Re:FCC Proposes Changing Comment System After WSJ Found Thou...
by dang on Thursday July 12, 2018 @02:12AM
(#17512525)
This comment breaks the HN guidelines by name-calling ("crackpot") in the sense they ask you not to. Please don't do that. It's uncivil and usually provokes worse, as it did below.
Re:FCC Proposes Changing Comment System After WSJ Found Thou...
by benlorenzetti on Wednesday July 11, 2018 @10:41PM
(#17511788)
The Feds can regulate wire fraud--that is definitely commerce. Sorry you are very bent on misrepresenting me.
Re:FCC Proposes Changing Comment System After WSJ Found Thou...
by dang on Thursday July 12, 2018 @02:13AM
(#17512529)
Please don't get personal, even if provoked. It breaks the civility rule and leads to worse.
Re:FCC Proposes Changing Comment System After WSJ Found Thou...
by wtallis on Wednesday July 11, 2018 @10:47PM
(#17511811)
> The Feds can regulate wire fraud--that is definitely commerce. Sorry you are very bent on misrepresenting me.
And yet, you wrote:
> I don't see how light crossing state borders is construed as commerce.
You're not convincing anyone when you pretend to be unable to understand how paying someone to carry information across state lines on your behalf is commerce.
Re:FCC Proposes Changing Comment System After WSJ Found Thou...
by benlorenzetti on Wednesday July 11, 2018 @11:21PM
(#17511951)
I'm talking about the 1st amendment and the commerce clause, together and where they conflict. Sorry if I went a little abstract in a different series of comments.
Re:FCC Proposes Changing Comment System After WSJ Found Thou...
by wtallis on Wednesday July 11, 2018 @11:45PM
(#17512034)
Where's the first amendment come in to any of this? It sounds like you're trying to refer to first amendment rights of the ISP, but I don't see where that is at all relevant to their business of forwarding my packets. There's no speech on the part of the ISP to be restricted there, and forwarding my packets is in no way analogous to the ISP publishing anything. ISPs are extremely keen to make sure that their subscriber's data transmissions are never regarded as speech/publishing by the ISP itself, because of things like copyright infringement liability.
I'm not going to respond to the part where you don't believe that the federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce in non-physical goods, because that's so far into crackpot territory that nobody on either side of the net neutrality issue cares about your stance on that issue. It's hard to take you seriously when you're so against net neutrality that you also advocate for getting rid of federal wire fraud statutes.