviously the internet didn't exist then,
and it would have been impossible for lawmakers in the 1930's to imagine the
internet as it operates today.<br>
<br>
So instead of following the law, <b><span style='font-weight:bold'>the FCC is
trying to "fake" its way into false authority over the internet</span></b>
by claiming authority in the current "net neutrality" debate. By
asserting its authority with net neutrality, the FCC will establish a beachhead
of <i><span style='font-style:italic'>implied authority</span></i> from which
it can begin to control and censor the internet.<br>
<br>
This is why "net neutrality" is a threat to internet freedom. It's
not because of anything to do with net neutrality itself, but rather with the
FCC's big power grab in its assertion that it has authority over <a
href="http://www.naturalnews.com/websites.html">websites</a> just like it has
authority over broadcast radio.</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<h1><b><font size=2 face=Verdana><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
Verdana'>The FCC may soon tell you what you can post on the internet</span></font><o:p></o:p></b></h1>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=2 face=Verdana><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana'>Where is this all heading? Once
the FCC establishes a foothold on the 'net, it can then assert that it has <b><span
style='font-weight:bold'>the power to tell you what to post on the internet</span></b>.
Here's how it might unfold:<br>
<br>
First, the FCC will simply <a href="http://www.naturalnews.com/ban.html">ban</a>
what it calls "information traitors," which will include people like
Julian Assange (Wikileaks) who publish state secrets. (Technically Julian
Assange can't be a traitor since he's not even American in the first place, but
don't expect the FCC to care about this distinction.)<br>
<br>
Once the public is comfortable with that, the FCC will advance its agenda to
include "information terrorists" which will include anything posted
about Ron Paul, the federal reserve and the counterfeit money supply, G. Edward
Griffin, or anything from true <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region>
patriots who defend the Constitution. The anti-state website <a
href="http://www.LewRockwell.com" target="_blank">www.LewRockwell.com</a>
(where some of my own articles have appeared from time to time) would also be
immediately banned because its information is so dangerous to government
control.<br>
<br>
After that censorship is in place, <b><span style='font-weight:bold'>the FCC
will likely begin to push the corporate agenda</span></b> by banning websites
that harm the profits of large <a
href="http://www.naturalnews.com/corporations.html">corporations</a>. This will
include, of course, websites like NaturalNews.com which teach people about <i><span
style='font-style:italic'><a
href="http://www.naturalnews.com/health_freedom.html">health freedom</a></span></i>,
nutritional cures, <a href="http://www.naturalnews.com/natural.html">natural</a>
remedies and alternatives to Big Pharma's high-profit pharmaceuticals. <br>
<br>
The way this will come about is that <b><span style='font-weight:bold'>the FCC
may require a license to publish <a
href="http://www.naturalnews.com/health_information.html">health information</a>
on the web</span></b>, in much the same way that states currently license <a
href="http://www.naturalnews.com/doctors.html">doctors</a> to practice
medicine. This is how conventional medicine has operated its <a
href="http://www.naturalnews.com/monopoly.html">monopoly</a> for so long, by
the way: By controlling the licensing of doctors at the state level. Any doctor
who dares prescribe nutritional supplements or suggest that medication might be
harmful to a patient immediately gets stripped of his license to practice
medicine (and thereby put out of <a
href="http://www.naturalnews.com/business.html">business</a>). The FCC will
likely do the same thing across the internet. Sites that publish <a
href="http://www.naturalnews.com/health.html">health</a> information without a
license will be deemed "a threat to <a
href="http://www.naturalnews.com/public_health.html">public health</a>"
and be seized by the government.<br>
<br>
The first target? Anti-vaccine websites. Vaccines are so crucial to the
continuation of disease and medical enslavement in <a
href="http://www.naturalnews.com/America.html">America</a> that any site
questioning the current <a href="http://www.naturalnews.com/vaccine.html">vaccine</a>
mythology will be deemed a threat to public health -- or perhaps even a
"terrorism" organization.<br>
<br>
Essentially, once the FCC has gained power and authority over the internet, it
will use that power to <b><span style='font-weight:bold'>push a Big Government
/ Big Business agenda</span></b> that censors the truth, keeps people trapped
in a system of disinformation, and silences anyone who challenges the status
quo.<br>
<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>The FCC is poised to become the <a
href="http://www.naturalnews.com/FDA.html">FDA</a> of internet information</span></b>,
banning alternative speech and enforcing an information monopoly engineered by
powerful corporations.<br>
<br>
Think of the FCC as the new <b><span style='font-weight:bold'>the Ministry of
Truth</span></b> from George Orwell's novel <i><span style='font-style:italic'>1984</span></i>
(<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Truth" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minist...</a>).</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<h1><b><font size=2 face=Verdana><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
Verdana'>This is not about net neutrality, it's about the FCC power grab</span></font><o:p></o:p></b></h1>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=2 face=Verdana><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana'>Remember, I am not arguing here <i><span
style='font-style:italic'>for</span></i> or <i><span style='font-style:italic'>against</span></i>
the principle of net neutrality itself, but rather warning about the FCC's
imposition of false authority over the internet in the first place. The idea of
net neutrality has merits, but granting the FCC the power to control the
internet is a disastrously bad idea that will only end in censorship and
"information tyranny" -- especially now that governments around the
world are witnessing the "dangers" of information freedom via the
Wikileaks fiasco.<br>
<br>
If there's one thing governments hate, it's real freedom. Sure, they all talk
about freedom and publicly claim their allegiance to it, but behind the scenes
what they really want is <b><span style='font-weight:bold'>total information
control</span></b>. That's because freedom gives people the ability to say what
they want, to whomever they want, and even to oppose the doctrine of the
government.<br>
<br>
Just look at <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">China</st1:place></st1:country-region>
and how it has censored the internet to the point where you can't even log in
to Facebook from that country.<br>
<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Governments hate freedom because freedom
threatens centralized power and control over the People</span></b>. And because
governments hate freedom, they also hate the internet as long as it's free.
