Despite Al Gore’s assertions to the contrary, he did not “invent” the Internet, but, there can be no doubt that it and the World Wide Web are decidedly American innovations. And, thanks to our technological largesse, the gateways to the web have been opened to the world with the expectation that its sole owners and content providers would be, in perpetuity, those who use, contribute to or express their views within it.
It’s always been free in terms of control, content and money (save for the monthly fees we pay the gatekeepers for access and any special sites to which we subscribe). The web’s primary language, HTML, is open source, and using someone else’s code was perfectly acceptable back at the dawn of this technological marvel. But now a nefarious tentacle of the U.N., a useless and impotent consortium of nations, wants to control its content, tax it to redistribute wealth, and in other ways make it “governable.” Simply stated, we cannot let that happen.
Though initially well intentioned, the United Nations has become stigmatized by rampant corruption, feckless leadership, massive fraud and waste; essentially a black hole sucking in massive amounts of time, endless discussion and debate (tongues to nowhere), money and resources. Save for a tiny few of its internal organs, it has been in need of the little blue pill almost since its founding.
For the edification of those who don’t fully understand the aim of the U.N., its agenda is simple and highly deleterious to the cause of freedom around the globe. It wants to be the body that plans, implements and rules the New World Order. Read up on Agenda 21 and you’ll see just how dangerous this organization is. Hopefully, as has historically been the case with any individual, country or organization infected with megalomania, the U.N. too shall fail, most immediately in its malicious attempt to control the Net.
Various countries have clamped down on web-based free speech for those living within their borders. China is a classic example. To that limitation, those restricted are angry, and with good reason. But for the vast majority of those of us who use it daily, the web comprises an enormous amount of Cyberspace not owned or controlled in any literal way by any one governing body. True enough, some groups do exercise some control, such as permitting domain names and making sure only one owner has that domain, but even then when meetings are held at such organizations as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a non-profit, anybody can attend and speak their minds about innovations, programming changes and engineering improvements.
In other words it’s always been a medium free of the control of content and devoid of taxation.
But now, according to Brietbart and other sources, content control, taxes and not saying anything bad about Islam (by anybody anywhere in the world), are about to be discussed next month by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), which is ready to meet and try to figure out how it can control the web. Whenever anything imbued with unfettered freedom is so arrogantly assaulted by any such organization, those who are free must and will fight to remain free. That can be done by finding ways to defeat, circumnavigate and eliminate any regulations or taxes any organization tries to impose.
The mere contemplation of such ridiculous perfidy is nauseating. Pray tell, just who has given the U.N. the authority to interfere with the web in any way shape and form and tax such companies as Google, Microsoft, Facebook, etc.?
Writes Breitbart’s Awr Hawkins, “…the new regulations and taxes alone could force ‘websites like Google, Facebook, and Netflix to pay fees to network operators around the world.’ And these fees will eventually be passed on to consumers, as businesses will seek ways to offset the new expenses in order to keep their books balanced.” Actually, this is the U.N. version of wealth redistribution inasmuch as all of the companies named by Hawkins are American. And just what is a network operator? Do they mean access provider, host or train conductor? And how will they enforce this absurd form of “taxation?”
The mere mention of control of the web by any individual, company, agency, organization, government or world body is a filthy and repugnant concept to those of us who hopped on the Net during its infancy. It always has been and must remain hands off to any who would seek to take it over. Such attempts are the stuff of agenda-driven myopic megalomaniacs and utterly anathema even to those who don’t use it. Any form of control would be analogous to driving down a highway and having to stop every mile to pay a toll or be forced off the highway and away from truth should what’s written on a blog badmouths Islam or its precious prophet.
The Wall Street Journal summed it up best when it wrote, “Letting the Internet be rewired by bureaucrats would be like handing a Stradivarius to a gorilla.”
Under the headline, U.N. Agency Reassures: We Just Want to Break the Internet, Not Take it Over, Forbes points out, “The ITU’s clumsy response [to criticism] has exposed just how uncomfortable the agency is in dealing directly with Internet users worldwide—a sure sign of the ITU’s inability to regulate a technology it doesn’t even know how to use. The agency’s flurry of [press] releases read like weird dispatches from Dickensian England, with lots of extra “distinguished guests,” “plenipotentiaries” “directorates,” and references to “civil society” thrown in for good measure.”
Should the member nations to the U.N. decide it appropriate to attempt control, it’ll be a pathetic, misfire effort to regulate what it does not understand. Its knows not about how the millions of networks attached to the web work symbiotically. They’ll figure out quickly that the web is way too big to be controlled.
Seriously, how will such controls, restrictions and taxes be implemented and assessed amongst gatekeepers and Netizens alike who bristle at the slightest mention of controls? And how will they be enforced? Member nations to the anti-U.S. U.N. have difficulty agreeing that grass is green or the sky blue. They can’t enforce the sanctions on Iran—Russia, China and India are still buying oil from Iran and completely ignoring the sanctions to which Russia and China agreed.
That lack of unanimity aside, part of the motivation for this confab, which is backed by the same people who are pushing the Small Arms Treaty, is that restrictive regimes around the world find the web a hindrance to the furtherance of their putrid agendas. Together, the free flow of ideas, the sharing of information and social networks comprise burrs under their saddles that they’d rather have eliminated.
But what the 193 members of the U.N. don’t get is how wily those of us who move around in this vast Cyberspace landscape and how resourceful its users can be in resisting such measures by developing clever and constantly evolving workarounds to any roadblocks these petty bureaucrats try to place in our way. And such renegades as Anonymous, which holds a complete disregard for authority, have virtually unlimited ways to hack into and play havoc with sensitive computer networks of any country that wants to adopt these poisonous measures.
Sure, search engines can restrict the search results for those living under a dictator or communism, but no one can control the ebb and flow of the content on the Internet. And some search engines, such as Google, have pulled up their tent stakes and removed their sites from the controls of those who try to impose such restrictions on the search results their engine finds. In 2010, for instance, Google pulled out of China and set up shop in Hong Kong.
But is censorship within the borders of any given country the true intent here, or is it more likely that at the very core of this treaty is an attempt to stifle free speech (especially anything negative about Islam) on a global level? Or is it to attempt to turn the Internet into a massive propaganda network?
It matters not in the United States. This country’s sovereignty and Constitution trump whatever treaty the U.N. tries to come up with, even if the Senate were to approve it and the president to sign it, which is highly unlikely. And if they can’t get the buy-in of all 193 U.N. member nations what then? The fact is trying to control the web in any segmented way would be impossible.
This proposed measure and its sister treaty, the Small Arms Treaty, are both unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable in the United States regardless of whether or not either or both are ratified. That’s because nothing trumps the Constitution. Simply put, if control or taxation are attempted neither will work.
To the U.N. and I.T.U. the message couldn’t be clearer: Keep your filthy, grubby, socialist mitts off what isn’t yours and never will be yours.
Beware the New World Order (NWO) and Agenda 21, both of which offer an overdose of control that makes 1984 look like a picnic in the park.