Make Net Neutrality a Constitutional Amendment

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Why not?  

[DaysOff 7851]

Because that's stupid

[JohnnyRage 1617]

Wut?

[JohnnyRage 1617]

You want to inscribe porno into a 250yr old piece of hemp?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

19 minutes ago, JohnnyRage said:

You want to inscribe porno into a 250yr old piece of hemp?

Pretty sure the first amendment has that covered. 

[Anastasis 23394]

Who is tweeting about net neutrality this morning? 

[pyrohornIII 4809]

Well my Qtard buddy thinks net neutrality is an evil, so I'm for this movement to protect it. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

I had this idea a few days ago and I can’t think of many legitimate reasons not to do this.  

I wanted to pitch it to the assholes here so they could tear the idea apart.

[EuroHorn 3204]

37 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Who is tweeting about net neutrality this morning? 

Nancy Pelosi 

[Celery Man 20885]

in the Texas constitution, who gives a shit.  i feel like less is more with the big one.  Not that the Constitution is important to republicans.

[Bookman 4610]

I think it's a great idea. We can put it right next to the abortion clause.

[bad_teammate 13132]

If not for this, we need to get back into the business of amending the Constitution to adapt to a changing world.

[hpslugga 4044]

25 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I had this idea a few days ago and I can’t think of many legitimate reasons not to do this.  

I wanted to pitch it to the assholes here so they could tear the idea apart.

It’s actually a pretty solid litmus test to see if ones a troll or if one is merely stating their honest beliefs as being opposed to NN is an utterly indefensible position.

[Celery Man 20885]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

If not for this, we need to get back into the business of amending the Constitution to adapt to a changing world.

electoral college

whole bunch of things that are were norms that need to become law

[Js1 85104]

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

If not for this, we need to get back into the business of amending the Constitution to adapt to a changing world.

Our government is 100+ years behind technology, social changes and population growth because of the Constitution.

So yes.  Agreed.

Edited March 5, 2019 by Js1

[TwiceHorn 31269]

28.  The First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Amendments confer no rights on non-natural persons.

[wildcat09 29237]

12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

28.  The First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Amendments confer no rights on non-natural persons.

This man for president.

[Js1 85104]

13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

28.  The First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Amendments confer no rights on non-natural persons.

Cannot add rep right now, but god damn yes.

[Asithappens 974]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Why not?  

Are you talking Texas constitution? Maybe, then.

But the US? If so, then you really don't understand what the US Constitution does, imo.

[TwiceHorn 31269]

14 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

Are you talking Texas constitution? Maybe, then.

But the US? If so, then you really don't understand what the US Constitution does, imo.

I think this is right.  There are circumstances, namely robust competition between ISPs and online media companies, where net neutrality wouldn't be as desirable or desirable at all.  The Constitution is for matters of structure of the government and mostly immutable principles/rights.  I don't think NN qualifies.

[Chilly Water 409]

We don’t need to fix a problem that doesn’t exist