Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
What happened to states rights?

Ok you asked an honest question and as an American I'll give you an honest answer which will probably disappear before you see it.

In america "state's right" is far right code for "Letting racist dominated states ignore civil rights laws" and "letting christian dominated states outlaw abortion and discriminate against non heterosexuals".

"State's rights" only applies to right wing desires that conflict with federal law, like rights for people the religious right doesn't like and wants to abuse legally.

If you want proof of this note how the right rejects state's rights when states legalize marijuana or gay rights. As soon as a state that isn't dominated by the right passes a law the right doesn;t like, the right calls for the federal government to wield the almighty club of federal power to smash it down.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Seems to me that the internet would likely fall under the interstate commerce clause.

Yes and no. The interstate commerce clause gives the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, it does not give the exclusive right. The federal government is saying "net neutrality is no longer in effect", they are not passing a law that prohibits anyone from obstructing efforts to provide different tiers of internet service based on content. States are free to impose stricter regulations than the federal government, like how many states have gas taxes even though the refining/transport/sale/etc of the product almost certainly crosses state lines.

On the other hand, the interstate commerce clause has been expanded to effectively mean "the federal government can do anything it wants" so who knows how it will end up.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
What happened to states rights?

Ok you asked an honest question and as an American I'll give you an honest answer which will probably disappear before you see it.

In america "state's right" is far right code for "Letting racist dominated states ignore civil rights laws" and "letting christian dominated states outlaw abortion and discriminate against non heterosexuals".

"State's rights" only applies to right wing desires that conflict with federal law, like rights for people the religious right doesn't like and wants to abuse legally.

If you want proof of this note how the right rejects state's rights when states legalize marijuana or gay rights. As soon as a state that isn't dominated by the right passes a law the right doesn;t like, the right calls for the federal government to wield the almighty club of federal power to smash it down.

Oh I am aware of that. It was sarcasm.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
What happened to states rights?

Ok you asked an honest question and as an American I'll give you an honest answer which will probably disappear before you see it.

In america "state's right" is far right code for "Letting racist dominated states ignore civil rights laws" and "letting christian dominated states outlaw abortion and discriminate against non heterosexuals".

"State's rights" only applies to right wing desires that conflict with federal law, like rights for people the religious right doesn't like and wants to abuse legally.

If you want proof of this note how the right rejects state's rights when states legalize marijuana or gay rights. As soon as a state that isn't dominated by the right passes a law the right doesn;t like, the right calls for the federal government to wield the almighty club of federal power to smash it down.

The mod deleted my response to this...

I'll just say that you're wrong here as it's used by everyone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Seems to me that the internet would likely fall under the interstate commerce clause.

Yes and no. The interstate commerce clause gives the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, it does not give the exclusive right. The federal government is saying "net neutrality is no longer in effect", they are not passing a law that prohibits anyone from obstructing efforts to provide different tiers of internet service based on content. States are free to impose stricter regulations than the federal government, like how many states have gas taxes even though the refining/transport/sale/etc of the product almost certainly crosses state lines.

This is true... nothing is stopping the states to from passing more restrictive regulations as long as the Feds allows it.

On the other hand, the interstate commerce clause has been expanded to effectively mean "the federal government can do anything it wants" so who knows how it will end up.

Also very true... expansion of the commerce clause began when dairy farmers refuses to sell their products at the stated price set by the feds... whereby, they literally dumped their products in the streets. The act of "not selling" a product fell under the 'commerce clause' even though it doesn't actually cross the state borders.

 Peregrine wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Seems to me that the internet would likely fall under the interstate commerce clause.

Yes and no. The interstate commerce clause gives the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, it does not give the exclusive right. The federal government is saying "net neutrality is no longer in effect", they are not passing a law that prohibits anyone from obstructing efforts to provide different tiers of internet service based on content. States are free to impose stricter regulations than the federal government, like how many states have gas taxes even though the refining/transport/sale/etc of the product almost certainly crosses state lines.

On the other hand, the interstate commerce clause has been expanded to effectively mean "the federal government can do anything it wants" so who knows how it will end up.

True. The most recent analogous situation that came to mind was the controversy over Arizona's SB 1070 legislation since immigration is as big of a nationally known political issue as net neutrality. The DoJ filed suit and ultimately SCOTUS overturned parts of the law based on the Supremacy Clause while letting other parts stand. It will be interesting to see if the CA Net Neutrality law is upheld as is or if it is broken up into pieces.

So, nothing stops states from regulating the net, except when the fedgov stops it, which it will do because big biz doesn't want regulations, it wants money, all your money, every cent of it.

This NSFW video sums it up in america.

Yes I said it's NSFW.

https://youtu.be/JucFpDhuF98

States should have that power yes. Company owned broadbands seem to be easily abused by that company. We need consumer protections.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
What happened to states rights?

That's a funny thing in American politics. Conservatives are all for it, right up to the point when a state wants to do something they disagree with...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
So, nothing stops states from regulating the net, except when the fedgov stops it, which it will do because big biz doesn't want regulations, it wants money, all your money, every cent of it.

This NSFW video sums it up in america.

Yes I said it's NSFW.

https://youtu.be/JucFpDhuF98

Yeah, that sums up the need for Net Neutrality quite nicely.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
So, nothing stops states from regulating the net, except when the fedgov stops it, which it will do because big biz doesn't want regulations, it wants money, all your money, every cent of it.

This is a gross oversimplification and an edgy teen angst take, but that is the reason anything, and I mean anything does or does not get done on a federal level. Forget whatever rhetoric you hear politicians using or how much they say they care about group x or y and ask yourself, who is making money from this?

 whembly wrote:

 Techpriestsupport wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
What happened to states rights?

Ok you asked an honest question and as an American I'll give you an honest answer which will probably disappear before you see it.

In america "state's right" is far right code for "Letting racist dominated states ignore civil rights laws" and "letting christian dominated states outlaw abortion and discriminate against non heterosexuals".

"State's rights" only applies to right wing desires that conflict with federal law, like rights for people the religious right doesn't like and wants to abuse legally.

If you want proof of this note how the right rejects state's rights when states legalize marijuana or gay rights. As soon as a state that isn't dominated by the right passes a law the right doesn;t like, the right calls for the federal government to wield the almighty club of federal power to smash it down.

The mod deleted my response to this...

I'll just say that you're wrong here as it's used by everyone.

It is used by one side so they can be racist. It is used by the other side to mock and shame the racists, because it is really easy to see through their little ruse.

But sure, it is used by everyone. Context is a beautiful thing.

Welp, we went from states rights being a way to preserve net neutrality, to states rights being a way to preserve racism, to violation of states rights being a means for the federal government to enforce protective mercantilism, to states rights being used in some unspecified way that mocks and shames racists. Great talk, guys. Really coherent stuff going on here.

This thread is being locked pending Moderator discussion as it seems that politics cannot be kept out of it.

Thanks,
ingtaer.

As a reminder, politics is banned in the OT subforum. There’s still room to discuss policy, however, especially in the technical sense. But thus thread will be locked for good, as it’s irredeemably off track.