Im just gonna keep posting this until at least one person responds and tells me why its okay to censor content that is created or distributed on the INTERNET with the intent to annoy. I guess we should just give away our rights Something that never gets talked about in these Net Neutrality astroturf threads (look at the upvote to comment ratios) is that Title II Net Neutrality applies censorship laws to the internet. Notice how the pro-Net Neutrality posters always talk about the possibility that Comcast or Verizon will "censor" certain content. What they fail to mention is that the Law that the FCC reinterpreted and applied to ISPs in 2015 and called "Net Neutrality" actually contains obscenity laws and speech codes that explicitly censor "obscene" or "annoying" content. What the FCC is calling "Net Neutrality" is actually just a massive regulatory move that will give the FCC extremely high control and authority over what kinds of communication are allowed and disallowed on the (until now) open internet. Let's not forget the FCC's horrible track record on our First Amendment rights. The censorship portion of the Law is under Section 223. But don't take my word on it, read the Law itself.

(a) Whoever-- (1) in interstate or foreign communications-- (A) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly-- (i) makes, creates, or solicits, and (ii) initiates the transmission of, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person; ... (C) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communications; ... (2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under his control to be used for any activity prohibited by paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used for such activity, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. Let's get something else straight: it's not just ISPs that have a dog in this fight. Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Conde Nast, all of whom censor content, are pro-Net Neutrality. The idea that Title II will somehow prevent censorship is insane - we already have censorship on the internet and Title II will do absolutely nothing to stop Google/Facebook/Twatter/Conde Nast from censoring whatever they feel like censoring. In fact, the "Net Neutrality" passed down by the FCC does exactly what people say it's supposed to prevent - censorship - and it's important to cut through the bullshit and expose what's really going on here, which is one corporate lobby (websites) astroturfing public opinion to get a different corporate lobby (ISPs) to do them a favor by not throttling their traffic. The FCC was already enforcing a version of Net Neutrality before Title II. Source Document Here, a memo from all the way back in 2005. Remind me why we need Title II with its censorship laws, to protect us from censorship, again?? Give me a fucking break. This is bait and switch - get a censorship Law applied to the internet and call it "Net Neutrality," fearmonger/astroturf until the public willingly accepts it. "OH NO! COMCAST IS COMING FOR MY NETFLIX!!!" They could pass literally anything and call it "Net Neutrality" and reddit would eat it up like the idiots they are, because some anonymous post with +590190818 upvotes told them it was a good idea.