This is why bloggers and internet journalists are right now imprisoned all over
the world for merely posting the truth (<a
href="http://www.cpj.org/imprisoned/cpjs-2008-census-online-journalists-now-jailed-mor.php"
target="_blank">http://www.cpj.org/imprisoned/cpjs-...</a>).<br>
<br>
As Noam Chomsky said in his DemocracyNow interview (link above), what the
recent Wikileaks releases really show is that the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> government has "a
profound hatred for <a href="http://www.naturalnews.com/democracy.html">democracy</a>."<br>
<br>
It also happens to have a profound hatred for actual freedom, because people
who are free to think for themselves and write whatever they want are always
going to be a threat to a government that wants people to conform, obey and
acquiesce.</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<h1><b><font size=2 face=Verdana><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
Verdana'>All government agencies seek to expand their power</span></font><o:p></o:p></b></h1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Verdana><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Verdana'>What do the FCC, FDA, TSA, <a
href="http://www.naturalnews.com/DEA.html">DEA</a>, FTC and USDA all have in
common?<br>
<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>They all want more power.</span></b> They
want more authority, bigger budgets and more control over the world around
them. They are like <a href="http://www.naturalnews.com/cancer_tumors.html">cancer
tumors</a>, growing in size and toxicity while they consume more and more by
stealing resources from a healthy host. The bigger these cancer <a
href="http://www.naturalnews.com/tumors.html">tumors</a> become, the more
dangerous they become to the health of the host body, and the more urgently
they need to be held in check or excised from the body entirely.<br>
<br>
There is no such thing as a government agency that wants to be smaller, with
shrinking budgets and fewer employees on the taxpayer payroll. Government
departments -- just like people -- incessantly seek more power even at the
expense of freedom among those they claim to serve. And this move by the FCC to
assume control over the internet is one of the most dangerous power grabs yet
witnessed in the short history of the information age.<br>
<br>
By the way, one of the reasons we created and launched <a
href="http://www.NaturalNews.TV" target="_blank">www.NaturalNews.TV</a> was
because <b><span style='font-weight:bold'>we wanted a video site that could not
be turned off by YouTube</span></b>. You've probably heard the horror stories
of famous content producers like Alex Jones having their YouTube accounts
suddenly terminated. <a href="http://www.naturalnews.com/NaturalNews.html">NaturalNews</a>.TV
is <b><span style='font-weight:bold'>a safe haven for alternative health
content</span></b> that cannot be turned off by a large corporation that
doesn't recognize the value of health freedom.<br>
<br>
Feel free to participate by uploading <a
href="http://www.naturalnews.com/videos.html">videos</a> or viewing the many
thousands of free videos available right now at <a
href="http://www.NaturalNews.TV" target="_blank">www.NaturalNews.TV</a><br>
<br>
By the way, I recommend reading another outstanding <a
href="http://www.naturalnews.com/article.html">article</a> on this topic
written by John Naughton at The Guardian (<a
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/dec/06/western-democracies-must-live-with-leaks"
target="_blank">http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...</a>). Here's a taste of
what he writes:<br>
<br>
<i><span style='font-style:italic'>Consider, for instance, how the views of the
<st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region>
administration have changed in just a year. On 21 January, secretary of state
Hillary Clinton made a landmark speech about internet freedom, in <st1:City
w:st="on">Washington</st1:City> <st1:State w:st="on">DC</st1:State>, which many
people welcomed and most interpreted as a rebuke to <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">China</st1:place></st1:country-region> for its alleged cyberattack
on Google. "Information has never been so free," declared <st1:City
w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Clinton</st1:place></st1:City>. "Even in
authoritarian countries, information networks are helping people discover new
facts and making governments more accountable."<br>
<br>
She went on to relate how, during his visit to <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">China</st1:place></st1:country-region> in November 2009, Barack
Obama had "defended the right of people to freely access information, and
said that the more freely information flows the stronger societies become. He
spoke about how access to information helps citizens to hold their governments
accountable, generates new ideas, and encourages creativity." Given what
we now know, that <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Clinton</st1:place></st1:City>
speech reads like a satirical masterpiece.</span></i><br>
<br>
Read the rest at: <a
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/dec/06/western-democracies-must-live-with-leaks"
target="_blank">http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...</a></span></font><b><font
size=2 color=black face="Comic Sans MS"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Comic Sans MS";color:black;font-weight:bold'><o:p></o:p></span></font></b></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>